Could I raise objections/comments to the following:

GNLP2128
This was given permission for a waste transfer station and would be suitable for an
ongoing industrial use as it has been in the past. It is questionably not suitable for
housing nor retail due to the closeness of the roundabout and for housing would be in an isolated area.
Comment: To be used for semi-industrial use as has been allowed in the past.

GNLP2103
This site could take a small amount of housing as it is near the centre of the village
school, village green and village hall and playing field and it's facilities.
Comment: No objection if sensitive housing development.

GNLP0317
This would extend "ribbon development" and would create even more linear
development in the Tivetshalls. Object to this site.

GNLP0319/GNLP0318
A sensitive small housing development would enhance this area with possibly a tree
belt to give a buffer space to existing bungalows. The site is relatively close to the
village school, village green and village hall and playing field facilities.
Comment: No objection if sensitive housing development.

GNLP2041
Such development of this site would change the village forever. It would be not only
intrusive to existing properties but completely out of character with the existing
village landscape. There are no facilities to cope with such a large development, the
agricultural land is part of the Claylands Living Landscape of the South Norfolk
District. It is prime agricultural land and has within it a pond and wildlife habitat.
Drainage/sewers would not cope with such a development and to make it viable a
developer would have to have a large number of dwellings to pay for large
infrastructure costs. Roads would not cope and just because near the A140 this would increase commute traffic which on a highway is very much overloaded at present. This should remain as prime farmland for growing crops and this site should be rejected.

Objections:
* Part of the Claylands of South Norfolk
* Development would change the characteristics of the Tivetshalls forever.
* Should remain as prime food growing land.
* Facilites cannot cope with such large development. Such as sewer/roads etc.

GNLP2042
Again such development of this site would change the village character forever. It
would be not only intrusive to existing properties but completely out of character with the area. Fadens map (see below) shows clearly that this area was covered by a common from Bonds Road to the A140 and Rectory Road to Ram Lane and on the on all sides there are historical cottages adding character to what is a sensitive rural
landscape. Again there are no facilities to warrant such a large development.
Drainage, sewers would not cope and there would have to be a large development to
allow for this. It should remain as prime agricultural land for growing crops. As above it is part of the Claylands Living Landscape of South Norfolk and should be retained as such. Development would change rural aspect forever and this site should be rejected.

Just because Tivetshall St. Mary is near to the A140 does not mean it has to have
large developments such as GNLP2041/42 which will increase a lot of traffic onto
what is an overloaded road network. This should remain as prime farmland for
growing crops and this site should be rejected.

Objections:
* Historically a Common with cottages surrounding the area.
* Part of the Claylands of South Norfolk
* Development would change the characteristics of the Tivetshalls forever.
* Should remain as prime food growing land.
* Facilites cannot cope with such large development. Such as sewer/roads etc.