WW/1609
Comment
Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)
Representation ID: 1481
Received: 08/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Richard Byard
Totally un-necessary with the other approved developments on brownfield or infill sites. An attractive green field site in a prominent position. Traffic to the site via Deerlands Road would be excessive and intrusive. New development should be concentrated adjacent A61 where developers contributions can be used to improve traffic flows
Totally un-necessary with the other approved developments on brownfield or infill sites. An attractive green field site in a prominent position. Traffic to the site via Deerlands Road would be excessive and intrusive. New development should be concentrated adjacent A61 where developers contributions can be used to improve traffic flows
Comment
Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)
Representation ID: 1546
Received: 20/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Kenneth Hardwick
This site should be rejected as an option;
1. Far larger than required to meet the inflated demand for 248 houses.
2. Is a site of great natural beauty and given the scale shown would extend almost to Tupton apart from a very narrow ribbon of land.
3. Not at all well connected to the village and the infrastructure to support it. Other sites in the east of the village have the potential to be much better connected.
4. The current development of 51 homes on the small bottom section has already had a massive negative impact on the surrounding area.
This site should be rejected as an option;
1. Far larger than required to meet the inflated demand for 248 houses.
2. Is a site of great natural beauty and given the scale shown would extend almost to Tupton apart from a very narrow ribbon of land.
3. Not at all well connected to the village and the infrastructure to support it. Other sites in the east of the village have the potential to be much better connected.
4. The current development of 51 homes on the small bottom section has already had a massive negative impact on the surrounding area.
Comment
Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2312
Received: 30/03/2015
Respondent: Rippon Homes
Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)
Object to Sustainability Appraisal of Site WW/1605. It doesn't assess reduced 9.5ha area (2014 call for sites), but entire 19ha landholding.
SA scored 19ha landholding poorly. 9.5ha site is Flood Zone 1 which is not a constraint, and has capacity for 250 dwellings, including market and affordable.
Disagree with assessment of landscape/biodiversity impacts. Site is well screened and contained between new housing to south and woodland to north/east.
9.5ha site is suitable for development, is similar character to appeal site, can be developed without harm to character of Wingerworth or surrounding landscape. Could deliver 250 dwellings within 5 years.
See attached
Comment
Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2361
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Historic England
Site WW/1609 could also affect the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets.
See attachment
Comment
Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2525
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England
Site considered generally detrimental to the rural identity of the settlement or its countryside surroundings.
See attached