1.
Whilst this site is identified in St. Faiths, at what point did the village settlement boundary move from the centre of Manor Road to the main A140 without any consultation with the residents?

Surely this is a a drawing transfer mistake and this parcel should be identified as Horsford.

2.
The above referenced site would add a further huge burden to the village which is totally under provided with our last shop now closed and has become a private dwelling leaving only a garage providing nothing other than mechanical services, not only that Newton St. Faith is listed in the J.C.S. Policy 15 as a service village and states "in each service village land will be allocated for SMALL SCALE housing development subject to form and character considerations. Small scale employment or service development appropriate to the scale and needs of the village and its immediate surroundings will be encouraged. Existing local shop and services will be protected" - but by whom?

Point 1. 150/200% increase on existing traditionally built properties in Newton St. Faith could not be described as small scale.

3.
The J.C.S. Chapter 6.3 quite clearly states "The scale of development generally DECREASES at each level of this hierarchy " remembering Newton St. Faith has been classed in the J.C.S. as a 'service village' which in itself should be considered as a miss representation with no real services, it should be classed as 'other villages'.

4.
The Broadland District Local Plan Chapter 47 Clause 42.2 quite clearly describes Newton St. Faith as "a linear village on two roads - Newton Street and Manor Road " hardly the description of a vibrant services village.

Point 1 - More akin to "development appropriate to the scale and needs of the village and its immediate surroundings " J.C.S. Policy 15.

5.
Not withstanding the above, a large proportion of land behind Crown Garage had been regularly offered for development for at least 40 years, a large proportion of that time lobbied by Whimpy, the National house builder, it had always been refused, no doubt listing your reasons as non-sustainable, lack of services or generally unsuitable, which begs the question what has changed, certainly not the infrastructure or access, so surely the same concerns, rejections should apply to this new area.

6.
This parcel of land ref: GNLP2141 would, with already approved land commitments, leave a large proportion of Newton totally encapsulated by modern suburban sprawl and destroying the character currently viewed by others and not forgetting the strain on the local school and doctors.