MM96
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33068
Received: 10/01/2014
Respondent: Raven Group
Agent: Pomery Planning Consultants
The respondent agrees that the sentence should be omitted as it contradicts the requirement to provide a landscaped buffer between site's BFR1 and NEL 2 and the need to avoid amenity conflicts between the two uses. As the amended location of the allocation, which abuts site BFR1, rather than includes it, is similar to that put forward by the respondent, this modification is supported.
The respondent agrees that the sentence should be omitted as it contradicts the requirement to provide a landscaped buffer between site's BFR1 and NEL 2 and the need to avoid amenity conflicts between the two uses. As the amended location of the allocation, which abuts site BFR1, rather than includes it, is similar to that put forward by the respondent, this modification is supported.