Respondent name
Phil Goodlad
Responses
Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
MD2
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
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

Belt purposes

Modification if applicable

The plan remains unsound as the revision is haunted by previous proposals and working from 2014. Much has changed since then and it requires starting a fresh with full public enhancement of those impacted. The fact the only consultations to date have been undertake in the North (Halliwell Jones) have sidestepped issues to those impacted. Substantial infrastructure improvements are needed first to even making development considerable. We mush also protect our greenbelt - at all costs for our future generation and environmental commitments. It?s should be a last resort!

Respondent Type
Resident
Policy Name/Part of plan
GB1
Legally Compliant
No
Sound
No
Compliant with the Duty to Co-operate
No
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

Development for green belt proposals are unjust and will have a devastating and irreversible impact on the town. It should be a last resort in exhausting already abundant brown field sites. The plan is unsound and makes no consideration for environmental impact and climate change.