Consultation Question 44

Support

Representation ID: 24178

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Helen Stocker

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: 24217

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ellie Keighley

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: 24330

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Statham

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: 24359

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Katrina Kennedy

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: 24388

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen 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: 24417

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: James Stocker

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: 24448

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janine Ward

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: 24477

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Hinchliffe

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: 24562

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Lyndsey 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: 24591

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Steven Langford

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: 24640

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Michelle Schofield

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: 24715

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Danny Schofield

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: 24753

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hamish Logan

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: 24782

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ashera Grande

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: 24860

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Chris Knowles

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: 24947

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Bridget Day

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: 24976

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Rob Pawson

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: 25005

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Anil Mander

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: 25035

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Louise Judd

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: 25065

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Watson

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: 25099

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Tina Collins

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: 25150

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Donna Radcliffe

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: 25204

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Radcliffe

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: 25233

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Denise Stanford

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: 25445

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rebecca Stokes

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: 25494

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mary Pawson

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: 25723

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Penny Price

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: 25752

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Sue Bell

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: 25781

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs M Armitage

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: 25810

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stuart Bell

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.