GNLP0223

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 19839

Received: 04/02/2020

Respondent: Mr K Sharman

Representation Summary:

In support of non allocation:

We wish to register our strong objections to these plans in the Poringland and Stoke Holy Cross areas. They are 2124,0223,2111. The current scramble at the behest of politicians to cover every open space with bricks and mortar is ruining the countryside. Is there no thought for future generations?

Over the last few years (and ongoing) a substantial building program has transformed our local villages from rural to almost suburban status.

If the greenfield-agricultural sites were to be "developed" this would result in yet more cars, delivery vehicles, construction traffic, noise and pollution.

A further consequence would be an even greater strain on our struggling medical center, roads and schools.

I have just had to wait 4 weeks to see my local GP. We ask you to refuse these applications.

Full text:

We wish to register our strong objections to these plans in the Poringland and Stoke Holy Cross areas. They are 2124,0223,2111. The current scramble at the behest of politicians to cover every open space with bricks and mortar is ruining the countryside. Is there no thought for future generations?

Over the last few years (and ongoing) a substantial building program has transformed our local villages from rural to almost suburban status.

If the greenfield-agricultural sites were to be "developed" this would result in yet more cars, delivery vehicles, construction traffic, noise and pollution.

A further consequence would be an even greater strain on our struggling medical centres, roads and schools.

I have just had to wait 4 weeks to see my local GP. We ask you to refuse these applications.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20159

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20383

Received: 05/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Oliver Smith

Representation Summary:

Hi,
I unreservedly support that site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document. This site in particular is home to a vast array of wildlife, including birds (including owls) and bats.

Poringland could not cope with additional growth, outside of sites that are already allocated but not yet built.

Full text:

Hi,
I unreservedly support that site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document. This site in particular is home to a vast array of wildlife, including birds (including owls) and bats.

Poringland could not cope with additional growth, outside of sites that are already allocated but not yet built.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20546

Received: 09/03/2020

Respondent: Mr John Joyce

Representation Summary:

Infrastructure here and in the wider village is insufficient to support this development.
Access is difficult for this site and would be onto inappropriate roads. It is also close to the head waters of the River Chet and development could adversely affect drainage and ecology.

Full text:

Infrastructure here and in the wider village is insufficient to support this development.
Access is difficult for this site and would be onto inappropriate roads. It is also close to the head waters of the River Chet and development could adversely affect drainage and ecology.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20698

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Susan Morris

Representation Summary:

With regard to this particular site, GNLP0223, I support the reasons given for this being considered to be an unreasonable site, i.e. lack of suitable access. Additionally, I agree that Poringland as a whole has already taken its fair share of the burden of necessary new housing in the area, particularly as infrastructure is not keeping pace. Roads, schools and doctor's surgeries are seriously under pressure.

Full text:

With regard to this particular site, GNLP0223, I support the reasons given for this being considered to be an unreasonable site, i.e. lack of suitable access. Additionally, I agree that Poringland as a whole has already taken its fair share of the burden of necessary new housing in the area, particularly as infrastructure is not keeping pace. Roads, schools and doctor's surgeries are seriously under pressure.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20701

Received: 11/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Mark Morris

Representation Summary:

I supports site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document. It is also an area of land that supports many species of wildlife which brings relief to the dense housing.

Full text:

I supports site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document. It is also an area of land that supports many species of wildlife which brings relief to the dense housing.

Comment

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 20946

Received: 14/03/2020

Respondent: Mrs Deirdre Alderton

Representation Summary:

With regards to the site GNLP0223 opposite our house on XXXX directly opposite this area.We cannot see any advantage in developing this area in the future. Our current site has been built over the last 20 or so years and was well planned and designed. Any future development on site GNLP0223 will have several problems, namely:
(1) that there is limited access to the site and
(2) the ground is very prone to waterlogging and, consequentlyit was rejected by our builder (Norfolk Homes) as costing too much to deal with this problem to make development there worthwhile.

Full text:

With regards to the site GNLP0223 opposite our house on XXXX directly opposite this area.We cannot see any advantage in developing this area in the future. Our current site has been built over the last 20 or so years and was well planned and designed. Any future development on site GNLP0223 will have several problems, namely:
(1) that there is limited access to the site and
(2) the ground is very prone to waterlogging and, consequentlyit was rejected by our builder (Norfolk Homes) as costing too much to deal with this problem to make development there worthwhile.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Representation ID: 21822

Received: 12/03/2020

Respondent: Mr Karl Sales

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

We welcome the decision that no new building applications are to be considered in Poringland and in particular GNLP0223.

We live on XXXX an overlook the land proposed in the application. We fully agree with the decision that any new development would be detrimental to the general appearance of the countryside and change the boundary of the village.

We see on a daily basis the over whelming congestion and access problems to Poringland as a whole and Sebald Crescent.

Any development on this land would need access via the already established Norfolk Homes site. Sebald Crescent would not be able to manage the additional traffic load after build completion and during the build process.

It is our opinion, that with the already approved applications in Poringland, the village has already reached saturation point.

We fully appreciate the need for new homes. But also feel building them in an area that has an oversubscribed school, doctor's surgery and major access issues would be a big mistake

Full text:

We would like to add our comments to the application GNLP0223, land adjacent to Sebald Crescent, Poringland.

We welcome the decision that no new building applications are to be considered in Poringland and in particular GNLP0223.

We live on XXXX an overlook the land proposed in the application. We fully agree with the decision that any new development would be detrimental to the general appearance of the countryside and change the boundary of the village.

We see on a daily basis the over whelming congestion and access problems to Poringland as a whole and Sebald Crescent.

Any development on this land would need access via the already established Norfolk Homes site. Sebald Crescent would not be able to manage the additional traffic load after build completion and during the build process.

It is our opinion, that with the already approved applications in Poringland, the village has already reached saturation point.

We fully appreciate the need for new homes. But also feel building them in an area that has an oversubscribed school, doctor's surgery and major access issues would be a big mistake.

Kindest regards
Karl & Angela Sales