Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

Search Representations

Results for Poringland Parish Council search

New search New search

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

No Poringland Preferred Sites

Representation ID: 20156

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports the consultation method of grouping the parishes of Poringland Framingham Earl, Framingham Pigot and well-related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross.
Poringland Parish Council supports the recommendation of no new allocations.

Full text:

Firstly, Poringland Parish Council is pleased that the consultation relating to allocations in Poringland is not restricted to our parish boundaries, and includes Framingham Earl, Framingham Pigot and well-related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross. Development in Framingham Earl, Framingham Pigot, Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross all have a significant impact on Poringland as the key service centre for the area and the boundaries between Poringland and the surrounding parishes are not easily distinguished.
Poringland Parish Council strongly supports the proposal of no new allocations in this area due to the underlying factors of high amounts of existing commitments and environmental / infrastructure constraints limiting the potential for additional housing.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

No Poringland Reasonable Alternatives

Representation ID: 20157

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports the recommendation that there are no reasonable alternatives for development in Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot (including well related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross) for the reasons of there already being high amounts of existing commitments in the area and the environmental and infractruture constraints.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports the recommendation that there are no reasonable alternatives for development in Poringland, Framingham Earl and Framingham Pigot (including well related parts of Bixley, Caistor St Edmund and Stoke Holy Cross) for the reasons of there already being high amounts of existing commitments in the area and the environmental and infractruture constraints.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0169

Representation ID: 20158

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0169 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0169 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0223

Representation ID: 20159

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0223 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0280

Representation ID: 20160

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0280 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0280 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0316

Representation ID: 20161

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0316 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0316 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP2153

Representation ID: 20162

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP2153 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP2153 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0003

Representation ID: 20163

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0003 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0003 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0321

Representation ID: 20164

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0321 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0321 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the document.

Support

Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations

GNLP0391 A & B

Representation ID: 20165

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Poringland Parish Council

Representation:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0391 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the consultation document.

Full text:

Poringland Parish Council supports site GNLP0391 as being an unreasonable site, due to the reasons detailed in the consultation document.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.