Housing proposals include too many areas identified as “farms”, “fields” and “Greenfield”, a number are also used for recreational purposes.

Concern over loss of green space/impact on infrastructure/ congestion/ pollution/ parking/loss of recreational grounds.

Would like to understand the legality of the offer to `release land for public open space'. Suggests making land available to the council for less than it being made available to others in exchange for planning permission on another section of land looks like anti-competitive activity that would be considered illegal (EU articles 85,86) in normal commercial dealings.

Objects to any further building in Guisborough which is already short of green space, suggests resources in Guisborough need to be upgraded before increasing the population.

Should not be considered for development until major road improvements have been completed.

Should not be considered for development until major road improvements have been completed.

Should not be considered for development until major road improvements have been completed.

Should not be considered for development until major road improvements have been completed.

Concerned about joining this field with site 30 - they form a valuable habitat for birds and small mammals and have remnants of old hedgerows and oak trees. Main gas supply for the town is also running under these fields.

A previous planning application for residential development was refused on the grounds of the impact it would have on the countryside. The Inspector considered this site was unsuitable for housing, also the draft SHLA commented that residential development on this site would require the realignment of Stokesley Road.

Needs careful thought - serious subsurface problems, impact on the town centre and secondary schools.

Concerned effect on rural landscape and forest wildlife.

This site has good access to local services and to public transport networks. Limited capacity at the primary schools can be addressed through a S106 agreement. We welcome the council's identification of this site for `executive' and `executive style housing' together with 3/4 bed detached properties.

Strong objection to development of this site, it should be used as a landscape buffer (between previous housing development at Pine Hills and the open countryside) as originally planned and which should have been enforced long ago.

Local opposition to this will be intense, impact on local environment will be disastrous.

Concerned effect on rural landscape and forest wildlife.

Concerned - loss of open space and green wedge. The development would also be visible from Guisborough Branch Walkway Centre at Pinchinthorpe. It shares a boundary with Grove Hill Wood which is home to a colony of bats, these feed by hunting along the field verges which would be destroyed by development.

This would take housing right up to the tree line, imposing on the National Park.

The issues around the previous public enquiry into site 32 in many respects will be relevant to this site.

This area acts as a barrier between the forest and the housing. It is also prone to flooding.

We consider that this site is inappropriate for housing as it currently provides an important separation between the settlement and the National Park. Moreover, the comments from the Council in the draft SHLA highlight that part of the site was historically subject to quarrying and therefore ground investigation would be required.

Whilst extensive development of the land beyond the existing boundary would be difficult to access from the residential area to the south, there could be an opportunity for a smaller scale development along a strip of land to the rear of the existing properties. The land is not liable to flooding.

Concern over loss of open space, increase in traffic.

Part of this is in the proposed conservation area. No suitable access to services; roads unsuitable, drainage poor. Construction traffic would have to use Belmangate which is too narrow, a lot of old houses in the conservation area would be damaged by continuous heavy traffic

Refers to the previous public enquiry and subsequent refusal of planning permission- need to consider this before building on this site.

This site would be the most suitable choice for development.

We do not consider this site suitable for development due to part of the site being located in the recently extended Conservation Area, the high level amenity of the adjacent residential area and the rural nature of the surrounding area.

Development of this site for housing would tie in well with the built form at Rievaulx Way to the north and the larger housing area on the west side of Belmangate. Intrusion into the open countryside would be minimised if development did not extend any further than Butt Lane where it meets the Branch Walkway.

Given the sites medieval and industrial history it should be preserved.

The ridge and furrow site should remain untouched - an area of special historical value.

Cannot confirm the suitability of this site due to it being partially identified as being at risk from flooding, the awkward topography, vegetation and being constrained by a gas pipe.

Don't regard flood risk as a constraint on this site as per report carried out by Entec UK Ltd. Biodiversity should not be seen as a constraint, there is potential for development to enhance the biodiversity and attractiveness of this site. Due to the topography of the site particularly near the beck, Entec's report recommends that further work is undertaken to assist engineering and foundation design as well as slope stability issues. We fail to see why the need for a Transport Assessment is seen as a constraint when any form of development over a certain size requires one.

Only part of the site is Greenfield - we suggest a more accurate description of the site would be Type A/B; the pipelines could limit the developability if not removed but do not impact upon the principle of the sites suitability of housing. It is not considered that an employment use will generate enough value to make it a viable proposition to a developer to overcome these issues.

Concern over gas pipes, flooding, sewerage works and the noise from the bypass.

The assessment identifies a number of potential issues with this site including its allocation as Employment Land, the gas pipeline that crosses the site and it's proximity to the sewage works.

Given the proximity of the land to existing employment and commercial uses and its inherent sustainability it is considered that the site is suitable for a mixed use development which could include some element of housing. The land has been identified as not liable to flooding.

Campion Drive is a busy road and one of only two access points to the estate. New housing would put pressure on local infrastructure.

We consider this site suitable for residential development.

Strong objection to development of this site, it should be used as a landscape buffer (between previous housing development at Pine Hills and the open countryside) as originally planned and which should have been enforced long ago.

Local opposition to this will be intense, impact on local environment will be disastrous.

Concerned effect on rural landscape and forest wildlife.

Concerned - loss of open space and green wedge. It shares a boundary with Grove Hill Wood which is home to a colony of bats, these feed by hunting along the field verges which would be destroyed by development.

In the proposed conservation area. Access from A171 not satisfactory.

Should resist development of this site given Tees Archaeology objections and it being incorporated into the Conservation Area.

Whilst there are some constraints imposed on this site, it may, subject to additional studies be possible to include development upon the site without adversely affecting natural or historical assets. The land is not liable to flooding.

Concern regarding potential flooding and affect on environment.

The banks and shops will need access and that will not be either easy or secure.

An enormous nuisance to the local residents, both they and the local children need the space.

Site availability needs to be confirmed with the appraisals to confirm developability. In addition it is noted that NWL require additional off site infrastructure and access may be an issue due to traffic calming measures along Enfield Chase. This site could perhaps be more appropriately combined to create a mixed use scheme.

The site is well located near to local amenities, employment opportunities and other facilities. Development of this site could improve the visual quality of the locality. The land is not liable to flooding as per Environment Agency flood maps.

Not a problem apart from traffic.

This site should be given greatest priority as a housing site, it is in a highly sustainable location and lies within the conurbation area. The only constraint to development would be access, this is currently being investigated.

Too late to complain now, rapid destruction after minimal consultation, and no suggestion that the money raised will be invested here, like in a new swimming pool.

Access to this site has always been a serious issue.

This site will not be vacant until a new church is built, and that is very controversial already.

This is currently a playing field for children and currently contains a play area. Where are the children to play?

Should be left undeveloped for the residents of this area.

Although this site is unallocated in the Local Plan, the Council's Green Space Strategy identifies it as public open space. As there are no other areas of open space nearby it is important this site should be retained as open space and not lost for housing.

This recreation ground has in the past contained a junior football pitch, Sport England would expect E4 to apply.

Both the Cricket and Rugby Club are well used and it is essential that they are kept close to the town centre. Access to houses on these grounds would affect lower Belmangate where there are old houses and which is in the conservation area.

Concern over where the clubs will be relocated to.

The issues which around previous public enquiry into site 32 in many respects will be relevant to this site.

This, to many people, is the small green heart of the town centre and has been for centuries. I am staggered to hear that you intend to build on it.

Sites of historical interest should not be considered for building land, an ancient land management of ridge and furrow is part of this area and should be preserved for future generations to appreciate.

Development on this site would result in the loss of the sports clubs and pitches. The clubs could be relocated however it is likely that Sport England would require a replacement of an equivalent area of playing fields. It is cognisant of PPS17 and no such sites have been identified. We consider that this site should not be allocated for housing given concerns over both suitability and achievability.

We consider this site to be suitable for a mix of uses including housing, employment/retail and open space. The north easternmost corner of the site has been identified has liable to flood in extreme circumstances however, any new development could incorporate mitigation measures to address this.

A very contentious idea.

This site contains a cricket pitch, two rugby pitches and a bowling green and would as a whole be defined as playing field, Sport England would expect E4 to apply.

I feel strongly that the Guisborough Cricket Club and the Rugby Club form a centrally based area for the community where a healthy lifestyle is encouraged.

Concern over loss of green belt, flooding and increase in traffic flow/access.

We fear that the development of this site would have a major detrimental effect on the bio-diversity which it currently provides. We were informed by the Town and Planning Office that part of our land fell within the residential cartilage and that the use of this part of our land was restricted to agricultural/allotment/woodland purposes in accordance with the Local Plan. Having complied with these restrictions we find it incredulous that the council are considering this site for housing development.

I would accept some limited development here if the site could be opened up for public access.

The number of dwellings quoted appears excessive, the preferred type of housing would be executive of executive style, there are access problems to this site. We would hope that a significant portion of this site be retained as open space and that any proposal would include the demolition of the farm buildings and restoration of land on which they stand.

This area has very poor drainage and contains a beck. Extensive drainage would only pass the problem down the line aiding flash flooding downstream.

I object in principal due to biodiversity interest, already stretched local resources and the entire site is allocated as public recreational space in the Local Plan

We do not consider that this site should be developed for housing due to it being a vital green corridor linking west Guisborough to the town centre. Also Chapel Beck runs through the site and the Environment Agency's indicative floodplain maps identify that this beck floods.

This land has already been the subject of at least 2 public enquiries generating hundreds of objections. Concerned over loss of green space, affect on wildlife and pollution.

I would personally prefer this to be a walkway or wildlife park.

The report sets out the main characteristics of a site that could provide executive housing and it is considered that these are well aligned with the particular qualities of the land at Newstead Farm. The owners of this site recognise the aim to secure affordable housing as part of general housing development. The site has the potential to provide affordable housing on site, as part of the new development or in order to take best advantage of the opportunity to provide `executive' housing on the site, to contribute to off site provision. The report follows previous submissions made by the landowners in identifying the potential ecological/biodiversity value of the site. However, it does not fully recognise the potential to improve that value through the sensitive planning, landscaping and management of the larger part of the site that is proposed as public open space, or that this could prove to be a positive benefit arising from the development of the land.

Not a problem as far as I can see.

Have we thought of any viable alternatives for the garage users?

A Flood Risk Assessment should establish whether there is a genuine risk from flooding, and any mitigation measures recommended by the FRA would need to be incorporated into the final design for the site's redevelopment. Subject to confirmation of the site's garage usage any new development should include ground floor garage accommodation. It would appear likely that a flatted scheme above proposed new garages would be the way to proceed on this site.

Concerned around youth facilities currently on the site. Where are they to relocate to?

Should be left undeveloped for the residents of this area.

Majority of site used as a football ground, Sport England is likely to object to the loss of this resource and it's not certain where replacement facilities will be provided. The northern section of this site is adjacent to the designated Guisborough Conservation Area and is allocated within the Local Plan as an open area in a conservation area - we consider resisting development of this site.

The use of this site would require relocation of the Sea Cadets and Scout Hut, this would enable the use of some brownfield land and would offer the opportunity for an attractive and sustainable residential development within close proximity of the town centre, employment and local services. The very northernmost part of the site is liable to flooding in extreme circumstances; it is likely that development could include mitigation measures to address this.

This site has been excluded from the SHLA but it is considered worthy of inclusion due to its excellent relationship with Guisborough Town Centre and local employment provision. Development could comprise a mix of industrial, commercial and housing uses however if site 50 is development for retail/industrial it may be more appropriate to use this land for mostly residential purposes. The land has not been identified as liable to flooding.