8.60
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20697
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: A AINSLIE
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* These are arguments for bringing this broad location forward early in the Plan period. Previous representations refer.
* These are arguments for bringing this broad location forward early in the Plan period. Previous representations refer.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20712
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* These are arguments for bringing this broad location forward early in the Plan period. Previous representations refer.
* These are arguments for bringing this broad location forward early in the Plan period. Previous representations refer.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20857
Received: 02/11/2011
Respondent: Camberwell Close Residents Ltd.
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Para 8.60 is not sound in that it omits the inclusion of Kites Nest Walk, the only other currently available access to the developable land north of the Barnhorn Road, as unsuitable, given its proximity to the Little Common Roundabout. The increasing congestion caused by build back from the latter during peak periods, and also in the summer months, already causes problems of access to the A259.
Para 8.60 is not sound in that it omits the inclusion of Kites Nest Walk, the only other currently available access to the developable land north of the Barnhorn Road, as unsuitable, given its proximity to the Little Common Roundabout. The increasing congestion caused by build back from the latter during peak periods, and also in the summer months, already causes problems of access to the A259.