H1.7 Land South West of Belmesthorpe Lane, Ryhall 12 dwellings (brownfield within PLD)

Object

Representation ID: 4912

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The Table no.4 on page 82 states 153 houses are needed as a minimum after allowing for commitments & competitions yet this section on the contribution required from Larger Villages confusingly states 184 houses. A discrepancy of 31. This means that the Section 18 Consultation is invalid as the public are being asked to agree to inaccurate and contradictory information. What are we being asked to agree to 153 or 184?
I understand the application to develop this site has been revised and now represents 11 new houses and not 12 as shown.
Numbers are important, inaccuracy is acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 4917

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

Development of this site is reasonable as it represents an acceptable infilling on brown field land between Gwash Close and Gwash Meadows developments . I believe the number of houses proposed is now 11 not 12. The valuation of new housing in Ryhall should also include the 11 houses proposed on the Trout Farm. No further development of the Trout Farm toward Belmesthorpe should be permitted as this would challenge the separate identity of Ryhall and Belmesthorpe by eroding the exiting undeveloped buffer.

Support

Representation ID: 6336

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support in principle this development on a brownfield site.

Support

Representation ID: 6458

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Linda Davies

This size of development within the village I would ordinarily consider to be a reasonable size development within Ryhall and Belmesthorpe villages and subsequently contributing to the overall County Plan. However, I believe you have stated a 12 house development but our Parish Council Representative states this as 11. This error instils unprofessional integrity by the County Council Planners. Accurate communication is vital when informing and requesting residents to engage with such an important issue.

Object

Representation ID: 6633

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rick Wilson

I feel that this site is inappropriate due to its proximity to the river. Very recent flooding problems are evidence that this location can cause problems in the future. It will also place extra burden on local traffic, both during the construction phase and when complete.

Object

Representation ID: 7620

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

This allocation has small areas of flood zones 2 and 3. Any development applications would need to be supported with a detailed site specific flood risk assessment which is in line with the NPPF and policy CC14 of the Local Plan.