4. Consultation Feedback

Object

Representation ID: 61869

Received: 17/02/2014

Respondent: Dr Paul Thornton

Despite the substantial merits of site 7, some fundamental misunderstandings have arisen in the preparation of the consultation report. Those misunderstandings gave rise to the only concerns in the consultation report about this site and they resulted in the site being described as "discounted". This is an unfortunate technical planning term deriving from the relevant legislation that, to the wider public being consulted, appears to imply that the site is no longer under consideration. The reality that these sites are still under consideration is not clarified in the consultation documentation and this may be prejudicial to the consultation process.

Support

Representation ID: 63193

Received: 08/01/2014

Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Support paragraph 4.10

Object

Representation ID: 63195

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-This Options Report appears only to support the local planning authority's preconceived conclusions. Plans that are based on non-objective evidence will undoubtedly be found 'unsound' by the Inspector. Views that challenge the preconceptions of the local planning authority should be taken into accounts as well as those supporting the preconceptions.
-This Options report entirely ignores the legitimate view that increased development could, reasonable and sustainably be accommodated in the larger villages outside the Green Belt.