Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Object

Representation ID: 3982

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Section One - Introduction and Context:
- Paragraph 2.57 is unsound as it is not consistent with the NPPF
- The overarching transport policy document for the area, Local Transport Plan 3, Does not take into consideration the new development sites, associated traffic generation, set out in the local plan. A Transport Assessment should be undertaken and its conclusions taken in to consideration within the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 3983

Received: 28/12/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to Housing and Development:
- Paragraph 4.90 is unsound and not consistent with NPPF
- Green Belt
- The rationale for removing sites from the Green Belt does not constitute exceptional circumstances

Object

Representation ID: 3984

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to SP7:
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Education infrastructure
- The infrastructure and development policies are inadequate and further detail within relevant elements of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 3985

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to SP14 - BA1:
- Infrastructure requirements not sufficiently detailed
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- No Transport plan, Transport Assessment or travel plan
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Local employment opportunities
- Insufficient parking provisions
- Proposed bridge over railway
- Air quality
- Noise, air pollution and safety
- Rail infrastructure and reduced services
- Green Belt and 'exceptional circumstances'
- Loss of Agricultural land
- History and heritage
- Historic character
- Pedestrian facilities
- Access to Open Space and recreational facilities
- Water supply

Object

Representation ID: 3986

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to BA2:
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Cumulative impact of BA2, BA3 and BA4 should be considered a strategic house site
- Local infrastructure
- No supporting infrastructure policies
- Education facilities
- Should be supported by Transport Statement or Transport Assessment
- Updated transport plan
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Loss of Green Belt and 'exceptional circumstances'

Object

Representation ID: 3987

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to BA3:
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Cumulative impact of BA2, BA3 and BA4 should be considered a strategic house site
- Local infrastructure
- No supporting infrastructure policies
- Education facilities
- Should be supported by Transport Statement or Transport Assessment
- Updated transport plan
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Loss of Green Belt and 'exceptional circumstances'

Object

Representation ID: 3988

Received: 28/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Toby Croft

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to BA4:
- Not consistent with the NPPF
- Cumulative impact of BA2, BA3 and BA4 should be considered a strategic house site
- Local infrastructure
- No supporting infrastructure policies
- Education facilities
- Should be supported by Transport Statement or Transport Assessment
- Updated transport plan
- Highway infrastructure and congestion
- Loss of Green Belt and 'exceptional circumstances'