Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 23273

Received: 03/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Trevor Bennett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site is not legally compliant on the grounds of lack of consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
This site is not sound due to the lack of consultation on infrastructure in respect of education, health and social care and green infrastructure.

Change suggested by respondent:

The second site for Aylsham under Reg. 19 should be withdrawn as it is not sound nor legally compliant.

Full text:

This site is not legally compliant on the grounds of lack of consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
This site is not sound due to the lack of consultation on infrastructure in respect of education, health and social care and green infrastructure.

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 23304

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Owen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site is not legally compliant because there has been no consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
This site is not suitable owing to the lack of consultation on infrastructure its environmental impact in respect of education, health and social care and green infrastructure.

Change suggested by respondent:

Regulation 19 should be withdrawn.

Full text:

This site is not legally compliant because there has been no consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
This site is not suitable owing to the lack of consultation on infrastructure its environmental impact in respect of education, health and social care and green infrastructure.

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 23309

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lorna Ashworth

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This site is not legally compliant on the grounds of lack of consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
This site is not sound due to the lack of consultation on infrastructure in respect of education, health and social care and green infrastructure.

.

Change suggested by respondent:

The second site for Aylsham under Reg. 19 should be withdrawn as it is not sound nor legally compliant

Full text:

This site is not legally compliant on the grounds of lack of consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
This site is not sound due to the lack of consultation on infrastructure in respect of education, health and social care and green infrastructure.

.

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 23317

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Patience

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

There has been no consultation with the Town Council or the residents of Aylsham regarding this second site under Regulation 19 so it is not legally compliant. As there has also been no consultation regarding infrastructure for this site it is not sound.

Change suggested by respondent:

Regulation 19 failed to consider the impact of two sites on the infrastructure needs of the town including schools, health facilities, roads and utilities so this second site should be rejected.

Full text:

There has been no consultation with the Town Council or the residents of Aylsham regarding this second site under Regulation 19 so it is not legally compliant. As there has also been no consultation regarding infrastructure for this site it is not sound.

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 23321

Received: 07/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David Patience

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Lack of public consultation at all on Aylsham having two sites
A very concerning matter indeed.

Change suggested by respondent:

The second site for Aylsham Regulation 19 should be withdrawn, as it is not sound nor legally
compliant and should be rejected.

Full text:

Lack of public consultation at all on Aylsham having two sites
A very concerning matter indeed.

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 23512

Received: 12/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Smyth

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This Norwich Rd site is not legally compliant as there was no consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
Also not sound because of no consultation or consideration of infrastructure or environmental damage.

Change suggested by respondent:

This second site from Reg19 should be scrapped as it not sound or legally compliant.

Full text:

This Norwich Rd site is not legally compliant as there was no consultation on Aylsham having two sites.
Also not sound because of no consultation or consideration of infrastructure or environmental damage.

Object

Publication

Representation ID: 24144

Received: 21/03/2021

Respondent: Norfolk Homes Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: Cornerstone Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 4.8

It should be noted that whilst Norfolk Homes have indicated - through the submitted masterplan for the site - that there would be two points of vehicular/pedestrian access to Norwich Road, and a footpath/cycleway/emergency access to Buxton Road, there is no means or intention to access Copeman Road. The latter would require third party land, over which Norfolk Homes has no control. It is therefore recommended that reference to Copeman Road be deleted.

The error should be corrected in order to make the Plan sound.

Change suggested by respondent:

See above

Full text:

Representations regarding site GNLP0596R in Aylsham submitted by Cornerstone Planning on behalf of Norfolk Homes

See attachment for masterplan

Attachments: