Response from Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual) : 25 Apr 2016 13:27:00
Please make your comments in the box below and refer specifically to the reference number of each site you are commenting on.
B118 & B119.
These two sites form part of the (original) B81
I repeat my comments submitted in December 2015:-
“This site should be used for housing. At present it is a bit of an eyesore and not at all in keeping with an AONB.”
B121.
This appears to be identical to the (original) B116.
I repeat my comment submitted in December 2015:-
“This site should be excluded. It is greenfield and has severe access difficulties which are not capable of resolution at a sustainable/economic cost.”
B122.
Approximately half the site, the southern half/the old coal yard, is part of the (original) B81. In respect of that part, I repeat my comment submitted in December 2015:-
“This site should be used for housing. At present it is a bit of an eyesore and not at all compatible with an AONB.”
I note that B118, B119 and the southern part of B122 comprise almost all of the (original) B81, apart from Quarry Lane.
With regard to the northern half of B122, this is greenfield and should not be developed.
B123.
This is an isolated site. It is often waterlogged and is prone to flooding. It is greenfield.
It should not be developed.
B124.
This is part of the (original) B81.
I repeat my comment submitted in December 2015:-
“The site should be used for housing. At present it is a bit of an eyesore and not at all compatible with an AONB.”
B125. (The Ship Inn.)
This is a completely new site.
If the (original) B81 is to be redeveloped as housing, then there is some logic in including this site within that development.
However, the existing pub is a useful asset to the village and area, it is also a local landmark and focal point.
It has considerable character and the building should be retained.
B120, S126, S127 and W128.
I have no comments regarding these sites.
