GNLP2103

The proposal for between 10 and 15 homes with access/egress in School Road, will increase traffic considerably.
To gain access to the A140 traffic would traverse School Road/The Street/Rectory Road.
Alternatively, turning left from the site and to reach the B1134 and Pulham Roundabout, Star Lane is extremely narrow with a Ford which often floods during heavy rain.
Those living in the proposed homes without transport would have to walk over one mile to the A140 to catch buses to Norwich or Diss. These buses are sporadic to say the least.

I object to this development for the following reasons:
1. Inadequate roads.This area is only serviced by Narrow Farm Roads.
2. Inadequate sewerage.The system is already overloaded and frequently has blockages.
3. Inadequate water pressure.The water pressure is inadequate for those already living here and will not support any more demand.
4. There is no public transport.
5. There are no life support facilities such as shops or other services.
6.

1. Site access point immediately opposite our house causing potential access issues.
2. Road would need to be widened outside our house as currently single track - would that mean the verge disappearing or would it be taken from the field.
3. Flooding has been an issue, we fought for 2 years to get that sorted and during that time every time it rained the road, the verge and our driveway were flooded preventing access to our property. Although drainage was replaced we were informed by the Highways that unless the road/ditches etc were maintained so the drains did not get clogged up then we would likely end up with flooding again. No maintenance has taken place since the new drainage.
4. In relation to point 3 more houses means more concrete areas and more drainage - we are concerned of the impact of this on our property and possibility of causing access issues to property due to flooding. This will also have an impact on the value of our property should we ever come to sell it.
5. Road outside our property is not maintained, the sweepers and gritters only do as far as the end of the crescent and stop before our house where it is single track.
6. Broadband currently waivers between not working at all and if we are lucky about 4 megabits per second. More houses would add additional strain on the current sub-standard broadband.
7. No current facilities in the village in terms of shop etc, minimal buses which only go from the A140 not within the village. Is there any guarantee of shop being provided on the waste station site if this housing site goes ahead - housing developments often go ahead with promises that are never fulfilled.
8. The proposed housing would have an effect on the amount of traffic in School Road. Currently cars tend to park on the corner of School Road and with the addition of the new pavement on the corner of the Street visibility to pull in and out of School Road is far from good. Additional volume of traffic will only make this worse with potential for accidents both for vehicles and pedestrians.
9. Access via Star Lane not good as no passing places and when ford flooded no access.
10. Traditionally new houses have insufficient car parking. Due to lack of public transport it should be expected that a one bed house would need 2 cars (assuming a couple live there), a 2 bed house would need 3 spaces and a 3 bed house would need 4 spaces etc. If insufficient car parking is provided people will park in the road causing more access issues to all residents of School Road.
11. Our house deeds currently stipulate that we cannot put a fence and gate up at the front of our property, that we have to maintain an open feel. Should the site go ahead we would require that covenant to be revoked so that we can put a close boarded fence up with gate to maintain our privacy and prevent people using our driveway as a turnaround point.

Re: Plots GNLP2103, GNLP2041, GNLP2042 including GNLP0317, 0318, 0319

Listed below are points and where relevant any comments in relation to the above sites for consultation development within the villages of Tivetshall.
The Tivetshall villages are rural villages and have been for a long period of time, the infrastructure is not in place and therefore we personally feel that all the below comments contribute towards reasons for NOT putting these plans forward for any further action.
* A140
Junction into the village has poor accessibility in and out
Turning Right out of the village during the busy periods such as rush hour, it is quicker to go left, round the roundabout and back towards Diss as the A140 is ever increasing in volume of traffic. The speed of the traffic makes it difficult to turn right out of the junction.
Turning left into the village from the Direction of Diss to Norwich, the junction is very tight and on several occasions the following vehicle/s either brake very hard, or swerve out to overtake the turning vehicle heading into the path of oncoming traffic, accidents have occurred and with the proposal of extra housing this is a potential serious accident waiting to happen.
* Commuting Location
Commuting to Norwich from the Tivetshalls is very timely with the single carriageway of the A140, heavy traffic and frequent accidents this could deter potential buyers.
Commuting to Wymondham / Attleborough etc - it would be expected that village traffic travels along A140, across A47 and then A11 but from experience / knowledge people drive through village and join onto the B1134 - the village road is single track in many places therefore any additional traffic would cause significant disruption / road safety concerns.
* Road Through Village
The road through the village is single track in many places, the corners are blind, there are no paths, no street lights. There are no notable passing places for 2 way traffic. On occasions residents park on the street which causes congestion at peak times with 2 way traffic. Residents currently walk, exercise dogs, cycle through village and the current traffic flow is dangerous, so the potential of extra properties would result in congestion and possible accidents, on several occasions whilst walking through village we have had to jump onto people's lawns to avoid being contacted when 2 vehicles are passing in different directions. (We do wear High Vis when dusk / dark but this is sometimes ignored, but many residents do not and dark clothed people are simply just not visible) The road is just wide enough for farm / agricultural machinery but in places they encroach onto peoples land as road to narrow, therefore the additional construction vehicles that would be required for any developments would cause a huge disruption / impact on the village road/s.
* Public Transport
Public Transport is very limited and very far between and mainly has to be caught from the A140 at the top of the village which requires walking through the village - refer to the previous heading Road Through Village.
* Sale of New Properties
Currently there are 5 properties up for sale in the Tivesthalls that I know of (possibly more, these have been empty / for sale for several months so is Tivestshall a desired location for potential future purchasers?
* Water Pressure / Sewage
The current water pressure is diabolical, when showering if someone else in the property flushes the toilet, switches on the washing machine ... the pressure drops so you get scolded by the increase of hot water or it trickles out the shower head.
The Sewage system is very dated and at times does not cope with the current amount of properties in the village - no need to explain the implications / issues!
The drainage of any excess of water is very poor in wet weather - from experience when we have heavy rain we have had to lift man hole cover in our drive way to assist with lowering the height of the water level to prevent flooding.
Any potential future properties considered the whole infrastructure of water, drainage / sewage would need serious investment - not just for new properties but for existing ones also.
* Electricity / Gas
The Electricity supply is dated in the Tivetshalls and is prone to power cuts in bad weather conditions.
There currently is no gas in the village.
* Ditches
The Ditches through the village need constant maintenance to keep them clear as they are all prone to filling / flooding when wet weather conditions persist.
My garden has on several occasions has partially flooded due to over flowing ditches and high water levels - poor drainage of the surrounding ground / area.
Additional housing would only cause more drainage issues
* Broadband
The Internet speeds are very poor in the Tivetshalls, currently there is plans for a Community funded Broadband but I believe this is still seeking investment.

* Doctors / Dentists / Hospitals
All local Doctors surgeries are already fit to bursting with minimum 3 week waits for routine
appointments. There are no local Dentists Accepting NHS patients. The nearest Hospital is the Norfolk & Norwich which is approx. 25 miles away
* Schools
All the local popular primary schools are full, the village primary school is relatively small and possibly could cope with some new admissions but again the road infrastructure prevents it being safe to walk children to school and parking near the school is relatively tight.
The local High Schools - Long Stratton (4 miles), Harleston (7 miles), Diss (8 miles) are all a distance away which requires children to catch buses from the village to and from school Currently children catch the buses from outside Roger Martins Garage which is absolute carnage in the mornings at 7:45am with parents driving up to drop the children off, children crossing the road to the buses, there would be no chance a child could walk from the bottom of the village to the bus stop at the top of the village without the risk of being injured - Again refer to Road Through Village
* Shops / Supermarkets / Amenities
There are no shops in the village, the nearest small convenience shops are located in Pulham Market (2.5 miles), Dickleburgh (3 miles) or Long Stratton ( 4 miles) The nearest Supermarkets are either in Diss (8 miles) of Norwich (16 miles) There are no facilities within the Tivetshalls other than a village Post Office that has basic General Post Office Facilities and sells a few cards. There is one public house situated on the Main A140 and the Village Hall which holds small village events.
* Wildlife / Public Footpaths
There is significant wildlife in the Tivetshalls, any significant developments would be detrimental to them. We frequently walk the public footpaths which from the plans are bordering, if not on some of the proposed sites which would affect natural habitats. We have witnessed, owls, bats, squirrels, rabbits, deer, birds of prey, birds, butterflies, frogs, toads, newts, ducks, pheasants, rabbits, hares and many other species.
* Location
The reason for purchasing our house was based on the Location, being rural with views of the countryside, no light pollution, no noise pollution, the distance away from the hustle and bustle of town / city life. A small (less than 20) residential properties possibly would fit in with the ethos of the village but anything large scale would not be in keeping.
* Conclusion
All in all we personally feel that the infrastructure and location in the Tivetshalls would not sustain any large building / housing developments and as such should be ruled out of any consultations where major / large scale development would be considered and trust all the above comments will be taken into consideration.

I refer to the four new sites which are being proposed for possible development within the villages of Tivetshall St. Margaret and Tivetshall St. Mary.

First of all, I am sure you are aware that the Tivetshalls have no GP practice (our nearest ones being Pulham Market or Long Stratton) and with the amount of building being carried out in and around Long Stratton, it will no doubt put extreme pressure on both practises if there is a considerable build in the Tivetshalls. As it is I am having to wait two weeks to get an appointment (non-urgent) at the Pulham Market practise and the dispensary there is already struggling to keep up with the levels of prescriptions it has to deal with.

Referring to the plans, particularly GNLP2128, now that the recycling centre has closed, it would make good sense to use that site for housing, given its location on the A140 which has a direct route into Norwich with a P & R centre on the roundabout at Harford. Once Long Stratton is bypassed and the roundabout is in situ at the Hempnall Crossroads, housing on The Pulham roundabout site would provide a very efficient commute. Given that a petrol station is proposed on the A143/A140 roundabout at Scole, there is absolutely no reason to site another petrol station on the Pulham roundabout, nor is there need for a shop which will take trade away from both Pulham and Cherry Lane Garden Centre. A shop at the Pulham roundabout is still too far for Tivetshall villagers without a car so helps no-one as there will be an M & S shop on the A143/A140 roundabout at Scole, (useful for motorists travelling towards Norwich) leaving the Pulham shop and Cherry Lane with a reasonable chance of survival.

I am totally opposed to a petrol station and shop at the Pulham roundabout. However, a small housing development would seem to be a far better plan.

I am also totally opposed to plans GNLP2041 and GNLP 2042 as the country lanes in The Tivetshalls are too narrow and windy to cope with the increased traffic brought about, in the first instance, by construction plant and secondly, by the new home owners. The majority of homes now run two+ vehicles and the increased traffic will only add to the wear and tear on the lanes which are already in need of attention. We have very few passing places in the lanes surrounding the villages and with drainage ditches running alongside the grass verges, and nowhere to pull in, it is very hazardous when meeting a vehicle head on. A substantial increase in traffic would almost guarantee accidents, especially in the wet weather or winter time with ungritted, unsalted surfaces to contend with. Perhaps the Council could guarantee these very minor roads would see a gritter on a regular basis if the housing were to go ahead. These two sites need to be thought through very carefully but in my view, both are untenable.

The majority of homes in The Tivetshalls are bungalows. Should any building work within the actual villages (excluding the A140 roundabout) be undertaken, one assumes houses would not be built directly behind bungalows so that current residents are overlooked. If either site 2041 or 2042 goes ahead, bungalows are likely to be looked upon more favourably than houses. One would hope the Committees would appreciate that homeowners in any area do not wish to have their bungalows downgraded when it comes to selling because they are directly overlooked from someone's upstairs window. How would they feel!

I am not averse to building in our village but I am concerned that due consideration may not be given to all aspects and the impact that considerable housing will have on the environment, wildlife, roads, doctors' surgeries, schools and village life in general. This village has no shop, no pub within walking distance (the Old Ram is 1.5++ miles from Tivetshall St. Margaret depending on whether you live near the railway crossing or directly in the village) but we do have a good community spirit and we help each other. With dozens of new dwellings, especially with people who do not 'get' village life, the dynamics will change considerably and that would be disastrous.

* In general the proposal for new sites that might be developed for housing in the Tivetshalls is well in excess of the housing that exists in this village grouping and will thus subsume the original village structure and destroy much of the historical identity. To date South Norfolk Planning has taken great care to ensure that the layout of development around the original village greens has been maintained. The proposed developments would destroy this.
* The villages have an extremely small sewage disposal facility, which has failed on a regular basis since installation, and can barely cope with the addition of the existing small housing developments which have been allowed to occur, let alone housing development on the proposed scale.
* Similarly the electrical power system, being a 240 Volt circuit, is already one that regularly fails.
* Telephone network in many parts of the villages continues to be wholly inadequate to support broadband, to the extent that the villagers are now undertaking their own scheme, which is not designed for this size of development.
* Water pressure in these villages and the surrounding area is extremely poor and does not have the capacity, nor the leak integrity, to be upgraded for such a number of houses.
* Land surface drainage is poor throughout the villages, with many historical ditches being piped and backfilled to allow for increased field continuity, and these pipes and road crossings are regularly blocked due to vegetation, etc. For instance approximately one half of site GNLP 2041 was originally 5 fields, which included many ditches and a field pond all of which contribute to increased difficulty in land drainage through the very few remaining open ditches. Development on the scale proposed could put at risk the existing houses of the village, both modern and ancient.
* The road infrastructure is already inadequate for the traffic generated within the villages, when shared between delivery vehicles, farm equipment and private cars. Road widths have slowly increased, not by design but by erosion of the verges, due to the use of heavy vehicles. This has then been filled and tarmaced in a manner that causes large amounts of ponding throughout the villages.
* Over the last 15 years a number of small housing developments have been proposed, such as on Bonds Road, and refused by planning authorities, due to the inadequate road infrastructure.
* The main access points from GNLP 2041 and 2042, onto The Street and Rectory Road, being the main route through the village, and School Road / Star Lane, are wholly inadequate to cope with a high volume of traffic, both due to blind corners and the narrowness of these roads. Star Lane in particular would need to be completely redeveloped.
* Access from Tivetshall St Mary to the A140 is already extremely difficult, due to the increasingly high volume of traffic on this main trunk road. A 5 minute delay to gain access is quite common. The A140, as it has never been dualled, could not cope with further traffic on the scale proposed for our villages, let alone all the other developments in other South Norfolk villages.
* GNLP 2041 access onto School Road/ Star Lane would then decant its traffic onto the B1134. This road has several difficult corners and an area which frequently floods, next to GNLP2128, before meeting the Pulham roundabout and any additional traffic on this road would again create significant congestion on the A 140.
* Public transport servicing is extremely poor, to almost non-existant, with the villages access points to bus routes being without exception on narrow roads with no public pavements. Especially on wet dark winter days school children and adults, both young and elderly, seeking to use public transport are significantly at risk from these unlit heavily ponded narrow roads, as they cannot walk on the verges.
* All these aspects of infrastructure, but especially that of increased vehicle traffic will be extremely detrimental to the environment of a rural ribbon village development, such as the Tivetshalls. Not only will this create noise pollution in what is a very quiet area, but it will also create significant risks on the narrow road infrastructure and lead to a very significant increase in air pollution in this area.
* In using prime farm land within these 2 small villages, to build significant further housing, in an area which has extremely poor transport infrastructure would appear completely contrary to our nations's policy, that needs to improve its self-sufficiency in delivery of farmed products. Further, the lack of public transport facilities, requires at least one vehicle per new house, if not two, for people to be able to access schools, workplace, shopping etc. This in itself is totally contrary to central government policy to reduce our dependence on private transport. Even if electric cars eventually become the norm, the electricity requires generation and transmission and as said earlier, these villages system would not be competent for such a high draw down.
* We note that there are comments about developers taking some responsibility for infrastructure improvement. We also note that comments have been made by our local representatives suggesting a staggered development. In neither case does this guarantee the assurances of infrastructure are actually provided and developers are notorious for eventually omitting these from their plans. Staggered development would allow them to avoid any infrastructure improvements at all, the worst of all worlds.
* However, sites 2103, 0317, 0318 and 0319, might be appropriate for low density developments and affordable housing as they are peripheral to the core of the villages, have some immediate services available to them, however inadequate, and would thus not cause excessive disruption to the villages as a whole. That said, lessons should be learnt from the development of 4 affordable houses on the Street a few years ago, where significant disruption to traffic flow through the village was created over a fairly prolonged period, with apparently no control over the developer's activities.

Access is on a narrow road and directly opposite established dwellings. The frequency of traffic turning in and out would be an unwelcome disturbance for residents in this quiet street.
The narrow roads in and out of village are unsuitable for more traffic. School Road junction particularly hazardous.
Flooding issues in School Road.
Wildlife including newts have been seen in the area. They would be disturbed.
Estate-type development is out of character with the village.
No public transport through village. Walking the length of village to bus stop on A140 hazardous.
Low water-pressure already.
Broadband speed currently pitiful.

This compact site would add to the vibrancy of this area expanding the grouping around and adjacent to the "Village Green" concept started some years ago.

Between 10 and 15 properties are envisaged, including affordable units which I would hope to be of sufficient allocation to help the young of the village. I would query whether a plot of this size could generate this number of units without over-crowding, but leave that planners to decide.

I also note the time-scale for development quoted as 10 - 15 years and wonder why this period would be necessary.

This site is closest to the centre of the village and is in close proximity to the primary school, the village hall, playing field and village green. This site might be appropriate for sensitive low density development, to include affordable housing.
The roads however, are narrow and access to main routes would likely to be through the village via The Street, Rectory Road, and Green Lane. The propose entrance to the site is off School Road, which joins Star Lane. Star Lane is not appropriate for access to the B1134 due to it's narrowness and flooding at the ford. The nearest bus route would be along the A140 and this only offers an infrequent service and there is no convenience store within walking distance.
This site is currently farmed for hay and the landscape supports a wide variety of wildlife, with a number of ponds also in the vicinity. An environmental impact assessment would need to be carried out for this site. Great Crested Newts are known to be found in this area and travel between local ponds.
Utilities are not currently able to cope with demand, there is low water pressure and sewerage treatment works cannot cope with current demand. Utilities would need considerable development if additional housing were to be approved.

I would prefer not to have this further added housing in the village as it just increases traffic and on roads not designed to take it and not adaptable to accommodate safe pavements.

However, a small number of houses here would be much preferable to the ridiculous proposal of housing on 2 large fields of arable farmland (2041 and 2042)

The whole country's population increases by less than 1% a year - a small rural village should have to grow at no faster rate - 1 or 2 houses a year.

As a parish resident for many years, i believe any development within the village
should be considered very carefully and carried out for all the right reasons...
requirement for local people, affordable homes built in keeping with the village.
For this reason, i think this site is a more suitable site for small scale development especially due to its proximity to the school.

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 itÕs facilities.
Comment: No objection if sensitive housing development.
GNLP0317
This would extend Òribbon developmentÓ 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.

Having reviewed the available literature I have a number of concerns & objections to the proposals put forward for consideration relating to the Tivetshalls, which are listed, in no particular order, below:

* A number of parents/children walk along The Street to the school; these proposals increase the danger to them from traffic, likely to result in accidents, since there is little in the way of pavements
* Horses are ridden along The Street, facing similar issues
* The school will need investment to cope with the sudden increase in pupils (more teachers and other facilities)
* Likely increase in the number of cars travelling to/from & parking at the school
* Impact to high schools in the wider area (presumably they will also have their own expansion plans to deal with?)
* Speeding through village is already an issue at times
* The road infrastructure in/out of the village is not sufficient for the increase in traffic
* What economic benefit will be added to the village from these proposals?
* Affordable housing
o There is no local shop
o Nor local amenities
o Bus services from either A140 or the Maltings are intermittent (e.g. 3 buses to Norwich 7-8 am, then nothing until after 10, then 2.40 pm, then 5.10)
o All residents will therefore require cars, increasing emissions locally, with the potential to affect the health of everyone - and so not really affordable
* Environment
o In addition to the above emissions
o The local soil contains clay, requiring deeper foundations and so more concrete; these proposals will therefore mean thousands of additional tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, remote of these locations
* Will there be a requirement for the sustainability of other building materials to mitigate?
o Where will rainwater run-off go which would have been soaked up by soil?
* What assessments will be made of the increased flood risk?
o Local drainage generally is not adequate to cater for hundreds of additional properties
o What green spaces will be incorporated into plans?
o How will disruption from construction traffic be managed?
o Wildlife
* The previous owner of my property had planning permission denied several times - one reason being that newts were moving to and from the fields covered by GNLP0317/318/319
* Bats use the same fields for feeding
* As do a variety of birds of prey
* At least six hedgehogs use the same fields for passage and/or nesting
o South Norfolk Council's own Environmental team has concerns over contamination in the soil of same fields
o Additional street lighting will be needed for the proposed estates; what assessments and guarantees will be given against light pollution?
* Mains water pressure is already low and certainly not able to cope with the additional load
* The mains sewerage system is likewise inadequate
* BT infrastructure is already near capacity and will need investment
* Where do landowners live and what is the motivation for putting forward their land (esp. large sites which are outwith the extent of village - GNLP2041/2042/2103)?
* Impacts to South Norfolk Council (e.g. bin collections, etc.)
* What amenities/facilities will be provided for increased population (e.g. expanded playing field)?
* Turning at A140 into/out of The Street brings significant risk of accidents
* Access at very busy roundabout for residents (GNLP2128)
* Increased pressure on local services (such as GPs) which are not scaled to cope with the increase
* Impact to local house prices - we chose to live here specifically because of the rural nature of the village and local walks/views

Tivetshall has no local shopping facilities and minimal provision of footpaths, except a small area near the primary school. There are no public transport facilities in the proposed development area. This means that residents have to use their own transport.

The main routes into and out of the village are via Rectory Road from the A140, or Green Lane via the B1134. Neither of these routes have pavements or street lighting.

On the A140, close to the Rectory Road junction, there is a bus stop. This service providing an infrequent (except early morning and evening) service north/south on the busy A140. There are no provisions for pedestrians crossing the A140 to reach the southbound bus stop, which makes travelling to Diss by bus somewhat hazardous.
It is currently very difficult for drivers to turn southwards on to the A140 at this junction, due the volume of northbound A140 traffic. At rush hour, drivers intending to turn south at this junction may have to wait several minutes before a suitable gap in the traffic occurs. Drivers intending to turn north at this junction cannot drive around those waiting to turn south, because the road isn't wide enough. Any increase in the amount of traffic attempting to drive onto the A140 from Rectory Road will exacerbate this issue.

If drivers feel that the Rectory road junction with the A140 has become too difficult to negotiate at busy times of day, there is only one alternative. Star Lane isn't a viable option due to it being a single track lane with almost no passing places, and the presence of the ford. The second option is Green Lane.

Green Lane is a single track lane, mostly speed de-restricted, with few passing places. Local children use this lane to walk to the local primary school or to meet the school bus. Drivers are already sometimes forced to use private driveways to pass opposing traffic, and there is a blind "S" bend 120m south of the junction with the B1134, which can prove quite hazardous. This junction can also be difficult if you are turning eastwards on the B1134 due to the speed of eastbound traffic around the (almost right angle) bend near Beck Green Farm.

Morning rush hour traffic counts on Green Lane, recorded over a 1 week period between the times of 7:30am and 9:00am result in the following averages...

Number of cars driving along Green Lane: 45
Percentage northbound: 62%
Percentage southbound: 38%

The number of times 2 cars met in opposing directions along Green Lane (based on a 1 min 50sec average time to drive the length of the lane) is 12. This figure was derived from the times 2 cars drove past a fixed point, and traced back to see if they would have met each other along Green Lane.

Green Lane clearly doesn't have the capacity to support a large increase in traffic. However, the roundabout at the east end of Station Road/B1134 is a far easier place to join the A140 than Rectory road, so it could be (incorrectly) perceived as being the lesser of two evils (ironically, particularly for those drivers intending to head south on the A140).

The proposed number of dwellings may not have such a large impact on the traffic around the village seen in the other proposals for the area.

However there is a further concern here, any commuters from this proposed development would be travelling at approximately the same time in the morning as the children at the primary school are arriving, and would have to pass the school entrance. This would not be a good situation.

The above proposed site will increase in traffic on the two access routes, this has already been mentioned on this application. The potential risk to young school children of increased traffic immediately outside the primary school entrance should not be under estimated, and for this reason the proposal should be rejected.

See attachment

I am writing in response to the recent meetings that I attended of our local Parish Council where information was given in regard to the proposed sites for housing development in the villages of Tivetshall St. Margaret and Tivetshall St. Mary.

My comments deal with the unsuitability of most of the proposed sites within the village for the following reasons:

1. The bulk of the habitation of the two villages is located on a single road that connects the A140 at one end to the B1134 at the other. At the St Margaret end the road narrows to a single track road with a few Passing Points and drainage ditches on either side adjacent to the surrounding farmland. This road is most unsuitable for the addition of extra traffic. It is difficult enough when one confronts another vehicle coming the opposite way. This is especially tricky when coming face to face with a farm vehicle involving sometimes considerable reversing and manoeuvring. Access to the village from Star lane is also difficult with the additional hazard of a ford to contend with! The only reasonable access is from the A140 at Rectory Road, but even this turns into a narrower road at the 30mph limit and has several blind bends in it. It is within a short distance of these roads that the proposed sites are located.

2. The sewerage system does have issues with being inefficient at several points throughout the village. Likewise the water supply is not very high pressure and can be a problem at peak times.

3. There is no shop.

4. The two public houses are located at the extreme and opposite ends of the village and for most people a car ride to get them there.

5. Most of the surrounding lanes are designated Quiet Roads and are used frequently by dog walkers, horse riders and cyclists. Plus some of these lanes are in need of attention having been used by farm traffic breaking down the verges and in some instances subsidence.

6. The addition of excess extra housing would change the atmosphere and charm that the village now possesses.

7. The suitability of most of the proposed sites does have to be brought into question, due to the infrastructure, the access and effect on wildlife.

8. On the plus side, there is a School and a very good active Village Hall.

9. There is a proposal to use the old waste disposal site at the Pulham Roundabout for commercial development in the form of a garage (Filling station) and retail premises. I fail to understand why this is necessary as there is a similar site in planning at the Scole A140 Junction. Far better to use the Old waste site for extra housing where there is easy access to the A140 both north and south


I am not averse to the addition of extra housing in our village on a limited basis and I feel that any decisions should be taken with a great deal of consideration and care.

Please see attached the response from Tivetshall Parish Council in responses to the consultation on the proposed sites under Regulation 18.

Tivetshall Parish Council voted to object to sites GNLP2103, 2041 and 2042.

With regards to GNLP 2128 councillors did not support the development of a fuel station and retails units but agreed the site may lend itself to development of residential dwellings.