4.11 Conclusion

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27159

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd

Representation Summary:

There is no comment on the fact that some of the previously allocated sites may have in fact been the wrong sites to allocate, particularly any rolled over from previous plans.
No account taken of the issues identified in the WG Longitudinal and Viability study regarding site viability and deliverability.

Full text:

There has been no discussion about one of the other factors which has affected the provision of housing, which is around the suitability of the sites allocated. Although it is accepted that the allocated sites went through a degree of scrutiny as part of their allocation in the LDP, the recent WG study entitled 'Longitudinal Viability Study of the Planning Process' has highlighted the need to look at deliverability and viability far more closely than it has been in previous LDP's. The HBF would request an additional paragraph which refers to this study and looks at the issues from the report referred to above in more detail thus giving a more balance view.

Comment

Review Report

Representation ID: 27187

Received: 21/12/2017

Respondent: Dwr Cymru Welsh Water

Representation Summary:

We note that the Review will need to reconsider both the scale and distribution of growth proposed, and that the capacity of settlements to absorb additional employment and residential development will need to be assessed in light of the evidence to be collected through the Review. Since the LDP was adopted in 2013 it will be necessary for us to reassess the capacity of our infrastructure to accommodate growth.

Full text:

See attached document.

Support

Review Report

Representation ID: 27188

Received: 21/12/2017

Respondent: FCC Environmental (UK) Limited

Agent: Axis

Representation Summary:

The review should consider larger scale windfall developments and allocations within and adjacent to Tier 1 Villages in order to achieve shortfalls in the Rural Development Strategy Areas (RDSA) identified in paragraph 4.5.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27207

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Anwyl Construction Ltd

Agent: P L Planning

Representation Summary:

Rather than the Review Report using language which suggests a need to reduce the housing supply the Council should be taking positive and continuing steps to enable delivery of housing, including in a replacement LDP.
Additional, suitable, viable land attractive to the market in sustainable places where people want to live is available and capable of contributing to housing delivery.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27212

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Anwyl Construction Ltd

Agent: P L Planning

Representation Summary:

There is no mention of the suitability of sites allocated for housing in the plan or indeed their potential to become available. For example there has been subsequent research on the need to look at deliverability and viability far more closely than in previously LDPs (WG study 'Longitudinal Viability Study of the Planning Process').
Furthermore case studies (including in Conwy) suggest permissions not being released as a result of delays in signing S106 agreements.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27225

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: P L Planning

Representation Summary:

Rather than the Review Report using language which suggests a need to reduce the housing supply the Council should be taking positive and continuing steps to enable delivery of housing, including in a replacement LDP.
Additional, suitable, viable land attractive to the market in sustainable places where people want to live is available and capable of contributing to housing delivery.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27230

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: P L Planning

Representation Summary:

There is no mention of the suitability of sites allocated for housing in the plan or indeed their potential to become available. For example there has been subsequent research on the need to look at deliverability and viability far more closely than in previously LDPs (WG study 'Longitudinal Viability Study of the Planning Process').
Furthermore case studies (including in Conwy) suggest permissions not being released as a result of delays in signing S106 agreements.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27243

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Macbryde Homes Ltd

Agent: P L Planning

Representation Summary:

Rather than the Review Report using language which suggests a need to reduce the housing supply the Council should be taking positive and continuing steps to enable delivery of housing, including in a replacement LDP.
Additional, suitable, viable land attractive to the market in sustainable places where people want to live is available and capable of contributing to housing delivery.

Full text:

See attached document.

Object

Review Report

Representation ID: 27248

Received: 22/12/2017

Respondent: Macbryde Homes Ltd

Agent: P L Planning

Representation Summary:

There is no mention of the suitability of sites allocated for housing in the plan or indeed their potential to become available. For example there has been subsequent research on the need to look at deliverability and viability far more closely than in previously LDPs (WG study 'Longitudinal Viability Study of the Planning Process').
Furthermore case studies (including in Conwy) suggest permissions not being released as a result of delays in signing S106 agreements.

Full text:

See attached document.