Paper 2: Strategic Growth and Spatial Distribution Options

No

Representation ID: 27313

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

It appears to us that Option 4 begins to get too complicated, but, in addition, we do not see why some of the settlements identified as Secondary Settlements should be distinguished from the main urban areas, of which they are functionally part or why, for example, Abergele should be 'downgraded' within the hierarchy.

Noted.

Yes

Representation ID: 27314

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

All of the above tends to point us towards Option 3 as the most appropriate of the identified options to be pursued, although, of course, much depends on the way in which development is subsequently distributed.

Noted.

No

Representation ID: 27315

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

We have not seen a proper justification for Option 4 which is said to be based on the results of the Employment Land Review in pointing towards a requirement for between 12.6 and 14.3 ha of additional employment land. However, the Employment Land Review appears to assess demand as ranging between 12 and 21 ha of additional employment land being required and, therefore, it is clear that Option 4 scenario is very much at the bottom end of the identified range and appears to offer little to address the fundamental problems with the economy that have been identified.

Noted. 12-14ha of Employment land is a growth scenario predicted in the Conwy Employment Land Review based on economic forecasts (which suggest growth will be flat over the next 15 years,) balanced against the positive impact regional projects will have on numbers of jobs in Conwy.

Yes

Representation ID: 27316

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

Option 5 is based on the Conwy Economic Growth Strategy which looks to drive forward a higher rate of economic growth resulting in a need for between 18.8 and 24.5 ha of additional employment land. Given that this Growth Strategy has been adopted by the Council, it would seem illogical that the LDP might not then look to put in place a planning strategy that would support the achievement of its goals.

For the above reasons we consider that Option 5 is the Option that should be pursued.

Noted - Since publication of the Economic Growth Strategy, as part of its LDP evidence base and in line with PPW, the Council commissioned an Employment Land Review (ELR.) The ELR looks at a range of growth scenarios based on past take up rates, economic growth forecasting, population projections, relevant strategies and significant regional projects. After reviewing these scenarios, the preferred approach is the scenario which combines economic forecasts with significant regional projects. This scenario allows for upto 14ha of additional employment land (including an allowance for contingency which is based on past take-up rates.)

No

Representation ID: 27317

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

Given our comments in relation to the logic of updating the settlement hierarchy, we do not support Option One that would merely repeat the distribution within the current LDP, although we acknowledge that the main settlements should continue to be the main focus for development.

Noted.

No

Representation ID: 27318

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: 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: 27320

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: 27321

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

Whilst we acknowledge that Option 6 relating to a new or expanded settlement could have a role, we believe, in accordance with PPW, that such an approach should only be contemplated when other options have been fully investigated in order to meet the level of identified need (the experience of Denbighshire in seeking to deliver major development at Bodelwyddan should be a lesson to all as to the potential complexity of such an approach).

Noted.

Yes

Representation ID: 27322

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Beech Developments (NW) Ltd

Agent: The Planning Consultancy

Option 4 is the most balanced approach, but with the important caveat that local needs should not be forgotten or under-estimated. We note that it is commented that that this Option is more directed towards settlement hierarchy options 4 and 5, which we have not supported, but we see it more as an outline of a general approach to housing distribution and, particularly, as it is noted that the final approach may be a combination of more than one option (page 56), we see no difficulty in identifying it as our preference in terms of the options identified.

Noted.