1.

Mrs E Turner

No explanation given for any of the changed

2.

Mrs E Leiper

Disagree

Personal boundary dispute

Disagree

Internal boundary dispute

3.

Mr G Woolley

Agree

Agree

4.

Mrs K Mather

Agree

5.

Mr C Donegani

Agree

Agree

6.

Mr & Mrs Goodwin

Agree

Agree

Pleased to see the field on School Lane moved outside draft envelope

Agree it should remain outside envelope

Should remain outside envelope

7.

Mrs C Buswell

Agree

Agree

Important to retain open areas. Is it possible to consider parking and play areas for the school? Maybe Old Dairy site.

Planning application for development at the Old Dairy has already been approved.

8.

Mrs D Glover

Agree

Should keep existing green areas. Do something about the dairy.

Agree

Agree to existing open areas. Planning application for Old Dairy has been approved.

9.

Mrs N Bradshaw

Disagree

Don't need any more houses. Old Dairy is an eyesore.

Agree

Planning application for Old Dairy has been approved.

10.

Mr R Pearce

Agree

Disagree

Recreation ground should be included.

Land outside the envelope is safer from development.

Retain the recreation ground outside the village envelope

11.

Mrs J Toon

Disagree

Will the Stonestile allotments disappear under the new draft plan?

Disagree

What will happen to the recreation ground?

Allotments are outside draft village envelope and recognised as green space. Outside the envelope, the recreation ground will be safe from development.

Allotments and recreation ground should be left outside the village envelope.

12.

Mrs H Mapletoft

Agree

Disagree

Triangle in South Street should be classed as IOA

Agree that the triangle should be classed as an IOA.

Triangle in South Street should be classed as IOA.

13.

Mrs V Percival

Disagree

Envelope should be extended to include the whole garden of 21 King Street

Agree

The line should go round the clayfield Farm pond.

Recommend the line goes round the pond.

14.

Mr & Mrs Golding

Disagree

Object to reduction behind 24 South Street

Agree

The Parish Council have no objections to the new proposed boundary, but will pass your comments to the MBC.

See "Parish Council response"

15.

Mr P Evans (see plan)

Disagree

New E boundary behind 23/23A Church Street puts the existing garden outside the envelope; it should be within or at least be lined up with boundary 23/23A

Agree

Providing the draft areas are added to existing areas.

Existing IOAs should be retained and new ones adopted. See note 3 below. Although the PC don't disagree with the draft boundary here, they feel it has already been extended considerably and should not be extended further.

The boundary here has been extended considerably and should not be extended further.

16.

Mrs C Hardisty

Disagree

Village Hall should be included as potential site for school. Extension of line behind 11 School Lane not desirable as it would give potential for development, spoiling 7/9/11 School Lane.

Agree

Village Hall should be left outside envelope so it can be retained as an open space. The new line skirts the garden of 11 School Lane and should be adopted.

The new draft line of village envelope behind 11 School Lane should be adopted.

17.

Mr M Shelton

Disagree

Open area 5-7 School Lane should lbe included within boundary. Why extend behind 11 and 13 School Lane? Why is the Village Hall and recreation ground outside?

Agree

The IOA between 5/7 School Lane has connection with the open countryside and should therefore remain outside the envelope. The envelope boundary behind 11/13 School Lane should also remain as drafted, since it follows the extent of the gardens. The V Hall and Rec ground should remain outside the envelope to protect them from development.

The new envelope boundary should remain as drafted round Nos 5 to 13 School Lane.

18.

Mr A Measom

Disagree

Boundary should be extended behind dairy (to mirror boundary on other side of road). Logical SE boundary. Little gained from infill at Netherhall Farm. Few areas left for low cost housing.

Disagree

Open area on Sandy Lane should be available for infill.

The open area on Sandy Lane is considered an IOA providing a chunk of greenery between houses, which is important. The boundary should remain as drafted since a line which mirrored the opp site of the road would create a considerable extension of the envelope. Comments regarding Netherhall passed to BC.

The IOA on Sandy Lane should remain. Boundary at Dairy should remain as in draft. Netherhall Farm - see No 14

19.

Mr & Mrs Shoulder

Disagree

No possibility for infill, village needs more development. Inconsistent - see 10 and 30 Sandy Lane, and 23/25 Church Street. Why is V Hall excluded?South Street site should have been included in envelope.

10 Sandy Lane: should be left; 30 Sandy Lane: this is an allotment and not a garden - protect from development. 23 Church Lane - this is almost the same line, and not really a minus. 25 Church Street - this is a garden. South Street site - the PC agree that this shoiuld be left as it was.

New draft line of village envelope should be adopted as regards both 10/30 Sandy Lane and 23/25 Church Street. Recommend retention of original boundary line on the South Street site.

20.

Mrs P Radford

Disagree

No room for development. No point of extension into inaccessible land to E, S and W. Why is recreation ground excluded? Object to removal of paddock, as this is ideal site for badly needed development.

The removal of the recreation ground to outside the envelope will protect it from development. The removal of the paddock - originally an IOA, now drafted outside the envelope: the PC feel the new line is more pertinent than the old one.

Adopt the new boundaries.

21.

Mr D Manning (see plan)

Disagree

Extended areas Sandy Lane/Church St do not reflect existing development, one has flood risk. Extension behind South Street would be unsightly (unless existing gardens); good to see narrowing of envelope around N end of Sandy Lane and Redearth Farm.

Disagree

Boundary should not be reduced between 5 and 7 School Lane.

10 Sandy Lane boundary includes garden and should be adopted. Corner Sandy Lane and Church St also behind a house and should be adopted. Area behind 25 Church Street is a flood risk area, but does form part of a garden. The PC can see no reason why the village boundary shoiuld be extended behind the South Street houses. They disagree with the narrowing of the village envelope by Redearth Farm.

The new draft boundaries on Sandy Lane and Church Street should be adopted. The old boundaries behind South Street and Redearth Farm should be retained. The new line between 5/7 School Lane should be adopted.

22.

A & S Hodgkinson

Agree

Agree