Consultation Question 44

Support

Representation ID: 22613

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alastair Gordon

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22642

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: George Pitches

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22671

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Till

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22700

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ken Hampton

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22729

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Aaron Henning

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22758

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Daren Murray

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22802

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Styles

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22831

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr John Robson

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22869

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Josie Mitchell

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22898

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alexandra Murray

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22927

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Cackett

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22956

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Liz Chadwick

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 22985

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Amanda Murray

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23014

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Robert Batty

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23043

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Arion Jones

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23072

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: K McGregor & M Lloyd

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23128

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: James Brooks

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23157

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Judith Wood

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23186

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Johanna Murray

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23215

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Luke Wellock

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23244

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: John Wright

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23273

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Susan Saville

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23302

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Ruth Tyson

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23331

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Emily Corbett

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23360

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Alan R Wood

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23389

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Matthew Hill

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23418

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Miss N Bateson

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23447

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Martin Tyson

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 23622

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Sandra Auty

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.

Support

Representation ID: 24134

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mr David and Elise Howe

We agree that the countryside should be under protection. We also support the proposals A1 through A6. The definition of countryside described in 4.30.3 appears to include Green Belt. A1 through A6 describe the limitations of development on countryside, but don’t appear to fully describe exceptions or refer to mechanisms used to potentially declassify Green Belt or extend settlement boundaries. The impression, from EN6 A1 through A6 alone, could be given that countryside is protected, but doesn’t highlight that countryside could essentially be declassified as such. Any development located within Green Belt as per SP5 should have rights of way protected and enhanced.