Policy HS5: Accessible and adaptable housing
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 1166
Received: 28/11/2016
Respondent: Croudace Homes Ltd
Agent: Portchester Planning Consultancy
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to HS5: Requirements need to be evidenced and viability tested
Policy HS5:
The policy is objected to. This is because the imposition of an arbitrary and onerous 50% requirement in Item a) of the policy is inappropriate. The Council must be able to demonstrate a specific need for a 50% provision in its evidence-base before it seeks to impose this requirement on all major developments. Further the word 'major' is not defined and needs clarification - i.e. what constitutes a major site? In addition, the Council needs to demonstrate how it has taken the viability implications of this policy on developers into account, alongside other policies.
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 3811
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Beechwood Homes
Agent: JB Planning Associates
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to HS5: Requirements are overly onerous, contradicts viability evidence, cumulative viability impacts need to be considered
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 3818
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: James Property Investments LLP
Agent: JB Planning Associates
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to HS5: Requirements are overly onerous, contradicts viability evidence, cumulative viability impacts need to be considered
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 3839
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: MR Robert Parker
Support HS5:
- Agree that accessible housing is required but it needs to be sensibly catered for.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 3843
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Pigeon Land Ltd
Agent: Keymer Cavendish Limited
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Object to HS5: assessment of viability contrary to national policy, too prescriptive, cumulative impacts of policies need to be considered
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 3914
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Support the proposed policy but consider the requirements should be stronger so that all dwellings meet the M4(2) standard and 10% of all dwellings meet the M4(3) standards.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5519
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to HS5: Viability has been assessed independently of other factors
See attachment
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5556
Received: 30/11/2016
Respondent: The Crown Estate
Agent: Savills
Support HS5: Support requirements of policy
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 5952
Received: 24/11/2016
Respondent: Hitchin Town Action Group (HTAG)
Support for HS5
See attachment
Support
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 6020
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council
Support HS5: Aim to allow people to return to their own home through enablement models
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft
Representation ID: 6625
Received: 29/11/2016
Respondent: Bellcross Company LTD
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to HS5: Support motives but site-specific circumstances, viability and existing and future housing stock and needs should be considered when applying
See attachment