Policy HS1: Local Housing Allocations

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 37

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 429

Received: 17/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Roger and Sheila Ely

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Request to include additional site: Royston Road, Baldock

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 776

Received: 18/10/2016

Respondent: Mr Robert Altham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Request to include additional site: Adj Crunnells Green, Preston

Full text:


I would like to reiterate my conviction that a suitable place in Preston for residential development is the field adjacent to Crunnells Green and opposite the main entrance to Princess Helena College.
The field is about 3 hectares and has tarmac road on three sides.
Development on this site would have less impact on neighbours that any of the other proposed sites, whilst allowing some open spaces inside the village. it could be used for a variety of uses.
This area should also be promoted for inclusion in the local plan.

See attachment for plan

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1332

Received: 19/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Stuart & Rebecca Rose

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Cowards Lane, Codicote

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1693

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Court Homes Construction Limited

Agent: Barker Parry Town Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Request to reinstate part of former site: PT1, Priors Hill, Pirton

Full text:

Paragraph 13.267 - Attached is an extract from the Preferred Options Proposals Map. PT2 is the Holwell Turn site, now approved in outline and contained within the newly defined boundary. As an approval, it is quite correctly excluded as an allocation and forms a part of the district's housing land supply. PT1 is land east of Priors Hill. A site in respect of which our clients have an option and which prior to its proposed allocation in 2014-15, was promoted as being available and deliverable and featured favourably in SHLAAs.

In the Regulation 18 statement of consultation summary there is no NHDC response in respect of either PT1 or PT2. Events surrounding PT2 are set out above. PT1 has simply disappeared as an allocation, albeit shown as within the new village limit. The reason for the removal of the allocation is attributable to the whole site (with the exception of the abovementioned 11 affordable homes, which are not plotted on either of the Proposals Maps) being designated as a Scheduled Monument on 16 May 2016.

This resulted directly from an outline planning application having been submitted on the balance (the entirety minus the 11 affordable units) of PT1 in December 2014 (14/03369/1), in parallel with the Preferred Options consultation. A copy of the illustrative layout which accompanied it is attached. Pre-determination archaeological investigations, including field trials, were undertaken for the applicants in conjunction with the County Council's archaeologists and in parallel, a third party requested that the whole application site be considered for scheduled monument listing, which was successful. The applicants sought a review and pending this, the outline application was withdrawn at the request of NHDC planning officers.

On 16 November 2016 scheduling was reconfirmed by the review, but the boundary was revised and, including a 5m internal buffer, the southern boundary, rather than running around the recently built 11 affordable homes and adjoining the rear of existing housing in Danefield Road, now runs eastwards from the rear of the new housing and parallel with Danefield Road. It can be seen on the attached drawing.

As a consequence of the review of the extent of the scheduled area, a 1.16 hectare parcel of land, formerly a part of PT2 and the parallel outline planning application (3.9 hectares), is now outside the recently scheduled monument. It adjoins existing housing to the south and east and has road frontage in the west.

Mindful of the fact that the larger site was deleted owing to the scheduling and that the boundary was revised very recently, and after the current version of the Plan was prepared for this round of consultations, then there is no reason why the reduced site should not be reinstated prior to submission of the Plan. Indeed failure to do so would logically fail the soundness test.

For the avoidance of doubt, the site remains under option and it is available and deliverable early in the Plan period. Although withdrawn and in outline, access provision was unreserved in the recent application and the County Council was satisfied that the 3.9 hectare site could be accessed satisfactorily. As can be seen, the previous proposal showed 77 dwellings, with 53 served off Priors Hill and 24 from Pollards Way.

In the short time available, a revised preliminary illustrative layout has been prepared as a basis for discussion. It is attached and it shows 29 houses served off the same Priors Hill access as agreed with the County Council as highways authority and a pedestrian access to Pollards Way. As portrayed, the proposal is of a similar overall scale and density to that the subject of the withdrawn scheme and it would have a similar relationship with the monument as the newly built housing at the head of Pollards Way. It is anticipated that this plan will form the basis of a new planning application to be submitted to the local planning authority.

In this latter regard, the Archaeology Collective, which acted on behalf of our clients in liaising with Historic England and the DCMS, has prepared a statement (attached) which amongst other matters examines the relationship between the illustrative layout and the monument. As can be seen, it concludes that: "This SM derives its value from its evidential value; its setting being a modern, ploughs field lined by hedged, some of which have pre-modern origins"; and "The monument derives a small portion of its significance from its setting. The changes that would result from the preliminary illustrative proposals for the 1.16 hectare parcel of land to the south of the SM and north of Danefield Road (figure 4) are negligible (paragraphs 4.9 and 7.2).

To conclude PT1 should be reinstated as suggested, with a format similar to the allocations tables elsewhere in the document (please see attached).

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1695

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: W J Rendell Ltd

Agent: Barker Parry Town Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at Ickleford Manor, Ickleford

Full text:

paragraph 13.157 - With the exception of allocation IC1, the promotion and assessment of which has been consistent and transparent throughout the very long process leading to this pre-submission Plan, the two larger sites, which make up over 99.5% of the allocations in the settlement, defy most tests of soundness. Leaving aside any assessment of their merit, IC2 was introduced at the Preferred Options stage and IC3 at this current advanced stage.

Others will no doubt comment on these latecomers, one of which alone accounts for over 75% of the Ickleford allocations. Each, however, comprises large areas of greenfield or non-previously developed land and each extends the existing settlement boundary either north into open countryside or south towards Hitchin.

There are alternatives and one such is land at Ickleford Manor, first drawn to the Council's attention in 2009 and again at the Preferred Options stage. Strangely, it does not feature in the current Regulation 18 statement of consultation. In this regard, it was rejected as being "too late for the site allocations process" in 2009, yet IC2 did not feature in a SHLAA until 2012 and IC3 has only just materialised in the current iteration of the Plan. Ignoring a suitable site either as an alternative or in addition, and the failure to carry out a comparative exercise is a serious failing on any application of the soundness test.

In order to ensure the land in question is considered by both NHDC and the Examination Inspector, we can but repeat what was said most recently at the Preferred Options Stage.

Ickleford Manor is the mirror image of proposed allocation IC2 on the Bedford Road. Unlike IC2, which is mostly not previously developed land, a significant part of Ickleford Manor is previously developed, including approximately 1,555m sq (16,750 sq ft) of mixed commercial floor space. Clearly, under the provisions of the NPPF (paragraph 89), parts of this site are, in principle, capable of appropriate redevelopment via the development management process, whilst remaining in the Green Belt, an option available to the land owner. Indeed, the westernmost portion of the site, bound by the A600 to the west and Turnpike Lane to the north is the subject of a current pending application for residential redevelopment (16/02012/1) for which the location plan is attached.

Mindful of the proposed extension of the settlement boundary, principally IC2, IC3, and the consequent adjustment of the Green Belt boundary along Bedford Road (A600), a comparable adjustment should be made in respect of Ickleford Manor, with the previously developed land at the core. Attached is a previously submitted sketch plan outlining the entire ownership, upon which an indication of the possible extent of development can be seen. This would extend no further towards Hitchin than existing or proposed development (the flour mill being a commercial site long excluded from the Green Belt and extending right down to the River Oughton) and respects existing vegetation in and around the site.

It is suggested as either an alternative to IC2 and/or IC3 (Ickleford Manor is previously developed, has an existing access and is closer to the core of the village) or in addition, in recognition of the sustainable location credentials of the village. Development here would help meet need in the Hitchin area of the district, in a sustainable location and include an element of previously developed land.

Land at Ickleford Manor is, therefore, commended for inclusion. The PDL (shown on the attached sketch and comprising the current application site and the Manor itself) should be excluded from the Green Belt as a matter of course and there is also no logical reason why some greenfield land running parallel with Turnpike Lane and towards Lodge Court should not also be added as, unlike IC2 and IC3, it is well related to the village centre, the 'right' side of the A600 and would not extend the settlement beyond either its existing northern or southern extremities.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 2791

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr James Marlow

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1:
- Request to include additional site at Spinney

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3790

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Rand Brothers

Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to consider additional site: Land adj Brickyard Lane, Reed

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3801

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Doggett Family Trust

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at Picknage Road, Barley, Barley more sustainable than other village locations (Barkway), arbitrary approach to development in villages, potential harm to Barley's future vitality, contribution to five-year supply

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3808

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Beechwood Homes

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Refer to "mix" rather than "variety" of homes, no need to refer to general policy requirements of plan as plan will be read as a whole.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3826

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: James Property Investments LLP

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Refer to "mix" rather than "variety" of homes, no need to refer to general policy requirements of plan as plan will be read as a whole.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3981

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Edward and Jane Darling

Number of people: 2

Agent: Mr David Coleby

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land west of London Road and Royston Hospital

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4100

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Princess Helena College

Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Dower House, Preston

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4133

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Oxford University Endowment Management Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site at Bradway, Whitwell

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4231

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr R Daniels

Agent: HD Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at Mill Lane / London Road, Hitchin

Full text:

See attached

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4238

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: E W Pepper Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

Support Policy HS1: Welcome policy and supporting Chapter 13 which gives early indication of likely pre-application work required

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4260

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Save Rural Codicote

Agent: Hutchinsons

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object on the following grounds:
to the proposed allocations and the way in which those have been included within the Local Plan without evidence of sustainability and suitability; and
Codicote is an unsustainable location for the number of dwellings proposed, e.g lack of public transport, employment opportunities, healthcare and education facilities, and impact on infrastructure .

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4277

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: F and P Property Management

Agent: Rapleys LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional sites: Shillington Road and r/o Walnut Tree Road, Pirton

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4333

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Stratton Estates Ltd

Agent: Vincent and Gorbing

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at Shillington Road, Pirton

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4350

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Jas Bowman & Sons Ltd

Agent: Spawforths

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Bowmans Mill, Ickleford

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4436

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr Steve Woodward

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

See attached

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4452

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Beck Developments Ltd

Agent: JWPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at Station Road, Ashwell

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4483

Received: 30/01/2017

Respondent: Beaumont Clarke Homes Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Barkway Road, nr Royston

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4492

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Mr & Dr Gary and Hilary Napier

Agent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to consider additional site: Land at Back Lane, Graveley

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5182

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: The Friends of Forster Country

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1:
- Scale of development
- Strategic Housing Market Assessment
- No link between population growth and dwelling numbers
- Green Belt a 'exceptional circumstances'
- Brexit

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5191

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: New Road (Ashbrook) Ltd and the Taylor Family

Agent: DLP (Planning) Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: south-west of Hitchin (2,400 homes)

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5531

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Wyevale Garden Centres Ltd

Agent: WGC

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to consider additional site: land north of Codicote Garden Centre allocation (Site CD2)

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5586

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Oxford University Endowment Management Ltd

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: The Estate Yard, nr Whitwell

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5731

Received: 29/11/2016

Respondent: Greene King PLC

Agent: David Russell Associates

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object to HS1: Request to include additional site: Land at George IV pub, Baldock

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: