GNLP0192
Support
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Representation ID: 20598
Received: 10/03/2020
Respondent: Miss Sarah Dugdell
(Changed from object to support as respondent is actually supporting the categorisation of the site as unreasonable in the GNLP)
This land is also far from ideal for a residential development. My previous comments on Dog Lane stand on this proposal too. Dog Lane is not in a position to carry further traffic. It is a small lane and vehicles would have to pass a large number of the properties on Dog lane to reach this development. It just isn't feasable. There is also no safe walking route on Dog lane itself. It could pose a danger to pedestrians. The junction with the B1149 is not sufficient for this development.
This land is also far from ideal for a residential development. My previous comments on Dog Lane stand on this proposal too. Dog Lane is not in a position to carry further traffic. It is a small lane and vehicles would have to pass a large number of the properties on Dog lane to reach this development. It just isn't feasable. There is also no safe walking route on Dog lane itself. It could pose a danger to pedestrians. The junction with the B1149 is not sufficient for this development.