BTW you say "SODC have announced they have more than a 5 year land supply." However, didn't the appellants claim that SODC didn't even have a 3 year supply? The appeal decision might clarify
4 of 4
Reasons could include inadequate infrastructure, doctors and pharmacy already under severe strain, local roads unable to take additional traffic, a pathetic lack of public transport, etc
3 of 4
Might it not be better to simply state that no additional sites have been identified for developemnt and give reasons why?
2 of 4
Would this not give a developer an excuse to make a planning application for that site. After all, it would have been identified as suitable for development!
Sorry, stupid limitation of 200 characters means this is 1 of 4
I am very concerned regarding the suggestion that "... that possible reserve sites could be included in the review ...".