UPSVLP 2091
Respondent name
Mr Colin Watts
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD4
Legally Compliant
Yes
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
Yes
Oral Examination
No
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate
There is a potential problem with the Peel Hall development plan.
Why you support the legal compliance or soundness of the Draft Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to co-operate
I do not specifically support these two but I have no reason to doubt that there is a problem with these two.
Modification if applicable
On the Peel Hall development, whilst I am not necessarily against the actual development, the proposal does not provide enough extra road access to the new buildings. Existing road access is already at capacity (particularly Sandy Lane West between Cleveland Road and the A49) and cannot cope with the extra traffic that the new development would create. To solve this problem I believe another, new, road would need to be constructed to connect he new development direct to the A49 or J9 on the M62.
Documents