No Poringland Reasonable Alternatives
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20007
Received: 20/02/2020
Respondent: Miss Sarah Mann
I agree that there are no reasonable alternatives, this area has had far beyond its fair share of development already with no growth or support for the infrastructure, it can not take anymore, the schools are beyond full, the doctors are beyond full, the roads are beyond full.
I agree that there are no reasonable alternatives, this area has had far beyond its fair share of development already with no growth or support for the infrastructure, it can not take anymore, the schools are beyond full, the doctors are beyond full, the roads are beyond full.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20157
Received: 28/02/2020
Respondent: Poringland Parish Council
Poringland Parish Council supports the recommendation that there are no reasonable alternatives for development in Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot (including well related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross) for the reasons of there already being high amounts of existing commitments in the area and the environmental and infractruture constraints.
Poringland Parish Council supports the recommendation that there are no reasonable alternatives for development in Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot (including well related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross) for the reasons of there already being high amounts of existing commitments in the area and the environmental and infractruture constraints.