GNLP0492
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 19949
Received: 16/02/2020
Respondent: Mr David Woolston
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable)
I agree with the Draft Plan Consultation that this site is unreasonable and would add that it has previously been rejected at the highest appeals procedure
I agree with the Draft Plan Consultation that this site is unreasonable and would add that it has previously been rejected at the highest appeals procedure
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 19973
Received: 18/02/2020
Respondent: Mr Robert Forster
Number of people: 2
Comment supports site being unreasonable
My wife and I are fully in agreement with the decision reached by the GNLP.
The facilities have not changed since the findings reached by Richard E Hollox of the planning inspectorate ref: APP/K2610/A/10/2133334
We feel it is inadvisable to add to the traffic flow considering the nature of the junction with Post Office Road.
With the amount of housing being allocated because of the Broadland Northway in the Sprowston and Rackheath area we see no need for additional developments in this village.
My wife and I are fully in agreement with the decision reached by the Greater Norwich Local Plan with regard to this proposed development.
The facilities in the village have not changed since the 2nd February 2011 decision reached by Mr Richard E Hollox of the planning inspectorate. Appeal Ref: APP/K2610/A/10/2133334.
With one or more cars and vehicles in the existing properties on Harbord Road we feel it is inadvisable to add to this traffic flow concidering(sic) the nature of the junction with Post Office Road as previously stated.
With the amount of housing being allocated because of the Broadland Northway in the Sprowston and Rackheath area we see no need for additional developments in this village.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20409
Received: 06/03/2020
Respondent: Karen Lawrence
Strongly agree that this is NOT suitable. Contested by the villagers and Parish council and there is deep concern that it will be considered again through this process. The area is adjacent to a county wildlife site and is outside the settlement area of the village. The site has many trees on it and forms an important ecological function in the village as part of the woodland corridor within Broadland.
Strongly agree that this is NOT suitable. Contested by the villagers and Parish council and there is deep concern that it will be considered again through this process. The area is adjacent to a county wildlife site and is outside the settlement area of the village. The site has many trees on it and forms an important ecological function in the village as part of the woodland corridor within Broadland.
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 21666
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Mr Thomas Bulley
As a Harbord Road resident I fully support the finding that the site is unreasonable for development. In particular I believe increasing the volume of vehicles and pedestrians using Harbord Road would be dangerous and represent an unnecessary risk.
As a Harbord Road resident I fully support the finding that the site is unreasonable for development. In particular I believe increasing the volume of vehicles and pedestrians using Harbord Road would be dangerous and represent an unnecessary risk.
Object
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 22251
Received: 16/03/2020
Respondent: Lanpro Services Ltd
Number of people: 2
Objects to site being unreasonable
Please find attached a representation on behalf of the landowner in relation to site ref: GNLP0492.
Please find attached a representation on behalf of the landowner in relation to site ref: GNLP0492.