Object
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20913
Received: 13/03/2020
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Peters
(Changed from support to object as respondent is actually objecting to the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
Site should be reassessed. Unfairly classified as unreasonable. It is a ‘reasonable site’ being sustainable - proximity to two hospitals, adjacent to surrounding housing, local employment at the research park or City centre through public transport – with no negative impacts on a very good local road network.
Assessment – 14 categories – 9 green and 5 amber – what’s wrong with the site?
Site GNLP0514 should be the “preferred site” in the absence of any choice of alternative suitable sites. It also will help with the requirement of at least 10% smaller sites in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Site should be reassessed. Unfairly classified as unreasonable. It is a ‘reasonable site’ being sustainable - proximity to two hospitals, adjacent to surrounding housing, local employment at the research park or City centre through public transport – with no negative impacts on a very good local road network.
Assessment – 14 categories – 9 green and 5 amber – what’s wrong with the site?
Site GNLP0514 should be the “preferred site” in the absence of any choice of alternative suitable sites. It also will help with the requirement of at least 10% smaller sites in the National Planning Policy Framework.