I strongly object to this proposal due to its busy access, over-stretched services and constraints including TPO trees, townscape, landscape and ecological impacts. Of particular concern is that there are a number of factual inaccuracies in the application which make it misleading.

* 4a Land uses. Should include that is has been used traditionally as pastureland for grazing.
* 5d states "this site is, currently, unable to offer the Local Area anything", should be followed by [apart from being the highest vantage point for miles around, providing peace, wildlife and contributing greatly to the special character of this beautiful, popular village]
* 7a Access to the site. The access road is busy with few, if any, vehicles adhering to the 20 mph speed limit, which would create a dangerous junction for access/egress.
* 7b Typography. The application states that the "access point has been passed by vehicles for decades". This is untrue. The access route is actually up a significant incline and it has never been used before for vehicles, currently blocked by TPO mature woodland.
* 7c Contamination. There is asbestos on site.
* 7f environmental concerns, stated as "None". This is factually incorrect. Living next to this area I can vouch first hand on a wealth of wildlife in the area. Sitings of bats, barn owls, birds of prey (buzzards, falcons) small birds, squirrels, foxes and deer.
* 7f environmental concerns, the area contains a vast number of mature trees in the vicinity, protected by Tree Protection Orders (TPO's) and is a Conservation area. Development of this land would be to the detriment of the area as a whole and would lose its unique rural, country, quiet feel of this unspoilt, characterful, village which is enjoyed by so many people locally as well as visitors and tourists.
* 7g Listed Buildings. There are a number of Listed buildings which are not mentioned in the application. Such as (Grade 2 or higher) Church Street numbers 7, 9, 11, 15 and 17. The proposed development would inevitably devalue these properties and ruin the unique feel of the village. The proposed access route would require demolition of a wall which is the curtilage of the Grade 2* Listed Old House. We are also aware via advice from local historians that the raised site at the top of the hill is of ancient 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. In fact, the owner of the land, Roger Bradbury (an antiques dealer), has stated that antique coins and artifacts have been and are likely to be found this specific site. Again, it is a concern that this has been missed off the application.
* 7i Existing Buildings. The existing sheds are made from asbestos and currently provide housing for owls and bats.
* 8a Utilities. All services would require significant upgrade for any development, in particular re-pressurising the water supply, drainage of grey/brown water, storm drains, electricity, gas, broadband.
* 10 Market interest. There has been market interest in retaining the land as pastureland for sheep or as paddocks for horses.