Comment
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
Representation ID: 328
Received: 02/07/2007
Respondent: Mr Ivor Jones
i support the continuation of existing restrictions on development in the Green Belt. All existing Green Belt designations should be maintained.It is unclear whether what is being proposed is a reduction of existing Green belt boundaries or a general relaxation of policy within it.What is meant by "major developed sites"? Are these existing developments within the GB or new developments?
I find the use of the term "stategic buffers" confusing. How does this relate to green belt objectives set out in PPG2? The Council needs to be very clear about its Green belt objectives when Appeals arise, as they inevitably will.
i support the continuation of existing restrictions on development in the Green Belt. All existing Green Belt designations should be maintained.It is unclear whether what is being proposed is a reduction of existing Green belt boundaries or a general relaxation of policy within it.What is meant by "major developed sites"? Are these existing developments within the GB or new developments?
I find the use of the term "stategic buffers" confusing. How does this relate to green belt objectives set out in PPG2? The Council needs to be very clear about its Green belt objectives when Appeals arise, as they inevitably will.