Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 8132

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Lionel Bent

Representation Summary:

Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 1
Nature reserves / wildlife: 4
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Full text:

Q1: No - I agree there should be areas earmarked but not in the Blackmore village areas.

Q2: Yes - Apart from Blackmore.

Q3: The two sites in Blackmore are not suitable. i.e. Provisions of services. The sites are and make the village enclosed by nature and not a large volume of new houses.

Q5: No - Most of these areas are Green Belt hence I do not agree to accommodate.

Q6: Preferably Green Belt not on the area of villages.

Q7: Yes - But separate sites to villages and for school / medical to be more self contained. Water / sewage etc.

Q8: Yes - I agree that unused or not new sites in towns could contain more town accommodation.

Q9: No - A village is a special place to live, selected by people who want this environment. To provide open space will transform our village to town. The traveller have not been needed. This seems our land contribution.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Walking and Dog Walks: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 1
Nature reserves / wildlife: 4
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: No - What infrastructures / there are none in the 2x areas in Blackmore. These are farmlands with horses etc.

Q13: Don't understand the question.
I agree areas must be earmarked but I would like to see new small towns built. i.e. Harlow / Aylesbury etc. Not in rural villages which occupants settled expecting what they see/have. Not an overgrowth of people who could go elsewhere like NEW TOWNS. Very much against Blackmore considerations.

Attachments: