Further : Planning Query WS38 / HAM05
Thank you very much for the helpful information. I have now been able to see one response relating to rep ALP/1834, including drawings of the proposed site on the previously filtered out WS38 on behalf of Crabtree & Crabtree who I assume are the developers.
Is there any way to understand the reasons WS38 was filtered out as not viable in stage 3 of the draft planning process? My guess beforehand was something to do with the landowner seeing as it got to stage 3.
As this plan appears to include playing fields for the school (at least in its current form), how might this work with S31 (another assumption that the landowners/main beneficiaries of these two sites are not related) would you think it would be competing with that plan and only one would get the allocation/go ahead?
The questions you have raised are similar to the ones members of the Parish Council have.
I recently emailed ABC about the omission sites and was told: ‘The only additional information would be from the representations for the omission sites themselves. These are now publically available to view via the council’s website. We haven’t had the chance to assess them in any detail yet.’
The Parish Council have no idea if the omission sites are instead of or as well as site 31. Members hope that once ABC have assessed the sites they will be willing to meet with the Parish Council to discuss them.
The minutes of Parish Council meetings can be found on their website they should also let you see what members know and what is being discussed.