3.7

Object

Representation ID: 2483

Received: 27/02/2023

Respondent: Mr Geoff Gamble

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The settlement boundary for Aslacton as shown in 3.7(2) is not sound.
Before the Coopers Close development the property and grounds known as Boundary Villa were isolated and there was the Scrapyard between it and any other properties. Now with Coopers Close infilling where the scrapyard was there is an uninterrupted line of buildings up to the Church Road Muir Lane crossroads.
In addition with the proposed development on the North side of Church Road being put forward this will create a settlement boundary on the North side extending to the crossroads above.
This is illogical.

Object

Representation ID: 3092

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Ms Natalie Westgate

Number of people: 5

Agent: Mr Magnus Magnusson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Please see supporting Statement (PDF) appended to this submission for reasoning as to why the Reg. 19 consultation draft is potentially unsound with the omission of my clients' site as an allocation and/or inclusion within the settlement boundary of Great Moulton & Aslacton (see Part B in particular).
Part A of the statement (PDF) is intended to affirm the suitability, availability and achievability of my client's site as an allocation and/or inclusion within the settlement boundary (to facilitate windfall development) within the context of the emerging VCHAP. It is also requested that the information provided in this section informed the assessment of sites undertaken by the Council as part of their next review of the Hosing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) that will in itself inform any future reviews of the VCHAP once adopted.