Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Object

Representation ID: 3816

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 HS2: Tenure split should be an aspiration, no reference to viability, review mechanisms only appropriate on strategic-scale development

Object

Representation ID: 3817

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 HS3: 40% requirement for 1- and 2-bed on most sites seems high, should not be undue focus on permitted supply in determining mix

Object

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

Object

Representation ID: 3819

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 RY7: Support allocation as landowner / promoter, dwelling estimate too low,

Support

Representation ID: 3820

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: James Property Investments LLP

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Support Policy SP2: Focusing of development within or on edge of largest and most sustainable settlements

Object

Representation ID: 3821

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 SP7: Not consistent with NPPF / PPG, fails to give sufficient weight to viability, text should refer to other sources of funding

Object

Representation ID: 3822

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 SP8(f): Support staged approach to housing target, lack of detailed evidence to support affordable housing target, housing mix target contradicts HS3.

Object

Representation ID: 3823

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 vision / Objective SOC1: Make reference to wider housing markets

Object

Representation ID: 3825

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 Policy D1(b)(ii): Implies all proposals will need to incorporate SuDS, ignores practical constraints

Object

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

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.