Option 3

No

Representation ID: 27319

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

Nor do we support Options 2, 3 and 5 which in their different ways seek to direct all development either to the A55 corridor, to key settlements alone, or to hubs and corridors, there is always a need for balance with the greatest level of growth directed to the most sustainable locations, but an overall sustainable approach must also consider housing needs within the smaller settlements so as to maintain and even improve their viability/vitality in the future.

Noted.

No

Representation ID: 27348

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd

The HBF do not support options 1, 2, 3 or 6 and do not support one particular option but instead elements of Options 4, 5 and although these are described in very different ways, comparing the plans they look very similar. Accordingly, we suggest the Council look to develop a hybrid option based on these options, which gives the greatest flexibility for growth based around sustainable settlements (Urban, Satellite Settlements and the Local Service Centres), according to their ability to accommodate development, therefore providing greater likelihood of the plan being able to deliver the identified vision, objectives and needs.

Agree that there is a need to give more flexibility to growth in some of the more sustainable locations and further consideration will be given to the hierarchy for inclusion in the PS.

No

Representation ID: 27372

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: FCC Environmental (UK) Limited

Agent: Axis

Option 3 does not focus any growth within sustainable rural settlements and locations and if progressed could place pressure on infrastructure if growth is too tightly focused. Unconstrained and sustainable settlements outside the higher tiers would be prevented from contributing to some growth.

Noted.