MM27

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Representation ID: 33101

Received: 12/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Nick Matthews

Representation Summary:

There is no detailed information available in the Local Development Framework Allocations Submission Document regarding specific area/location of the "green buffer" said to be "parkland which is publicly accessible and integrated into the development with the remaining land to the west retained in agricultural use". This prevents proper assessment of what area will be publicly accessible land or retained as agricultural use. This should be clearly specified. The wording is ambiguous and impact unclear, particularly if land is to be changed from private agricultural use to publicly available parkland. I also object to the re-writing concerning allotments resulting from MM20.

Full text:

There is no detailed information in the Local Development Framework Allocations Submission Document as to which specific area the "green buffer" that is said to be "parkland which is publicly accessible and integrated into the development with the remaining land to the west retained in agricultural use" refers to. This prevents proper assessment of what area will be publicly accessible land and what will be retained as agricultural use. Given the size of the remaining land to the West of the proposed development site, this should be clearly specified as currently all of it is private agricultural land. The wording is therefore ambiguous and potential impact unclear, particularly if land is to be changed from private agricultural use to publicly available parkland. There is no rationale given as to why any of the land to the West of the proposed development should be changed from private agricultural use to publicly available parkland. In conjunction with my objection to MM20 I object to the re-write regarding containing allotments within the proposed larger site relative to the initial submission.

Object

Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Representation ID: 33408

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Linda Kendall

Representation Summary:

Should this swathe of greenbelt finally succumb to developers, against the express wishes of the local people and despite the protection of its' greenbelt status, the remainder of this site should be preserved as parkland NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND as we have witnessed just what can occur with greenbelt cultivated land, in the present instance, it is too easy to simply get it re-designated as development building land with the right level of knowledge and influence. Parkland would offer the local community more protection from this possibility in the future.

Full text:

Should this swathe of greenbelt finally succumb to developers, against the express wishes of the local people and despite the protection of its' greenbelt status, the remainder of this site should be preserved as parkland NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND as we have witnessed just what can occur with greenbelt cultivated land, in the present instance, it is too easy to simply get it re-designated as development building land with the right level of knowledge and influence. Parkland would offer the local community more protection from this possibility in the future.