GNLP0426

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12889

Received: 02/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Derek Barber

Representation:

Apart from a total lack of any infrastructure in Swardeston to support any development of this size the B1113 is already unable to cope with the traffic coming from the south due to the excessive development of Mulbarton.

Full text:

Apart from a total lack of any infrastructure in Swardeston to support any development of this size the B1113 is already unable to cope with the traffic coming from the south due to the excessive development of Mulbarton.

Object

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 12957

Received: 09/02/2018

Respondent: Dominic Everett

Representation:

There has already been very significant development of sites in Mulbarton which has put pressure on the B1113. The parish boundary between Swardeston and Mulbarton will be eroded by this development and lose the clear distinction between the villages.

Full text:

There has already been very significant development of sites in Mulbarton which has put pressure on the B1113. The parish boundary between Swardeston and Mulbarton will be eroded by this development and lose the clear distinction between the villages.

Comment

Site Proposals document

Representation ID: 19732

Received: 12/12/2018

Respondent: Mulbarton Parish Council

Representation:

This does not reflect the current loadings on the B1113 - see Mulbarton comments.

Full text:

Please find attached comments from Mulbarton Parish Council on all of the proposed site allocations for the area in and around Mulbarton. We have provided comments against each of the individual sites. We disagree with the proposed site allocations and the underlying assumptions.

Our general view is in line with the comments provided by CPRE Norfolk, which you will be familiar with. Your earlier letter of 29th October 2018 stated that "growth will be carefully planned to ensure it is located in the most appropriate locations and will be supported by appropriate and timely infrastructure provision". We disagree that the proposed site allocations and individual site assessments follow this approach.

See attached file.

Attachments: