Planning policy development plan

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on Examination Consultation Provision for Gypsies and Travellers - Question 13

Representation ID: 9670

OBJECT Sheelagh Judge


Summary by Officer.

Significant errors in the screening and sustainability appraisal of GT/09.

The suitability conclusion is flawed as it is based upon errors regarding local services and visibility splays. The identified site size is inaccurate. The site is smaller than 1500 square metres and will not accommodate 3 pitches. The impact upon nature conservation has been inadequately assessed.

ED44d, appendix 5; the conclusion as to scale is disputed. This hamlet consists of some 12 houses. 3 pitches would be disproportionate in scale to the adjoining hamlet representing a 25% increase.

Site Selection Approach (ED44b); Paragraphs: 3.17.5, 3.17.6, 3.17.8 are in correct, not supported by evidence and misleading respectively.

ED44c, the Technical Note, The appraisal fails to give recognition that this site is an open piece of land essential to maintain the setting and the historic environment and character of the village. Adequate mitigation cannot be achieved, recommendation is insufficient.

More details about Rep ID: 9670

Representation ID: 9611

OBJECT Stretton Parish Council represented by Charlotte Stainton


Summary by Officer.

The SA has been prepared to support the intended allocations rather than as part of considering whether sites should be potential allocations.
The Council's evidence is not consistent in respect of public transport services for Woolley Moor. It cannot be correct for GT/09 to score '-' for transport when GT/06, situated on the A61, also scored '-'.
GT/09 should have scored '--' for health in the same way as GT/08 (which has a GP nearer than GT/09).
It is not consistent for GT/09 to be awarded '-' similar to GT/08, which would result in a small area of woodland, but is not in an area of primary sensitivity.
It is not clear how the Sustainability Appraisal has informed the Site Selection process particularly as this was not undertaken until November 2018.

More details about Rep ID: 9611

Representation ID: 9358

OBJECT Mrs Glynis McLaughlin


How can the site selection at Dark Lane have been informed by Sustainability Appraisal when the first knowledge of these 2 proposed pitches was by way of letter dated 4th January 2019, which did not state clear intentions of the 2 further pitches being proposed. I firmly believe that NEDDC should have contacted the residents of Jubilee Cottages( nearby residents) with their proposal to identify the site. Correspondence from the NEDDC has been very vague and underhand, 6 households received the original letter from the NEDDC and unfortunately not all understood the contents clearly.

More details about Rep ID: 9358

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult