Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

Object

Representation ID: 2228

Received: 03/02/2012

Every site is unique and should be treated as such. Unfortunately precedent from one site has been allowed to influence development of "broadly similar" (but specifically very different) sites. Each site need solutions based on its own geology.

Support

Representation ID: 2339

Received: 13/02/2012

I do not think that the current policy DG21 should be altered and should be carried forward in its entirety with stricter guidelines on how applications with site stability and land drainage issues should be handled. This will give the LPA a chance to start again and forget previous mistakes to the detriment of the local residents. As it is the LPA has left themselves open to abuse from the developers I do not want our estate to be used as a bargaining tool by unscrupulous developers to get planning permission for controversial sites without the correct procedures being followed.

Support

Representation ID: 2394

Received: 02/04/2012

Please see my comments objecting to the single policy - Option 1.

Object

Representation ID: 2513

Received: 25/04/2012

It seems that by submitting objections and comments manually that your words can be misconstrued. It is my opinion that guidelines and guidance are exactly that, and are not necessarily adhered to. They can be misconstrued or ignored if necessary. PPG14 is a government guideline on land stability that was written for LPAs to follow, but is rarely referred to, and is never used in the determining of a planning application. Each planning application should be determined on its own merits and not compared unfavourably to any other site.