Consultation Question 44

Support

Representation ID: 27022

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Rosie Eccles

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: 27051

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clare Butland

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: 27080

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Nabil Basharat

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: 27133

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ian Sunderland

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: 27162

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marianne Clarke

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: 27191

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Carole Wheeler

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: 27220

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Julie Sunderland

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: 27249

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Gary Scott

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: 27281

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane 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: 27310

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Lovell

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: 27339

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Marjorie Rogan

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: 27368

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Cryer

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: 27397

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Wendy Barton

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: 27426

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Bardsley

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: 27455

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Paul Warren

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: 27577

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Danny Thompson

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: 27702

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Peter Cartwright

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: 27736

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ann Todd

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: 27809

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Richard Briggs

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: 27840

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Claire Shouler

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: 27904

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Samantha 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: 28203

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Sarah Lucas

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: 28293

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Stephen Mould

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 29000

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: National Trust

It is noted that land to the south east of the East Riddlesden Hall estate is designated as green belt and is also now to be allocated as part of the newly proposed ‘Countryside Development’ policy (EN6). The NT own this land adjacent to the East Riddlesden Hall estate up to the river (Land ownership plan provided). It is recognised that this is a new policy which defines the area designated as countryside and sets out the approach to managing development in this designated area, which restricts development to certain appropriate countryside compatible uses.

Support

Representation ID: 29226

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Rachel 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: 29579

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Harvey Bosomworth

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: 29619

Received: 17/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Summerson

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: 30018

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Daniel Spencer

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: 30099

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Mrs Savia Lorain Hughes

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: 30182

Received: 23/03/2021

Respondent: Catherine Terry

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.