GNLP2032
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 19948
Received: 16/02/2020
Respondent: Mr Reg Holmes
In 2018 this site was considered unsuitable due to flood risk and access.
In 12/2018 documents proved the site is in Flood Risk Zone 1 - (Low probability) and access had previously been granted - (2011/1174).
29/07/2019 Mrs XXXX (Planning) provided a screen shot confirming receipt of relating documents.
I have spoken with Mr. XXXX (Highways) who confirmed they have no issues with existing access and no objection to additional access as shown on planning ref 2016/2165.
Please remove the objections from records as they are incorrect.
Once corrected please re-consider this site for inclusion in the Development Plan.
In 2018 this site was considered unsuitable due to flood risk and access.
In 12/2018 documents proved the site is in Flood Risk Zone 1 - (Low probability) and access had previously been granted - (2011/1174).
29/07/2019 Mrs. XXXX from Planning provided a screen shot confirming receipt of relating documents.
I have spoken with Mr. XXXXXX (Highways) who confirmed they have no issues with existing access and no objection to additional access as shown on planning ref 2016/2165.
Please remove the objections from records as they are incorrect.
Once corrected please re-consider this site for inclusion in the Development Plan.
Comment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20826
Received: 13/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Thomas Goodison-Gates
I think this site should be developed. It was once an opening through to the wider countryside, however I believe its contribution to the countryside aesthetic is now out-weighed by the need for more housing in the future. Furthermore I believe the relatively new houses either side cannot really draw on the 'countryside' argument to fend off future development because they themselves are relatively new and would most likely once have been built on land where previously there once wasn't already building. Pedestrian routes and environmental considerations should be observed, but I believe development should be considered inevitable.
I think this site should be developed. It was once an opening through to the wider countryside, however I believe its contribution to the countryside aesthetic is now out-weighed by the need for more housing in the future. Furthermore I believe the relatively new houses either side cannot really draw on the 'countryside' argument to fend off future development because they themselves are relatively new and would most likely once have been built on land where previously there once wasn't already building. Pedestrian routes and environmental considerations should be observed, but I believe development should be considered inevitable.