GNLP0134

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 14266

Received: 17/03/2018

Respondent: Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The Parish Council objects to this site allocation. The Parish does not have the infrastructure to support this number of houses. The location of the site makes it dangerous for vehicles exiting as previously stated.

Full text:

As with site GNLP0483 this site would exit onto two main and busy roads. Traffic is already an issue and this would only make the problem worse.

This allocation goes against the "Service Village" designation which Little Plumstead has. This allocation states that developments should not exceed 20 dwellings.

Using this land for development is taking it from agricultural land.

This area of Little Plumstead has a lack of infrastructure at present. The Primary School is located at the other end of the village and is already at capacity. There is no doctors located within the Parish, the nearest in in Thorpe St Andrew/Blofield.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15964

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Peter Morris

Representation Summary:

I support the Parish Councils objection. The recent public exhibition for a speculative development indicated far more dwellings and on a smaller site.
The development is outside the village boundary as shown in the Village Plan.

Full text:

I support the Parish Councils objection. The recent public exhibition for a speculative development indicated far more dwellings and on a smaller site.
The development is outside the village boundary as shown in the Village Plan.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 15978

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Peter Morris

Representation Summary:

I support the Parish Councils comments. The site has been put forward for a speculative development and showed a smaller area with more dwellings. It is outside the village development boundary as shown in the Village plan which appears to have been ignored.

Full text:

I support the Parish Councils comments. The site has been put forward for a speculative development and showed a smaller area with more dwellings. It is outside the village development boundary as shown in the Village plan which appears to have been ignored.