UPSVLP 2252
Respondent name
George Dutton
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Legally Compliant
Yes
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
Oral Examination
Yes
Why you consider the Draft Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate
Plan is unsound in judgements made over the value of the Green Belt.
Why you support the legal compliance or soundness of the Draft Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to co-operate
I'm not qualified to comment on legal compliance
Modification if applicable
SHLAA Ref: 1528 / Site Ref: R18/162 and SHLAA Ref: 1622 are now combined as the Statham site. They are considered to make a weak or moderate contribution to the Green Belt and therefore should become available for development. I challenge this view, these two fields mark the boundary of Lymm's Green Belt and should remain so. Otherwise, a precedent will be set leading to loss of the Green Belt on field at a time.
Paragraph/policy sub
10.9
Documents