Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22612
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Hugh Kermode
I do not agree.
IDE1 "requires" development of ID1a to which I object - for reasons given above (Question 75). Access off Elmsmead (Question 76 - point ii) is unsuitable and potentially dangerous due to traffic volume and the road being positioned on a bend.
Points i and iii are reasonable and would apply to development on any of the sites. Point iv is also reasonable, and should be enforced whether of not ID1a is developed
I do not agree.
IDE1 "requires" development of ID1a to which I object - for reasons given above (Question 75). Access off Elmsmead (Question 76 - point ii) is unsuitable and potentially dangerous due to traffic volume and the road being positioned on a bend.
Points i and iii are reasonable and would apply to development on any of the sites. Point iv is also reasonable, and should be enforced whether of not ID1a is developed