Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8503
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Simon Taylor
- Red sites 42, 49, 81, 97, 107, 128, 195, 197, 211 and 226 should be considered for inclusion to allow for reduction in proposed allocations in other areas which are significantly overweight, inequitable and in direct contradiction to the core principles within the Local Plan.
- Development of these red sites would not inhibit the Council's desire to retain the Meriden Gap, do not pose threat to the demarcation of exiting settlements and, in conjunction with the development of amber sites proposed above, would provide a more even spread to limit unjustified focus on certain areas (primarily Blythe).
Red sites 42, 49, 81, 97, 107, 128, 195, 197, 211 and 226 should be considered for inclusion to allow for reduction in proposed allocations in other areas which are significantly overweight, inequitable and in direct contradiction to the core principles within the Local Plan. Development of these red sites would not inhibit the Council's desire to retain the Meriden Gap, do not pose threat to the demarcation of exiting settlements and, in conjunction with the development of amber sites proposed above, would provide a more even spread across regions to limit unjustified focus on certain areas (primarily Blythe).