Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 8949
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mrs Kealie Ahmad
No transparency why these sites have been lumped together and it has been decided they are not of rural or open nature, and there is no comparison as to why other sites have not been lumped together because collectively if permission were granted they too would then not be rural. For example sites 123, 44,45,48,168,173,334 when taken together would then have the same benefits of those proposed. These sites have also been assessed wrongly and inconsistently when compared with each other, for example, 2 sites 100 yards apart have been assessed as very high and low wrt food availability.
No transparency why these sites have been lumped together and it has been decided they are not of rural or open nature, and there is no comparison as to why other sites have not been lumped together because collectively if permission were granted they too would then not be rural. For example sites 123, 44,45,48,168,173,334 when taken together would then have the same benefits of those proposed. These sites have also been assessed wrongly and inconsistently when compared with each other, for example, 2 sites 100 yards apart have been assessed as very high and low wrt food availability.