GNLP2021

The Council is opposed as this would be a settlement disconnected from the existing community

I wish to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed designation for development of 2 large fields of arable farmland in Tivetshall St Mary.
I object to GNLP 2021 (East of village centre) which adjoins of the Western Boundary of my property.
I object to GNLP 2024 (South Of Rectory Rd) which adjoins the entire 140m Southern boundary of my property.
I have (relatively) no major objection to the smaller proposals 0317, 0318, 0319, 2103 other than the increase road traffic along Rectory Rd - any objection appears minor compared to my absolute opposition to development of the 2 large fields of farmland. Isuggest that these smaller plots, by themselves, present a more than adequate contribution by Tivetshall St Mary to regional housing needs.

I would first wish to point out that the promoter of GNLP 2041 gave incorrect answers to 2 questions.

Question 7a - there is indeed a cross field footpath (right of way) running from N to S which bisects the site. This is an important rural amenity for villagers and visiting remblers, especially in a village without paved sidewalks. A path through a housing estate would be of little recreational value.

Question 7f - land is indeed adjacent to mature woodland, a 2 hectare area (of which I am the owner and have maintained as rare wildlife refuge within the sterile farming environment) clearly visible on maps and Google aerial view. The inevitable disturbance from noise, light pollution, trespass from people ,dogs and cats, would have a negative impact on the many species that currently enjoy an almost undisturbed environment. Owls, bats muntjack deer, other deer species, wood peckers and many others.

General objections
The proposed developments are of far too large a scale and would fundamentally change the character of the village. A point clearly made in the GNLP which states 'GNLP2041 and 2042 could be considered out of scale with the existing village, and are perhaps less suitable'. Additional citing ecological and townscape impacts.

Surely this is the wrong place for additional housing- it is far too far from jobs, shopping and entertainment in Norwich Or Ipswich or the much smaller town of Diss.

Placing housing here would cause more traffic to the cities - extra pollution and global warming. The dangerous junction from Rectory Road to the A140 has very poor visability to the left. Turning right off the A140 is perilous. An increased number of lives would be at risk, not just of villagers but also of passing A140 traffic.

The HELAA suitability assessment, incorrectly states that 'no loss of high quality farmland would occur' - these fields are clearly prime arable land. Surely it has been consistent planning policy for decades that development should not taker place on prime agricultural land. We live on an increasingly crowded island that is unable to grow enough food to feed itself. The need for security in food production must be even greater after Brexit.

People make the major decision of where to live based on a reasonable expectation that planning policies will continue without major change. House purchasers have 'searches' conducted, because concerns over transformative developments and impairments are a crucial issue. That concept should extend to the longer term as well as the short.

We supposedly live in a age of greater consideration for the different lifestyles choices of citizens- some of us chose to live in a quiet rural environemnts and it is an abuse to inflict large scale housing development upon us. Living in a remote rural location has disadvantages as well as advantages. Some of us are willing to put up with the disadvantages - but if you take away the advantages, there is no longer any value of being here.

The HUMAN RIGHTS ACT states that we have a right to the "peaceful enjoyment of our property". Citizens must have a right to reasonable consistency and predictability in planning policy. Some dozens of village properties which currently back onto farmland would instead be surrounded by a modern housing estate. In all past local plans, these fields have been considered to be outside the settlement boundary.

Residents of Tivetshall St.Mary reject what seems like a new concept, that as a rural village 15 miles from Norwich, we are part of 'Greater Norwich' and therefore responsible for providing for the city's housing needs. True democracy is local democracy and we have a right to self determination and not to be exploited by a dominant distant city.

PERSONAL OB.JECT!ONS
I have been resident in the village for 26 years, having searched long for a property fulfilling my strong personal requirement for isolation surrounded by farmland. I just want to live out my later years in peace.
I have the good fortune to occupy a 6 Hectare block of grassland and mature woodland which has always been peacefully surrounded by farmland. GNLP 2041 adjoins my property to the West and GNLP 2042 to the South, threating the transformation of my property from one of rural peace to one surrounded by housing estates.
These proposed developments would massively diminish the amenity of the property for me and significantly dimished the resale value should I wish to sell and abandon a transformed village.

Criticism
I feel l need to criticise the process employed to bring forward these sites for consideration. Where was this
"Call for sites" published'! it appears mostly to have elicited responses from professional estate agents representing major landowners. It may not have reached smaller landowners who could have more suitable sites available. I for one was completely unaware of the "call" either this current one or one apparently in 2017.

The intent appears to be, to have the maximum of proposals for consideration, without prior filtering as regards to suitability. Hopefully, there is little chance that these large arable fields will be accepted for development, but having them put forward publicly, for considerations which may take years, will have inflicted upon us years of anguish and blight of our properties. Thanks very much!

Alternatives
I would probably not have put forward any of my land, because I prefer a quiet life and have no wish to become a property developer. But as the owner of grassland fronting Rectory Road, North of the proposed arable field, it would seem that this land was actually more suitable for development and might be less objectionable to other village residents. Previous development has been on the North of the road and offers those properties south facing open views over farmland.
I would consider offering this grassland if it would prevent development of the farmland. Other owners of suitable smaller plots might do the same. Better consultation is required.

This is outside of the settlement boundary and is some distance from the main part of the village and amenities. This is building on open countryside that would have a detrimental impact on the rural character of this part of the village. I have additional concerns re access onto Spixworth Road.