GNLP0491
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20171
Received: 28/02/2020
Respondent: Poringland Parish Council
Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0491 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the consultation document.
Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0491 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the consultation document.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21166
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Mr john Phillips
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unsuitable in the GNLP)
I object to this development for the reasons already stated. Caistor Lane is a country road which is already dangerous being a cut through to the southern bypass and it cannot support any more traffic. This land has poor drainage and covering it with hard surfaces will exacerbate the flooding issues for the current residents.
I object to this development for the reasons already stated. Caistor Lane is a country road which is already dangerous being a cut through to the southern bypass and it cannot support any more traffic. This land has poor drainage and covering it with hard surfaces will exacerbate the flooding issues for the current residents.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21430
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Chris Troise
I support the view that this site is not considered suitable for allocation.
There are already significant planning permissions on small sites across this key service centre in the GNLP which are sufficient to provide its fair contribution to the overall numbers required.
Large and small scale developments in this key service centre including several rural parishes during recent years have been such that there has been significant disruption to the lives of ordinary residents.
I cannot comment on every site in the area but, to summarise, I oppose any allocation of further sites in this key service centre.
I support the view that this site is not considered suitable for allocation.
There are already significant planning permissions on small sites across this key service centre in the GNLP which are sufficient to provide its fair contribution to the overall numbers required.
Large and small scale developments in this key service centre including several rural parishes during recent years have been such that there has been significant disruption to the lives of ordinary residents.
I cannot comment on every site in the area but, to summarise, I oppose any allocation of further sites in this key service centre.