I think this application is absolutely shocking. On reading the report, it states 'none' under section 7f environmental concerns. This is a complete falsehood and a withholding of important information. I live in one of the properties on Church Street - number 11, which backs directly on to the proposed site. We are in a conservation area, and have many mature trees which are all protected by TPOs. The wildlife use this area of the broads village as a sanctuary, and we have bats, owls, birds of prey including buzzards and falcons, and many smaller birds as well as squirrels, foxes and deer. Developing on this site would eliminate an important wildlife habitat completely and goes against the point of having a conservation area or TPOs in the first place. I am beyond shocked that this information is missing from the application. We strongly object. As well as environmental concerns, we feel a development of this scale in the centre of the village would seriously damage the character of the pretty broads village, adding to the already busy road with the additional traffic, as well as the associated noise. Installation of services would also be a concern starting from scratch into old drains and the river with associated environmental impact. The report mentions the Grade 2* listing of our neighbours (not Grade 2 as stated in the report) - our property is also grade 2 listed and the access route is in the curtilage of the listed wall around the site. We are also aware via advice from local historians that the raised site at the top of the hill is of historical importance - as the most raised point in the village, it has always been used by residents as an important lookout over the village and towards Norwich, and in ancient times as a sacred place. The previous owner has found coins of historical interest on the site before. Surely it is better to regenerate the many derelict farm sites and other brown field locations than to develop on untouched green field land? Finally, section 7b typography - the access route is up a significant incline and it has never been used before for vehicles. In fact it is currently TPO mature woodland. 7c, there is asbestos on site. Clearly more factual inaccuracies in the application. Again, I am shocked and strongly object.