|
Post by admin on Nov 14, 2023 10:32:14 GMT
Ban placed on DHL car transporters using residential street to access East of England Showground - peterboroughtoday 14/11/23A car storage depot operator has been banned from using a residential street for access to the East of England Showground. Logistics firm DHL has been told it can no longer use Dunblane Drive in Orton Southgate as a route for its car transporters to get to and from the Showground. Instead vehicles will be re-routed to enter along Joseph Odam Way, which is a purpose built main road to the Showground. The ban has been imposed by Peterborough City Council while it is involved in talks with Showground operator AEPG after councillors rejected its retrospective application for a five year change of use to the Showground for a car storage and maintenance depot by DHL. The storage depot, which employs 160 staff, (context ) is still in operation while AEPG representatives talks to council officers about a possible solution following the application’s rejection. The depot began operating in about February this year and triggered many complaints from residents in and around Dunblane Drive angry at the sudden appearance of car transporters, which householders claimed caused blockages and dangers on the roads. DHL says there are eight transporter movements a day. A council spokesperson said: “With effect from November 10, agreement has been reached that access to the showground by DHL via Dunblane Drive is prohibited.“DHL will take down directional signage and a dedicated individual will be in place along the road for two weeks to ensure any drivers unaware are re-routed via the parkway to enter along Joseph Odam Way – a purpose built main road to the showground.
It adds: “DHL is currently undertaking highways modelling work which will be checked and verified by the council ahead of submission to January’s planning meeting, detailing Joseph Odam Way as the only access road.
“The Dunblane Drive access has been removed from the planning application, which means it cannot be used by DHL.The spokesperson said: “We understand residents have been significantly affected by the frequency of HGVs passing through and hope to reassure that this is not allowed to continue, supporting the planning committee’s grounds for objection. “As a responsible body, we have a duty of care to all individuals in the community and believe this solution safeguards the jobs DHL highlighted as at risk, whilst addressing the disruption to the community.” Councillor Julie Stevenson said: “While Orton Southgate residents will breathe a sigh of relief, this news is causing great distress to residents of Orton Northgate, in particular residents of East of England Way and Arena Drive, whose homes back onto the internal showground road the transporters will be using. “It seems to me that the needs of both AEPG and DHL are being put before the needs of local people, despite the council’s own planning committee ruling otherwise. She said: “The matter will be raised at a meeting of the planning committee in January, and I expect a delegation of very angry Orton Northgate residents will be represented. She added: “It also begs a question about the speedway."If it’s now okay for AEPG/DHL to use the Northgate entrance, does this mean the speedway can continue for the duration?” A spokesperson for AEPG said: “We have no further comment to make on this matter at the current time.” - I bet you don't
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Nov 14, 2023 13:08:46 GMT
It seems to me we are entitled to know what went on regarding the much vaunted takeover of Panthers and the ensuing disappearance of the land of milk and honey that was hinted at when takeover completed. I do not see how anybody can think Panthers have a long term future at the Showground.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 14, 2023 16:03:51 GMT
It seems to me we are entitled to know what went on regarding the much vaunted takeover of Panthers and the ensuing disappearance of the land of milk and honey that was hinted at when takeover completed. I do not see how anybody can think Panthers have a long term future at the Showground. Having looked at this again yesterday I think that it was the lack of any certainty past Oct 31 2023. One assumes that Tomalin thought that he could get Butterfield to shift his position, but when it became clear that he wouldn't then he moved away from that deal but decided to take a promotion/management position which also fell through for some reason. That's the best that I can come up with but sounds logical? A future, long term or short, is going to take something drastic to happen. If the opposition stays strong and doesn't wane (and that would be my concern with a fallow, at the very least, Panthers year) then I wouldn't be quite as negative. The applications are now being scrutinised and questioned. That is uncomfortable for AEPG who are good at telling you how it is but pretty crap at explaining how they got there and what evidence they have. PCC will have to justify their decisions with the public watching and paying very close attention and that's going to be very uncomfortable for PCC. Having said that, the evidence at the moment says that you're correct but if everybody was so defeatist then nothing would ever change. PCC could approve the 650 (as per the local plan), ignore AEPG trying to get out of their LP30 responsibilities and say that they have to provide the like for like provision on site or at an alternative location in the city, that could be interesting? Our biggest problem is an owner who's not interested in the club and doesn't seemingly want to do a deal for someone else to have a go. Unless that's resolved we're stuffed.
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Nov 14, 2023 18:32:44 GMT
It seems to me we are entitled to know what went on regarding the much vaunted takeover of Panthers and the ensuing disappearance of the land of milk and honey that was hinted at when takeover completed. I do not see how anybody can think Panthers have a long term future at the Showground. Having looked at this again yesterday I think that it was the lack of any certainty past Oct 31 2023. One assumes that Tomalin thought that he could get Butterfield to shift his position, but when it became clear that he wouldn't then he moved away from that deal but decided to take a promotion/management position which also fell through for some reason. That's the best that I can come up with but sounds logical? A future, long term or short, is going to take something drastic to happen. If the opposition stays strong and doesn't wane (and that would be my concern with a fallow, at the very least, Panthers year) then I wouldn't be quite as negative. The applications are now being scrutinised and questioned. That is uncomfortable for AEPG who are good at telling you how it is but pretty crap at explaining how they got there and what evidence they have. PCC will have to justify their decisions with the public watching and paying very close attention and that's going to be very uncomfortable for PCC. Having said that, the evidence at the moment says that you're correct but if everybody was so defeatist then nothing would ever change. PCC could approve the 650 (as per the local plan), ignore AEPG trying to get out of their LP30 responsibilities and say that they have to provide the like for like provision on site or at an alternative location in the city, that could be interesting? Our biggest problem is an owner who's not interested in the club and doesn't seemingly want to do a deal for someone else to have a go. Unless that's resolved we're stuffed. Not only that (and something funny going on there) but showground owners not exactly supportive!! difficult to disagree with their contention that Panthers ownership has changed nearly each year, several times future in doubt due to this, so from their perspective why should they consider Speedway which to say the least has been tenuous for a number of years. Nobody is going to keep Showground open just for Speedway where year after year the future regards ownership has been in doubt. Apart from Frost we have never had an owner with the desire or financial clout to get a grip in situation where realistically the only way was to buy the Showground.
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Nov 15, 2023 19:44:16 GMT
We need and deserve to know why early seasons comments, predictions affirmations etc went wrong. Again as always the paying public are treated with disdain, yet we will be essential again if and when a solution is reached.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 15, 2023 22:41:37 GMT
We need and deserve to know why early seasons comments, predictions affirmations etc went wrong. Again as always the paying public are treated with disdain, yet we will be essential again if and when a solution is reached. I thought the same Rodders but looked back at the PR at the time and something clearly happened around the longevity of the club, although only a season was mentioned/known anyway, and someone wanted too much or someone wanted it on the cheap? I'm not saying who is to blame? Clearly that left Chapman unexpectedly in someone else's expensive mess and the rest is history. You just have to read between the lines and come to your own conclusion because you're only ever going to get the scraps that they want you to have. You've been round long enough now
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Nov 18, 2023 8:11:03 GMT
Not exactly ideal conditions for todays protest!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Nov 18, 2023 9:54:24 GMT
Not exactly ideal conditions for todays protest!!! A lot better than it was, now stopped raining which is a good start
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Nov 18, 2023 10:05:38 GMT
Having looked at this again yesterday I think that it was the lack of any certainty past Oct 31 2023. One assumes that Tomalin thought that he could get Butterfield to shift his position, but when it became clear that he wouldn't then he moved away from that deal but decided to take a promotion/management position which also fell through for some reason. That's the best that I can come up with but sounds logical? A future, long term or short, is going to take something drastic to happen. If the opposition stays strong and doesn't wane (and that would be my concern with a fallow, at the very least, Panthers year) then I wouldn't be quite as negative. The applications are now being scrutinised and questioned. That is uncomfortable for AEPG who are good at telling you how it is but pretty crap at explaining how they got there and what evidence they have. PCC will have to justify their decisions with the public watching and paying very close attention and that's going to be very uncomfortable for PCC. Having said that, the evidence at the moment says that you're correct but if everybody was so defeatist then nothing would ever change. PCC could approve the 650 (as per the local plan), ignore AEPG trying to get out of their LP30 responsibilities and say that they have to provide the like for like provision on site or at an alternative location in the city, that could be interesting? Our biggest problem is an owner who's not interested in the club and doesn't seemingly want to do a deal for someone else to have a go. Unless that's resolved we're stuffed. Not only that (and something funny going on there) but showground owners not exactly supportive!! difficult to disagree with their contention that Panthers ownership has changed nearly each year, several times future in doubt due to this, so from their perspective why should they consider Speedway which to say the least has been tenuous for a number of years. Nobody is going to keep Showground open just for Speedway where year after year the future regards ownership has been in doubt. Apart from Frost we have never had an owner with the desire or financial clout to get a grip in situation where realistically the only way was to buy the Showground. Buttercup needs to be told or realises at some point that his current plans are in tatters and won’t be passed as it stands, if he continues to refuse to speak to the consortium he is going to hit a wall at some stage where his backers want assurances but surely at some point he is going to have to speak to someone or reinstate some other form of revenue, this won’t end well for him if he continues to dig his heels in. With successes at Oxford, Lakeside and Coventry against land owners the tide seems to be turning and following on from that it now appears from news today that Swindon might be close as well, News from Carl (on the radio) yesterday is that the consortium are close to buying the club and hoped to finalise it this week but with Chapman at the AGM it appears that deadline has passed but new owners by the end of the month will help.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 18, 2023 17:50:27 GMT
News from Carl (on the radio) yesterday is that the consortium are close to buying the club and hoped to finalise it this week but with Chapman at the AGM it appears that deadline has passed but new owners by the end of the month will help. Sounds logical but close in today's world is effectively a million miles away until the ink is dry. Chapman's job is done now so AEPG are no doubt well pleased. He's seemingly handed over a mess and unnecessary fight to those who love the club and want it to survive. It's hard think that either of those things crossed his mind? He's probably plundered some of Panthers assets and thinks that some fools from along the A47 will be tempted to finance his pension pot as he allegedly tries to offload Lynn as well in 2024. Why that matters IMO is here in yesterday's AEPG statement: That has all now given them the opportunity to argue that the service provided by the facility is met by alternative provision (ie Kings Lynn) that exists within reasonable proximity: (missed off this bit) what is deemed as reasonable proximity will depend on the nature of the facility and its associated catchment areaThat's shows that AEPG know bugger all because IMO the NSS Manchester is the only UK track that provides anything like the service provided by the EoES. Imagine the scenario where Arena Essex is 30+ miles away and they said you can go there, it's all speedway Local Plan P6: Local Plan P9:
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 18, 2023 21:57:33 GMT
23/00400/OUT | Outline permission for up to 850 dwellings, Representation from Consultee (Web) Environment Agency 17/11/2023 - Environment Agency position: In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object to this application and recommend that planning permission is refused.
Nice addition to:
23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for up to 650 dwellings, Representation from Consultee (Web) Environment Agency 19/09/2023 - Environment Agency position: In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we object to this application and recommend that planning permission is refused.
Same action on both:
Overcoming our objection To overcome our objection, the applicant should submit a revised FRA which addresses the points highlighted.
If this cannot be achieved, we are likely to maintain our objection. Please consult us on any revised FRA submitted and we will respond within 21 days of receiving the formal re-consultation.
If the applicant is able to overcome our objection we will provide further advice in relation to the risk posed to controlled waters. (this sentence only in 23/00412/OUT)
Should you require any additional information, or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 19, 2023 14:56:23 GMT
AEPG said it "understood the disappointment" of Panthers' fans that speedway could not continue at the showground.
Two separate applications have been submitted for the site - the first would see all of the buildings demolished, except for the indoor arena, and 650 dwellings put in their place.
A second application would see a further 850 homes, a 250-bed hotel, the school and a leisure village created, which are expected to include bowling and mini-golf facilities.
AEPG added: "We are sorry to hear the club has not found a new home in this time."
BBC 19/11/23
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 22, 2023 9:57:01 GMT
23/00412/OUT | Outline permission for up to 650 dwellings 21/11/23 - another corker from Orton Commenter Type: Public Stance: Customer objectsComments: This application appears to be for housing. The allocation/master plan refers to housing and a "leisure village". The leisure village appears to be nothing more than a crazy golf facility and a hotel! The East of England Showground is a currently a major facility and leisure attraction for the benefit of the people of Peterborough. It also keeps the city in the national spotlight with its location just off the A1 and as the host of Truckfest and other similar nationally popular events. My own hope and anticipation was that the Leisure Village would be a significant development and improvement of the current facilities not the total loss of all the current facilities including speedway, the arena and the ability to host significant events. It seems that the idea that this was to be some kind of "leisure village" (whatever that means) was always deceitful on the part of the promoter/applicant. It was clearly never going to happen. It is essentially just a large housing estate with a Starbucks and a Premier Lodge on there which will be the "leisure" element. The speedway is something which many feel needs to be retained. It is has been an historic feature of Peterborough since 1967. The last thing needed is more sterile housing to replace a facility which keeps Peterborough in the national spotlight. The housing element here is going to realise a significant value to the current owners. Given the allocation, why can't some of that money be reinvested to create a state of the art and visionary development of facilities which could be a national centrepiece for Peterborough. A new Posh ground even go there with Speedway alongside it. The athletics track (which is also under threat) and a new or improved arena as a large-scale venue to attract bands and comedians could form part of a genuine large scale leisure scheme. (It is appreciated that Peterborough has never succeeded in attracting large bands and entertainers in the past, and is regarded as a bit of a cultural desert by many. But if the facility to accommodate such events isn't there, then it is never going to have a chance. Let us have some ambition). It is acknowledged that traffic has been a problem att large-scale events in the past, but that could be overcome by appropriate traffic management and creating more access/egress points. That would be part of the detail if the Council is inclined to challenge the developer's current proposals. In summary: I object due to the fact that this allocation was approved on the basis there would be a leisure village and what is proposed is nothing more than bog standard housing with a token gesture of two or three small scale so-called "leisure' activities. b0252
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 22, 2023 18:57:18 GMT
Getting down to the nitty gritty now:23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023 LP36 – East of England Showground LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilies Summary Those items particularly make interesting reading (follow link below)Planning Policy comments
|
|
|
Post by rodders on Nov 22, 2023 19:11:29 GMT
Getting down to the nitty gritty now:23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023 LP36 – East of England Showground LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilies Summary Those items particularly make interesting reading (follow link below)Planning Policy comments Comments re Speedway seem to me equivocal to say the least.What does it all mean? Fit for purpose before removal of track but no longer fit for purpose after APEG demanded track removed!!! What tangled webs we weave!!
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 22, 2023 21:28:01 GMT
Getting down to the nitty gritty now:23/00412/OUT Representation from Consultee (Web) PCC Policy 22/11/2023 LP36 – East of England Showground LP30 – Culture Leisure, Tourism and Community Facilies Summary Those items particularly make interesting reading (follow link below)Planning Policy comments Comments re Speedway seem to me equivocal to say the least.What does it all mean? Fit for purpose before removal of track but no longer fit for purpose after APEG demanded track removed!!! What tangled webs we weave!! It's pretty clear Rodders. PCC are aware that Peterborough Speedway was in perfect working order when the season ended and the infrastructure was handed back to AEPG. They are wise to AEPG throwing Panthers out and trashing the infrastructure to try to meet item k of LP30 but they are not necessarily buying it. Bratters saying at the rally that we can rebuild it anyway sort of takes the wind out of the AEPG sails. If they can convince PCC that they have met item k then there is no service provided which makes item l of LP 30 irrelevant. Similarly if there is no facility then they don't need provide an alternative, meeting item m of LP30k. The facility is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose and the site is not viable to be redeveloped for a new community facility; or l. The service provided by the facility is met by alternative provision that exists within reasonable proximity: what is deemed as reasonable proximity will depend on the nature of the facility and its associated catchment area; or m. The proposal includes the provision of a new facility of a similar nature and of a similar or greater size in a suitable on or off-site location. Under normal circumstances they'd get away with that but Sport England have complicated it by exposing AEPG's strategy to pull a fast one: The Speedway Control Bureau of whom are the governing body of British Speedway along with the British Speedway Promoters Ltd, the commercial body of British Speedway, would like to object to the planning applications at the East of England Showground in Peterborough
|
|
|
Post by Bigcatdiary on Nov 25, 2023 10:04:37 GMT
PCC Planning Dept have posted their comments on the two proposed Planning Applications on the 22nd November and it makes for interesting reading.
It’s 4 pages long so I haven’t copied and posted it.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 25, 2023 12:20:29 GMT
PCC Planning Dept have posted their comments on the two proposed Planning Applications on the 22nd November and it makes for interesting reading. It’s 4 pages long so I haven’t copied and posted it. We already covered that here borospeedway.proboards.com/post/42456 (PCC Planning Policy comments)
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 28, 2023 22:21:48 GMT
Pictures on BSPN seem to show pits buildings has also been removed . Not sure they belonged to Chapman. Tenuous link between supporters club and owners. Seems to me that post Frost club very much kept going by supporters club whose contribution towards capital outlay was crucial. Seems to be Butterfield at very best no more than a chancer. As for Chapman his record of self interest speaks for itself What's BSPN?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 5, 2023 21:52:18 GMT
Commenter Type: PublicStance: Customer made comments in supportComments: This planing proposal supports the requirement for additional housing as well as much needed additional leisure facilities to support Peterborough and its residents. A nimby from Stibbington (if not AEPG worker, friend or family)! Check out the address (PE8 6JX) on Google maps: a property facing open fields and landscape. They wouldn't be supporting if Butterfield's fantasy was across the road
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 7, 2023 17:51:37 GMT
Clear graphic from one of today's objections:
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 11, 2023 22:42:49 GMT
23/00412/OUT Application Supporting Document - Applicant response to PCC Policy comment05/12/2023
LP36 –East of England Showground
LP36 –East of England Showground Policy LP36 sets out the site-specific requirements for allocation LP35.7. This includes the requirements for a comprehensive master plan, which shows how the functioning showground will be retained. Proposals should not have any unacceptable impacts on the surrounding uses and especially nearby residential properties as well as the nearby village of Alwalton.
LPA Comments
The supporting text explains that: ‘The East of England Showground is a unique facility with a wide variety of land uses. Any proposal must be supported by a comprehensive master plan for the showground site and be subject to an assessment of the environmental and traffic impacts on the adjoining residential areas and surrounding road networks, and on the nearby village of Alwalton. Suitable measures will need to be taken to alleviate any adverse impacts.’ An illustrative master plan has been submitted showing the showground site (Land A and B) and suggests how the requirements of policy LP36 could be met. The applications propose to retain an element of the showground uses, via the retention and enhancement of the arena, providing conference facilities and through the non-residential elements of the proposed plans also provide employment opportunities in accordance with the policy. However, it is debatable whether the amount of showground uses retained would in fact be in accordance with the policy, as it will no longer be possible to hold large outdoor events such as ‘truckfest’, antique fairs and the speedway events on the site. The submitted master plan provides indicative layouts for development and densities. Lower densities are proposed adjacent to existing development but are particularly high in areas central to the site and could result in development that is not compatible with the retained showground uses or the wider area, including previous development on former showground land. Comments from the Environmental Health team should be considered. If each application is considered separately for Land A and Land B, then these applications, that would not meet the requirements of policy LP36. Land A meets the quantum of development set out in policy LP35 for 650 dwellings. But it does not meet the wider policy requirements as it is entirely residential development. This application does demonstrate how the showground will be retained.Whilst land B includes the retention of the showground facilities, The number of dwellings proposed is significantly in excess of the 650 stated in policy LP35 and will need to be justified. For both applications, it will also need to be made clear whether the existing highway network will be able to accommodate this increased level of additional development.
AEPG Response
It should be noted that the EESG site has been allocated for development under the provisions of the existing adopted Local Plan, which has undergone a full and rigorous sequential test to ensure the adequacy, suitability and deliverability of the sites identified.
The EESG was deemed to meet the criterion for adoption, which included the reduction of leisure use on site and no stipulation was placed over the level or range of activities to be retained on site. At the outset, it is important to detail that the current adopted Local Plan was formally adopted by Peterborough City Council (PCC) in July 2019, pre-covid.
Since that time, there has been a significant change in Government policies as well as consumer trends and social leisure requirements. Furthermore, as detailed in the Planning applications, the EESG has been operating at a financial loss for circa 10 years and the ongoing leisure use on site is no longer sustainable.
The Showground was originally brought together by the Agricultural Society to facilitate its own events (mainly the East of England Show) and meet its charitable aims through doing so. As the upkeep of the Showground required more investment the site was leased for other events to supplement income. By 2012 rising running costs and dwindling visitor numbers meant the Society had no choice but to make this the last year of the East of England Show. This impact has continued to be felt by the commercial shows which hire the site as they reduce in size but see rising running costs. The Showground is left with fewer events, very price sensitive organisers meaning it can’t increase rents as needed, and soaring utilities and labour costs amongst others. In combination this means it is no longer viable to continue. These difficulties are not unique and can be seen in the decision by PCC to nominate 79 for possible sale, repurposing or redevelopment.
For context, the EESG site is a secured site wherein there is no public access, with the exception of through ticketed events. The developments would provide open access through the removal of all security enclosures and provide access to all areas of the development, with continued access to all the leisure elements as well as walking into, around and out of the development areas. Landscaped areas and openspaces would be enjoyed year-round, not just be future occupiers of the developments but also by residents in adjoining areas. The access into the development and the leisure facilities will result in significant betterment over the existing limited (ticketed) use of the site.
The retention of the arena building would ensure that viable and sustainable leisure elements would be able to continue alongside the suite of additional leisure elements (which are set out in the application documents). Due to the changing nature of the leisure industry and the demands of consumers, it is necessary to provide leisure facilities which better accommodate the shortfall in existing provisions in the locality and future needs of all local residents on a regular basis, rather than a niche market which, as stated, is not financially viable. The new proposed leisure will appeal to a wider demographic and be operational for a greater period of the year, as on the whole the current offering is highly seasonal.
The retention of leisure facilities on site, ensures that the applications are compliant with both the provisions set out in LP36 and its overall ethos.
Furthermore, there would be significant enhancements though the provision of additional leisure elements as well as access to open space, restaurants and retail units. As stated, there are no minimum requirements set out in Policy LP35 for retention of leisure onsite, however the existing operations are no longer able to continue due to being financially unviable however it is entirely appropriate to refine operations into alternative leisure uses which better meet the needs of existing and future users. Therefore, it is asserted that the applications are fully complicit with the aims and ethos of LP35.
In terms of densities, there are a range of density provisions across the applications which conforms with the NFFPs requirement for optimising the use of brownfield land and promoting the most efficient use of land. Given the proximity of the application sites to Peterborough City Centre, the site can provide a range of densities to accommodate the range of living requirements for future users. The varied combination of density provisions across the site would not adversely impact the ability of the EESG site to retain ongoing leisure uses within the wider confines of the site as either part of only Land A progressing forward or both development scheme progressing with overall enhanced facilities being provided.
For the quantum of development, the level of housing detailed in site allocation was an arbitrary level and was not based on a masterplan or evidenced design. The applications as submitted are supported with indicative layouts which demonstrate the deliverability of the schemes and based on space, movement and quality of place.
The scheme of Land A is compliant with the figures set out in the policy and are in direct correlation to the land allocation.
The scheme on Land B provides for additional housing on a wider area of land which would provide additional local housing at a time where there is a national housing shortage. The additional housing would provide significant fiscal benefit to both the local economy as well as directly to PCC, with circa. £1m per week into the local economy alongside approximately 1000 new jobs created. Land B development forms a natural and logical additional development in an area where housing has already been allocated and has been put forwards for promotion on the current ‘Call for Sites’ process. The justification for the provision of Land B is detailed within the planning application submission.
In relation to the ability of the local infrastructure to accommodate the level of demanded created by way of the development proposal, a detailed transport assessment has been submitted as part of the application details, which demonstrates the developments impact on the local transport network and concluded that it would have a negligible impact over and above the existing operations undertaken at the EESG site. As set out in the application submission, the applications are compliant with Policy LP36.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 13, 2023 23:08:32 GMT
|
|