Respondent name
Ruth Brown
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Sound
No
Summary of comments

Environmental and ecological impact of proposals would result in a loss of biodiversity and harm to much of the remaining ecology. Green space should be protected. Purpose of Green Belt is to safeguard countryside from encroachment - abandoning this principle is unsound. Loss of good grade agricultural land is not in line with climate change efforts as growing locally currently negates the need for much of the transportation of produce. Green Belt boundary was confirmed 7 years ago for a twenty year period. Greater focus needed on the health and wellbeing benefits from green space. Plan highlights national crisis facing the countryside - strongest possible case should be made for its protection and enhancement.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
Whole Plan
Sound
No
Summary of comments

Current infrastructure is incapable of managing the proposed development. Excessive house building along with proposed logistics facilities would encourage more traffic - inconsistent with proposed climate change solutions, demonstrating unsound nature of plan. Existing traffic issues will be exacerbated by proposed developments. Development will likely result in urban sprawl. Most new housing will be unaffordable to local people - affordable homes need to be situated near to appropriate facilities and communication hubs.

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD6
Sound
No
Summary of comments

Development would provide low paid employment resulting in much of the workforce travelling from outside of the area, thus contributing to existing issues with traffic/pollution. Other vacant industrial sites should be considered.