Online Response Form
Responses
| Name | Option | Text | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.B Cotterell | As above. | 29 Dec 2016 08:59 | |
| Holton Homes (Clive Wingfield) | would fit in with the housing stock within this immediate area | 02 Jan 2017 07:19 | |
| Daniel Cullen | Although no development is ideal, low density developments will have less of an effect on the character of the areas and maintain the open space that attracts residents to the areas | 05 Jan 2017 13:30 | |
| FEDORA (David Cooke) | This is a more sensitive solution. | 06 Jan 2017 13:27 | |
| Deleted User | As my point below. Use more green belt but ensure lower density and allow people to grow in the plot they move too. It will improve longevity and invetsment in the area by individuals | 08 Jan 2017 09:54 | |
| Deleted User | • Do not believe Parcels 14 or 20 should be developed. The analysis is subjective and flawed | 09 Jan 2017 08:55 | |
| Anna Davies | We need our green belt. Our local green belt is heavily used for schools, youth groups, gardeners, young families, nature lovers and dog walkers. | 09 Jan 2017 09:04 | |
| Jamie Mainwaring | If nay building work were to be actioned, then its imperative that you maintain the current community character and surrounding character. | 09 Jan 2017 12:00 | |
| Deleted User | Providing there is sufficient employment, schools and transport and it will not have negative impact on the existing neighbourhood | 09 Jan 2017 18:10 | |
| John Girdley | Inadequate, flawed analysis used to recommend Parcels 14 and 20 which in reality are not suitable. | 10 Jan 2017 10:46 |