Object
New, Revised and Small Sites
Representation ID: 19574
Received: 14/12/2018
Respondent: Mr Nick Atkins
We strongly object to the site 2104 because the development is far too large for our serviced village to cope with. We do not have the facilities, amenities, road networks, healthcare or educational provision to support such an increase in population and neither can Diss, especially with the current massive housing development already taking place near Frenze road.
As a serviced village we are expected to build an additional 14 properties approximately, and Diss are expected to build around 300 by 2035.
The site we a are objecting to could see an additional 1200 properties on Roydon land, that was incorrectly labelled as a Diss site, thus meaning less people of Roydon were notified of this proposed site and so less objections are likely to be registered, making a mockery of this consultation.
We haven't just spent all this time preserving our village boundary, just so Diss' allocation of properties can be built on Roydon land.
I am disgusted that after alerting you to your error of naming the site as Diss and not Roydon at the start of this consultation period it still has not been altered correctly. This makes you question whether this was done deliberately to keep objection numbers down.
We strongly object to the site 2104 because the development is far too large for our serviced village to cope with. We do not have the facilities, amenities, road networks, healthcare or educational provision to support such an increase in population and neither can Diss, especially with the current massive housing development already taking place near Frenze road.
As a serviced village we are expected to build an additional 14 properties approximately, and Diss are expected to build around 300 by 2035.
The site we a are objecting to could see an additional 1200 properties on Roydon land, that was incorrectly labelled as a Diss site, thus meaning less people of Roydon were notified of this proposed site and so less objections are likely to be registered, making a mockery of this consultation.
We haven't just spent all this time preserving our village boundary, just so Diss' allocation of properties can be built on Roydon land.
I am disgusted that after alerting you to your error of naming the site as Diss and not Roydon at the start of this consultation period it still has not been altered correctly. This makes you question whether this was done deliberately to keep objection numbers down.