Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Search representations
Results for Mr John Hare search
New searchObject
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Section One - Introduction and Context
Representation ID: 3370
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr John Hare
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to plan (general): Difficulties accessing website to complete response forms is making the consultation process untenable and undemocratic
Would you please append this email to my letter dated 24th November 2016 delivered by hand to Strategic Planning & Projects Group, NHDC, Gernon Road on the 28th November 2016 at 12.35.
* The Draft Emerging Allocation July 2016, Ashwell shows the boundary of Ashwell has been changed to exclude two of the three sites identified for development in Ashwell's Neighbourhood Plan. Bearing in mind that NHDC's Planners were aware of these sites prior to the cut-off date of March 2016 makes one think that NHDC has removed them wilfully in an attempt to influence the Neighbourhood Plan prior to the Inspector viewing the contents. It appears that there has been no reference or contact with Ashwell Parish Council.
* The CPRE has objected to the development of AS1 because of its impact on the landscape and Ancient Monument and their reasons should be taken into consideration as they are the Trustee for Rural England
* NHDC's website has and still is creating major problems to access and complete the form provided. Although there are alternatives the failure of this website is making the process untenable as having made several unsuccessful attempts they abort it, so their views are not represented making the democratic process unworkable. No doubt this problem will be reflected in the number of responses that will be forwarded to NHDC re AS1 Ashwell.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
AS1 Land west of Claybush Road
Representation ID: 4396
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Mr John Hare
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to AS1:
- Not consistent with NPPF
- Protecting the historic environment
- Green infrastructure
- Wildlife and biodiversity
- Consideration of the evidence and residence
- Site previous rejected for development
- Pedestrian facilities
- Village services (Doctor, Dentists, Shops, Public Transport, Public Houses and Church)
- Pollution/Greenhouse Gases
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Heritage Assets
- Flood Risk
- Vehicular Access
- Care home facility
- Village Boundary
- Landscape Character
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Policy SP2: Settlement Hierarchy
Representation ID: 6259
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Mr John Hare
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to SP2 (Ashwell): Village boundary excludes sites being considered by neighbourhood planning group, no consultation with Ashwell Parish Council
Would you please append this email to my letter dated 24th November 2016 delivered by hand to Strategic Planning & Projects Group, NHDC, Gernon Road on the 28th November 2016 at 12.35.
* The Draft Emerging Allocation July 2016, Ashwell shows the boundary of Ashwell has been changed to exclude two of the three sites identified for development in Ashwell's Neighbourhood Plan. Bearing in mind that NHDC's Planners were aware of these sites prior to the cut-off date of March 2016 makes one think that NHDC has removed them wilfully in an attempt to influence the Neighbourhood Plan prior to the Inspector viewing the contents. It appears that there has been no reference or contact with Ashwell Parish Council.
* The CPRE has objected to the development of AS1 because of its impact on the landscape and Ancient Monument and their reasons should be taken into consideration as they are the Trustee for Rural England
* NHDC's website has and still is creating major problems to access and complete the form provided. Although there are alternatives the failure of this website is making the process untenable as having made several unsuccessful attempts they abort it, so their views are not represented making the democratic process unworkable. No doubt this problem will be reflected in the number of responses that will be forwarded to NHDC re AS1 Ashwell.