Response from Mr and Mrs Peter and Sue Manville (Individual)
1. Mr and Mrs Peter and Sue Manville (Individual) : 22 Jul 2008 11:28:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Neither support nor oppose - just want to comment
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
4. the proposal for light industry at Four Lane Ends is stupid. It is not needed. It would increase traffic and lead to increased expenditure on footpath and lighting throughout the village in order to maintain safe access in the village.
Please use this space if you wish to set out a new option for consideration.
1. Infill sites should be taken into account in the total numbers. i.e an application for a 2 bed property at 2 Chapel Close will be submitted shortly.
2. The reallocation of exisiting underused industrial land to housing should be considered before any new greenfield developement.
3.the high level woodland between Burntbarrow and Throughs Lane could accomodate at least 10 small properties without building on productive land. heathwaite and Greenbank Avenue both prove that sites such as this should not be discounted.