Question 10

Showing comments and forms 421 to 450 of 530

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 10987

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Gardner

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes - I agree, but infrastructure is very weak (i.e. drainage) in Rectory Chase at the moment. Flooding can be a problem. Waiting time at the doctors is also high and the school is full.

Q3: Yes - 185 Rectory Chase. Development, of the type mentioned, would create chronic traffic problems. Access is very restricted. This site could only really cope with one or two houses.

Q4: A127. Although there are congestion problems here, the A12 also suffers severe congestion problems.

Q5: No.

Q6: Develop greenfield sites on the edge of villages, which would then require additional infrastructure.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - Retail in Brentwood is awful. Far too many eating places but very few quality shops.

Q9: Yes, along the stream (River Wid) at the back of 185 Rectory Chase. It could be a lovely area, full of wildlife, and follow the footpath.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ recreation facilities: 2

Q12: Congestion 185 Rectory Chase. Could not take the level of traffic, proposed development would create, drainage is also very important.

Q13: Drainage, education, healthcare, road maintenance, preservation of community leisure and culture.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11000

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Alison Bowyer

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor recreation/ leisure use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - village life and feel: 5+

Full text:

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes - The road and rail infrastructure not able to take any more.

Q3: Yes - Site 200 Dunton Garden Suburb would be my choice giving the buffer of land to maintain West Horndon as a village as we would like. This is why we moved here not to be a town!

Q4: Again site 200 due to new infrastructure being laid down as a new site and not making do with already crowded roads around and in West Horndon.

Q5: Yes - The A12 should have the ability to meet and help on this any suitable site should also be looked at rather than all in just one location which overpopulates.

Q6: Brownfield site should always be put ahead of Green Belt. This was done originally to protect our countryside and what live in it. I think this has been forgotten.

Q7: Yes - We do not want the existing site changed to housing but agree that any working /employment needs to be on public transport links.

Q8: Yes - We need our own shops but are happy with existing we need to make sure that our local shops stay "alive" and build these up primary.

Q9: Yes - This would be good if the Dunton Garden Suburb goes ahead as this will give access to Thorndon Park. Not so if West Horndon is developed.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor recreation/ leisure use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - village life and feel: 5+

Q11:
Houses: 2
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ recreation facilities: 2
Other - Cleanliness around the road coming into the village: -1

Q12: Yes - Many and what if anything West Horndon can take. We are really only two roads!

Q13: Top priority otherwise you will grid lock on area which is already bursting! Hospitals, Drs and schools need to be in with these not just transport links. These are main reasons for concern. We do feel that West Horndon is treated like the poor side of Brentwood and you would rather spoil our area than any other more lucrative points on the A12 side of the Borough.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11016

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Roger Leftley

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11027

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Ian Churley

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

Q1: Yes

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - 185 Currently good break between housing and open space. In Green Belt which should not be eroded. Only has 2.7m road in for access (I own other 1m). Village does not need extending into Green Belt currently rural and should stay this way.

Q4: Need to keep villages in current settings, any brownfield sites should be considered.

Q5: No.

Q6: Develop brownfield but not Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Good provision at present.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Making current roads safe. Direct access from A12 to Brentwood centre. Transport in village and surrounds poor so should be no further development.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11039

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Sweeney

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11046

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Barbara May Offord

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 2
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

Q3: Yes - I am writing in response to the planning application 1216 in relation to the proposed housing development in Doddinghurst, directly opposite my house.
I moved into my house in December 2014, and I have only found out about this proposal in the last couple of days from neighbours. From the information I have been supplied with, the consultation commenced in July to Sept 2013, however, none of these proposals showed up with any searches that were carried out by my solicitor on my behalf.

Further more, my solicitor was unable to discover whom the roadway in front of my property belonged to, and insurance had to be taken out to cover the legal costs should an owner turn up and try to prevent or obstruct access to my property. This roadway is a single-track dirt road, which has to be maintained at the expense and by the local residents who live on this dirt track. Potholes are a frequent problem from the small amount of traffic that currently uses it. One of the manholes was smashed by a delivery lorry, which had to be repaired by on the utility companies last summer.

Searches on my property also revealed that my property lies in a flood area. The edge of the building plot currently has a stream running along side of it. If this field is built on, will it increase the risk of my property, and my neighbours' property of being flooded, as the field will no longer be able to retain the floodwater?

I have downsized and moved to this quiet rural area overlooking green fields. Had I been aware of this proposed building development, at the time, I would never have purchased my property, as I would not wish to look over a play space and a housing estate.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be used first before Green Belt.

Q9: No - This area is rural and we want to keep it that way.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 2
Tranquility: 5

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

Q12: Minimal bus routes. Flood area. Open streams. Small roads and numerous parked cars. Unadopted, unmade road in front of 72, 74, 76 Peartree Lane.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11052

Received: 11/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Maher

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 4
Other - Close knit community: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11065

Received: 14/04/2015

Respondent: Mrs. June Sykes

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
(Other) Contributing to making Brentwood a good place to live: 5

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11070

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Herietta Riches

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - Clean air and no noise pollution: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11079

Received: 14/04/2015

Respondent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
(Other) Wonderful community spirit: 5

Full text:

See attachement.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11094

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Stuart Lucas

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11109

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr. Jack Thorpe

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 3
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4
Other - Community Spirit: 4

Full text:

Q1: Yes - The three areas have different requirements, so it seems logical to split them.

Q2: No - The A127 corridor is already at or over capacity in rush hours. If there is more building in this area, where will all the traffic go?

Q3: Yes - Change of use of the industrial site to housing is logical as it is a brownfield site. However, West Horndon villagers value their way of life and do not want to see a too great enlargement of the village.

Q4: A12 corridor. The A127 would need an extra lane to cater for additional traffic as a result of more housing. There may be room for more building but there is a big penalty in infrastructure.

Q5: Yes - There is more capacity in this area without too much penalty in future traffic requirements.

Q6: The Green Belt has been carefully protected in the past. Brownfield sites should be used where available.

Q7: Yes - Employment opportunities are necessary but they must be accessible by road or public transport.

Q8: Yes - Brentwood Council should reduce business rates and parking charges to encourage more people to shop in Brentwood instead of 'out of town supermarkets'.

Q9: Yes - West Horndon would benefit greatly from the provision of a footbridge over the A127 to enable the easier use of Thorndon Park.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 3
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4
Other - Community Spirit: 4

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

Q12: Yes - Traffic volumes on all local roads needs careful consideration. Also parking requirements for rail users.

Q13: All items of infrastructure related to the amount of building in particular areas.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11124

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Town

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 2

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11146

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs. Daphne Gilbert

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Tranquility: 3

Full text:

Q1: No - Do not feel able to comment.

Q2: See Q1 comment.

Q3: Yes - Have already registered objections to proposed development of site 011A, and new extensions 011B, 011C and 0176 are not welcome either.

Q4: Not able to make any useful comment.

Q5: No - Better to fill in brownfield sites within the urban areas to prevent urban spread.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes and No - Not sure - more traffic on motorways?

Q8: Yes - We need good shops, but not so many eating places. A cinema would be nice as well.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Tranquility: 3

Q11:
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: Yes - Pressure on services, i.e. doctors etc.

Q13: Improvement on roads and faster rail service from Brentwood to London.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11162

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jean Sibbald

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

Q1: Yes - It makes sense to spread the housing growth across the Borough.

Q2: No - The A127 is already overloaded as is the rail network Fenchurch Street to Southend. We value our open spaces as much as the people in the north of the borough.

Q3: Yes - This area cannot take this development either on brownfield sites or Green Belt land. Consider the risk of flooding.

Q4: To develop adjacent to this village (or over develop the industrial site) would destroy this village. It seems that Dunton Garden village is the ideal solution.

Q5: Yes - We feel that the A12 corridor has the most potential for growth.

Q6: Develop (within reason) brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes - But only if the strategic highway network can cope? Does the A127 fall into this category?

Q8: Yes - Consideration must be given to maintain town centre.

Q9: No - Unless desire is made to build on Green Belt the answer is NO. Certainly develop brownfield sites.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

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

Q12: No - The amount of development proposed for West Horndon cannot take place without the road and rail network being massively improved and we cannot imagine this being accomplished.

Q13: All categories concerning every day living should be prioritised simultaneously.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11175

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Duncan

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Tranquility: 4

Full text:

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: No - Who would want to live on a busy, noisy major road.

Q6: Brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Leave as it is.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Tranquility: 4

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

Q12: No.

Q13: That will depend on how much the government is prepared to give.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11197

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Dunn

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11205

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline MacDonald

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Tranquility: 4

Full text:

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: Dunton corridor.

Q5: No - Nobody wants to live on a major road.

Q6: Brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Tranquility: 4

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

Q12: No.

Q13: Spear to Eric Pickles.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11224

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Robert Skingley

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Low density housing: 5

Full text:

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Dunton site and others along A127 are the most suitable as they have good transport links and are currently underdeveloped. West Horndon has both rail and road connections.

Q4: Dunton Garden village A127. West Horndon A127 and rail links both relatively underdeveloped.

Q5: No - No! This area is already heavily developed. Green Belt fringes are essential for open space and the well being of all residents in this area. Green Belt here has beauty and is environmentally essential, for wildlife and residents.

Q6: No - Brownfield sites offer the best opportunities. None of the negativities of greenfield developments.

Q7: No - Not necessarily - Anywhere with road access or rail access.

Q8: No - Parking is an issue in Brentwood. Out of town shopping centres are preferred by shoppers where parking is free, i.e. Pipps Hill, Mayflower, Chelmer village - all out of the borough. Brentwood should aim to compete.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Low density housing: 5

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

Q12: Yes - Main infrastructure issues considered.

Q13: Improving Ongar Road access to Brentwood at busy times. Free available parking to encourage rail use (not for commuter parking but for local residents outside of commuter peak times).

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11247

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Christina Atkins

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

Q1: No - Overall we agree but have reservation about option 5.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Brownfield sites.

Q4: The Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No to greenfield, yes to brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Many people visit Blackmore Village because it has history and also retains its identity and charm as a 'small village'. It is imperative that Blackmore village is kept as it is for future generations to enjoy. This village is surrounded by farmland and is not a continuation of Doddinghurst and this is how it should remain. Although some building has taken place over the last few years most villagers think that this is now enough!

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Sheltered housing for the elderly must be considered.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11265

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Denis Nobbs

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11287

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr James Beenham

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11300

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Hills

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Easy access, less traffic congestion: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11313

Received: 16/04/2015

Respondent: Mr W P Wix

Representation Summary:

10/10. We moved here 29 years ago because it was a small village surrounded by Green Belt.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11353

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Lukas Warren

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11358

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: MRS JANE MILES

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11379

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Anthony Warren

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11383

Received: 16/04/2015

Respondent: David and Lesley Peterson

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation /Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historical Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11403

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Linda Warren

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11416

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Ms Martine Schweyer

Representation Summary:

Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: