Object

Representation ID: 99503

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Stopit2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

M25.9 is misleading in that it infers that the only reason Planning was refused and the appeal in 2014 was rejected, was the part of the proposed development south of the B1136. This is not the case. In his proof of evidence in 2014, Simon Smith (Planning NCC) quotes the original grounds for refusal, including “The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development, including the construction of artificial bunds and land-raised areas would be detrimental to the appearance and rural character of the area” and “The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents due to increased noise, dust and traffic that would arise from the proposed quarry” which applies to the area as a whole, not just in the proximity of St Mary’s church. This is unsound and not positively prepared