1) The sites have been designated agricultural land for over 32 years and are part of the Tivetshall green belts; by that long standing designation they are not suitable for housing.

2) The land forming much of GNLP 2041 was sold in the last 5 years bearing an agricultural designation. This plan would mean the new owner of that land would be in line for a very substantial financial reward and may have meant that that sale would have contested quite differently; obviously that is highly unfair and might be subject to a legal challenge.

3) With a complete lack of amenities since the closure of the village shop over 20 years ago (there is now only a post office which i understand is scheduled for closure upon the retirement of the postmistress), there is clearly insufficient - one could say non-existent- infrastructure in the village to support the development of housing on either/any of these sites.

4) The road infrastructure through the village is already quite hazardous and this would be severely augmented by the development of housing on either of these sites, not to mention the danger posed by increased traffic in a village with no pavements with already 5 seriously hazardous turns.

5) The already poor turning off the A140 into Rectory Road would become even more dangerous and would pose a much greater risk of accident if either of these sites was further developed for housing due to the obviously increased traffic demand.

For these reasons alone, development of either GNLP 2041 or GNLP 2042 should be not be considered further. This further applies to the smaller scale proposed developments at GNLP 0317, 0318, 0319 and 2103 though the scale would be less given that these are much smaller in scope.