Object

Representation ID: 26284

Received: 28/02/2020

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Comments above are mainly pulled from our response to policy DM4 of the local plan. These have been reiterated here in the introduction section to the site allocation document because our comments cannot be site specific until the SFRA and Gipping model are complete.

Object

Representation ID: 26331

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan is poorly prepared and presented and is very difficult to read. It lacks justification and its policies are neither useful to developers or decisionmakers. It is the most poorly presented plan in the region. It needs to demonstrate cross boundary working as happens in Greater Norwich and Greater Cambridge and it needs criteria based policies so that it can be held to account by the public and used successfully by developers. It is vague and the environmental impacts are not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 26333

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The plan has not been positively prepared and is poorly presented in an illogical way. There is no cooperation between local authorities such as has happened around Cambridge or Norwich. The plan contains disjointed lists of sites and does nothing to assist decision makers to establish what is or is not acceptable or how various constraints would be overcome.