Question 40 - Affordable Housing Approach
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9030
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Steve Coathup
I find it incredible that you are asking lay people what will incentivise developers, when you deal with them every day. Clearly developers have a financial duty to shareholders to maximise their profitability. Your role as planners is to represent the interests of the local community as rate payers who a)fund the local authority and b) have more interest in the local environment than developers.These objectives are diametrically opposed. I believe therefore that the needs of the community should take preference to the profit incentive of developers.
I find it incredible that you are asking lay people what will incentivise developers, when you deal with them every day. Clearly developers have a financial duty to shareholders to maximise their profitability. Your role as planners is to represent the interests of the local community as rate payers who a)fund the local authority and b) have more interest in the local environment than developers.These objectives are diametrically opposed. I believe therefore that the needs of the community should take preference to the profit incentive of developers.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9053
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Jennifer Archer
The requirement for social/affordable housing is set by the Council depending on demand. Therefore my opinion on this point is really irrelevant
The requirement for social/affordable housing is set by the Council depending on demand. Therefore my opinion on this point is really irrelevant
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9088
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr John Gibbs
Against any proposal that incentivises making housing smaller and smaller, and cramming more and more houses on a plot. It's not even a good model for chickens, let alone humans. However, taking more green belt land for housing reduces the area of countryside, which is vital for everyone's quality of life. The best way is to reduce the population, and therefore demand for houses.
It is catch 22. On the one hand I am against any proposal that incentivises making housing smaller and smaller, and cramming more and more houses on a plot. It's not even a good model for housing chickens, let alone humans. On the other hand, taking more green belt land for housing reduces the area of countryside, which I believe is vital for everyone's quality of life. The best way is to reduce the population, and therefore demand for houses. Good luck with that one!
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9161
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: The Home Builders Federation Midland Region
The Council is attempting to deal with identified issues associated with market housing mix including more smaller market dwellings, increasing housing densities on all sites and minimising release of Green Belt land via an alternative approach to affordable housing contributions. These matters are separate and should not be co-joined.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9172
Received: 14/03/2019
Respondent: stantec
Agrees that the delivery of smaller homes as part of a balanced mix of housing is important. However, requiring affordable housing as requirement based on a proportion of net residential floorspace would not incentivise the delivery of smaller market homes. It could act to discourage the delivery of some types of homes. A block of small apartments can have a higher net residential floor area than the equivalent land-take for family homes therefore would require a greater amount of affordable housing but with less revenue with implications for economic viability which would conflict with paragraph 67 of NPPF. Placing too much emphasis on the delivery of smaller homes or requiring affordable housing as a proportion of net residential floorspace would not achieve the policy objective to meet in full the identified housing requirements in terms of numbers, sizes, tenures and types. it is not an effective, justified or sound policy basis to ensure that the identified housing requirement will be met in full over the plan period. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states there should be an evidence based approach to determine the minimum number of homes that are needed. An affordable policy requirement based on a proportion of net residential could also make it difficult for the LPA to assess the effectiveness of the plan. The wording of any affordable housing policy should also take into account the updated and wider definition of affordable housing set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
See letters 1 & 2
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9278
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
We would not support a percentage-based approach to affordable housing and consider that the Council is attempting to address issues relating to housing mix, and the provision of smaller dwellings, with the need for affordable housing provision. These matters are separate and should not be joined together through planning policy.
See Letters
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9301
Received: 20/03/2019
Respondent: Duchy Homes Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
This approach would cause uncertainty for developers and the Council and is not likely to work in practice. It would not be clear how much affordable housing which will be delivered through the draft Plan. If the Council allocate sufficient sites which have proportionate evidence regarding their viability and deliverability, this would be the best way of addressing the delivery of much-needed affordable housing.
see letter
Barton Willmore LLP is instructed by Duchy Homes Ltd (the 'Client') to submit representations to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council's Draft Local Plan Regulation 18 Supplementary consultation (the 'draft Plan') in relation to their land interests at land east of Grange Road, Dorridge (hereafter referred to as the 'Site 1') and land south of Arden Road, Dorridge (hereafter referred to as the 'Site 2'). Part of Site 1 is referenced in the Council's Site Assessments document as 344 'Land off Grange Road'. Our Client is promoting Site 1 for residential development, which will require the relocation of the village hall to Site 2.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9316
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes
Agent: Ridge and Partners LLP
Spitfire are not supportive of the Council's revised approach to affordable housing contributions which is are not supported by any evidence and will cause complexities/ delays in the delivery of all future housing sites within the Borough. Concur with comments made by HBF.
See Letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9404
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr M Trentham
There are already viability problems on some developments related to the affordable housing requirement.
The Council is deliberately seeking to increase such problems by being too greedy. It is unreasonable to expect that affordable (i.e. subsidised) housing should be of the same size or standard as market housing. The current method of measuring the requirement as a straight percentage of unit numbers is simple and effective.
Such rules might produce the opposite result from that intended, i.e. rather than building more small market homes, developers will build fewer but larger affordable dwellings, in order to preserve the profitability.
see letter of response re: Knowle sites
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9454
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Hampton Road Developments Ltd
Agent: Savills
We consider this approach to be unconventional and could lead to a greater than 50% of housing units being provided for affordable housing, where the mix for private includes more 2 and 4 bed houses than is required
for affordable. This could negatively affect the overall site mix. We object to this approach until further evidence can be provided to justify a habitable room/floor space requirement. We consider that where the Council seeks to pursue an unconventional approach and a departure from a % of overall dwellings, then a clear justification should be provided.
see attached document
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9494
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Catesby Estates Limited
Agent: WYG
Proposed policy threshold above which affordable housing is required should accord with Government policy which states that affordable housing should only be sought on sites of more than 10 dwellings (or where the gross floorspace exceeds 1.000 sqm).
Calculation by floorspace not fully justified or consistent with national policy and confuses requirement with housing mix/type of housing. Alternative approach will not provide clear indication of requirement, and is not justified through viability assessment.
please see attached document
Support
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9514
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: The Knowle Society
This suggestion is close to the ideal but not quite there.
At present, the gross internal floor areas of market housing are subject to a continual downwards direction to make them smaller whilst still maximising the price the accommodation of each house offers to the market.
The result is housing which should provide less accommodation eg three bedrooms, rather than 4, in an acceptable total floor space area so that its usable space is in fact, truly useable by it being capable of housing the requisite number of people comfortably, irrelevant of its tenure.
the responses in the attached letter have been made by the Knowle Society
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9524
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: St Philips Land - Land at Smiths Lane Browns Lane & Widney Manor Road
Agent: Savills
We do not consider that the proposed approach is suitable and the Council has not provided any justification/evidence as to why they are proposing this alternative approach to affordable housing. We consider that the Council's existing approach to affordable housing is more appropriate
See attached documents
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9548
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Richard Lloyd
The Planning Authority should take an objective view of housing needs and ensure
they are delivered. There is little doubt that density has been too low, given the
shortage of land and the need created for motorised transport. Consequently, the
Planning Authority should control the housing density to appropriate levels through all the sites.
Many surveys indicate a view there is a shortage of mid-size dwellings suitable for
young couples. These should be provided in adequate numbers on all sites.
see letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9578
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Bloor Homes
Agent: Savills
We consider that this approach of affordable housing contributions is unconventional and could generate a greater than 50% of housing units being provided for affordable housing, where the mix for private included more 2 and 4 bedroom houses than is required for affordable. We consider that this in-turn could negatively affect the overall site mix, development viability and prohibit development.
We object to this affordable housing approach until further evidence can be provided to justify a habitable room/floor space requirement. We consider that the Council's existing approach on affordable housing is more appropriate.
Please see attached representations and a detailed promotion document on behalf of my client, Bloor Homes, in response to the Solihull Local Plan Supplementary Consultation document.
Land East of Tilehouse Lane Tidbury Green
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9596
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Berkswell Parish Council
Residents' interest is primarily smaller homes to buy so that the children of Balsall Common residents can buy a property in Balsall Common. The affordable housing definition does not help this group and that is disappointing.
Support higher proportion of shared ownership/Starter/discounted homes.
Plan should make specific reference to providing land on large developments for alms houses by Berkswell Charities.
See details in attached letter
Berkswell Parish Council considers that the issues are important and worthy of deep consideration with an honest attempt by SMBC to conduct a suitable and sufficient review of the draft plan proposals.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9606
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Dickens Heath Residents Association
The Residents Association supports the retention of the existing unit number policy for measuring affordable housing provision.
Ref. Solihull Draft Local Plan Review - Supplementary Consultation January 2019
The Dickens Heath Residents Association welcomes the reduction in planned housing numbers on site 4 and deletion of site 13 with its access onto the B3102 Tanworth Lane Traffic Islands.
However based on the feedback from residents and the lack of information on addressing the existing traffic and infrastructure issues plus very widespread strong objections by the village to the Masterplan proposals to site 4 West of Dickens Heath we are objecting to the inclusion of this site.
In terms of the questionnaire we would respond to the relevant Questions as follows.
Scope of the consultation and overall assessment - while this indicates the objectives of the review when viewed in context it does not address the concerns raised by residents over existing well known traffic congestion issues and an inadequate rural highway network.
Dickens Heath Residents Association therefor strongly object to the Masterplan proposals for site 4.
A petition is being submitted to Solihull Council by Councillor Hawkins indicating some 1150 residents have lodged objection to site 4 in addition to a significant number of Emailed objections submitted to the Parish Council. We have also attended recent meetings at which the proposals have been presented and discussed and noted the level of objection and lack of any public support for the proposal at site 4.
Q 4 Blythe Infrastructure - its indicated highway improvements are only likely to be needed and off-street parking improvements at Dickens Heath only may be needed which does nothing to reassure residents that if site 4 were to be approved and included the council would provide the necessary infrastructure.
On sports and recreation lost provision is indicated as would be replaced but there are no sites indicated in the site 4 Masterplan.
The residents association regard it as a key priority that any future redevelopment ensures the existing sports grounds are retained within site 4
Q12 Site 4 Land West of Dickens Heath - while noting the councils laudable intentions to protect landscape features residents cannot be expected to support the inclusion of site 4 by writing a blank cheque for the proposed housing numbers given the experience of the totally inadequate highway infrastructure provided for the original Dickens Heath village as against its concept plan.
While it is understood that issues of highways and parking will be brought forward it is not possible to envisage how any satisfactory highway scheme could be implemented that would address both the proposed housing and ameliorate the existing congestion issues.
In respect of relocating the long established sports grounds for Old Yardleians Rugby Club, Highgate United FC, and Leafield FC these clubs have significant local support and the Residents Association would require alternative provision to an adequate standard within site 4.
The Residents Association is strongly opposed to an alternative more remote location into green belt countryside elsewhere.
Q14 Site 12 Land South of Dog Kennel Lane - this is adjacent to our Parish and impacts onto the main Dickens Heath traffic access. This site if included would need significant traffic attenuation measures.
Q34 Washed over green belt settlements - the Residents Association support the policy proposals at Whitlock's End and Cheswick Green subject to careful assessment of flooding issues at Cheswick Green sites.
Q38 Amber Sites - the Residents Association support the review and inclusion of all the Amber Sites as proposed.
Q40, 41, 42 & 43 Affordable Housing Policy - the Residents Association supports the retention of the existing unit number policy for measuring affordable housing provision.
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9623
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Balsall Parish Council
This potential policy proposal to use a percentage of square meter floorspace, percentage of bedrooms or percentage of habitable rooms could lead to undesirable unintended consequences.
Such a scheme should not be used without evidence from such an approach already in use achieving an improvement in provision of affordable housing.
SMBC should have regard to the emerging Balsall Parish NDP Policy H. 7
Please find attached Balsall Parish Council response to the SLP supplementary consultation.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9640
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: David Wilson Homes
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Do not support proposal to switch from a percentage based affordable housing calculation to a floorspace percentage calculation.
The justification for this is given as a need to drive up the proportion of smaller properties being delivered. However, the Council has not published any analysis of its assumptions which underpin the comments made in this section; and appears to be confusing matters relating to housing mix; housing size and matters relating to affordable housing provision. These are separate matters.
No evidence that such an amendment will have effect of providing smaller market housing.
We are instructed by our client, David Wilson Homes Ltd, to submit representations to the supplementary consultation on the Draft Local Plan Review in relation to their interests at their site at Tidbury Green Golf Club (known as Arden Green).
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9740
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Heyford Developments Ltd
Agent: Harris Lamb
No, as would encourage fewer larger units, so overall affordable housing numbers would decrease. Changes in layout/mix may not match Section 106 Agreements creating difficulties and additional work.
see letter
promoting land to the West of Diddington Lane HIA
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9757
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Turley
It is considered that the proposed approach to affordable housing and market mix is confused and should be reviewed as part of the preparation of the next stage of the
Local Plan.
It is standard practice for affordable housing contributions to be calculated as a percentage of the overall number of dwellings and there is no evidence to suggest that the alternative approach of calculating provision based on floorspace would encourage the delivery of a higher proportion of smaller market dwellings.
Experience within the industry is that the use of a square meterage approach does not enhance the delivery of either market of affordable housing. There are a much larger range of factors to take into account when developing an appropriate mix of housing; particularly on large
development sites where the creation of a high quality 'place' is critical.
This approach reflects the policies set out with the 2019 NPPF.
Please find attached representations prepared by Turley on behalf of IM Land in respect of Land at Earlswood Station in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review - Draft Local Plan Supplementary Consultation (January 2019).
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9764
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: IM Land
Agent: Turley
IM considers the Council's proposed approach to dealing with affordable housing and market mix to be confused. It is standard practice for affordable housing contributions to be calculated as a percentage of the overall number of dwellings and there is no evidence to suggest that this alternative approach would encourage the delivery of a higher proportion of smaller market dwellings.
The Local Plan should deal with the matters of affordable housing requirements and market mix separately. This will ensure a clear position for both the Council and developers reducing the likelihood of overly complex negotiations during the determination of applications.
Any changes in the approach to calculating affordable housing would need to be supported by evidence (including updated viability evidence) justifying the need for and suitability of this change.
We write on behalf of our client, IM Properties Limited (hereafter referred to as 'IM'), in response to the Solihull Local Plan Review (SLPR) Draft Local Plan (DLP) Supplementary Consultation, which was published for consultation in January 2019.
IM Properties own and are actively promoting several sites and assets within the Borough, including Mell Square, Blythe Valley Park and Fore Business Park.
IM Land, the strategic land division of IM, also has existing and emerging land interests within the Borough; separate representations have been submitted
in relation to IM Land's interests.
see attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9782
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: William Davis Ltd
Agent: Define Planning & Design
WDL does not consider there to be any evidence to demonstrate that such an approach would incentivize developers in this way. Indeed, seeking affordable housing contributions based on the total square meterage or habitable rooms / floorspace would not comply with the affordable housing site thresholds set out by the Government in the Written Ministerial Statement dated 28th November 2014
and NPPF 2019 (para 64).
Please find attached our full representations to the above consultation that are submitted on behalf of William Davis Limited re: land at Station Road Hampton in Arden
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9898
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: David Wilson Homes
Agent: Barton Willmore Planning
Q40 to Q43
see detail in letter
see letter land South Broad Lane Berkswell
Comment
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9938
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Generator (Balsall) & Minton
Agent: DS Planning
No evidence has been provided to justify the alternative approach now being taken. It appears that the Council is using affordable housing policy to deal with identified issues associated with market housing mix such as delivering smaller housing, increasing densities and minimising Green Belt release.
The current approach of requiring affordable contributions on total sq meterage or habitable rooms/floorspace would not comply with affordable housing site thresholds set out by Government in the Written Ministerial Statement dated 28th November 2014 or para 64 of the NPPF 2019.
This is the response of Generator Group and Minton to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site on land adj Harpers Field, Kenilworth Road Balsall Common for inclusion as a housing
allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order. Whilst we have
responded to each question, the detailed points in relation to our site are set out under question 39 and your attention is specifically drawn to this part of the response. It should be noted the site is developer owned and delivery of the site can therefore come forward early in the plan period
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 9984
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Rosconn Stategic Land
Agent: DS Planning
No evidence has been provided to justify the alternative approach now being
taken. It appears that the Council is using affordable housing policy to deal with identified issues associated with market housing mix such as delivering smaller housing, increasing densities and minimising Green Belt release.
The current approach of requiring affordable contributions on total sq meterage or habitable rooms/floorspace would not comply with affordable housing site thresholds set out by Government in the Written Ministerial Statement dated 28th November 2014 or para 64 of the NPPF 2019.
This is the response of Rosconn Strategic Land to the supplementary consultation by
Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the
response is to comment the draft Plan and promote three sites for inclusion as
housing allocations within the plan. The response is by question order.
The 3 sites are:
Land at Three Maypoles Farm Shirley
Land at r/o 2214 Stratford Road Hockley Heath
Land adj 161 Lugtrout Lane Solihull
The responses on the three sites to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation
are attached and which highlight the reasons why the sites should be allocations
within the Local Plan.
This document should also be read in conjunction with the Ecology Report and
Heritage Assessment in relation to land adj to 161 Lugtrout Lane, Solihull.
Your attention is also drawn to the attached Masterplan for land r/o 2214 Stratford
Road Hockley Heath.
Not withstanding that this is an informal consultation we consider that the document
should be accompanied by an up to date SA.
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10024
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Stonewater
Agent: DS Planning
No evidence has been provided to justify the alternative approach now being
taken. It appears that the Council is using affordable housing policy to deal with identified issues associated with market housing mix such as delivering smaller housing, increasing densities and minimising Green Belt release.
The current approach of requiring affordable contributions on total sq meterage or habitable rooms/floorspace would not comply with affordable housing site thresholds set out by Government in the Written Ministerial Statement dated 28th November 2014 or para 64 of the NPPF 2019.
This is the response of Stonewater to the supplementary consultation by Solihull
Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is
to comment the draft Plan and promote the site at the Firs Maxstoke Lane (west of
Meriden proposed allocation site 10) for inclusion as a housing allocation within the
Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the site should be an allocation within the
Local Plan (Site Ref 137).
see detailed comment in attached letter
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10065
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Mr T Khan
Agent: DS Planning
No evidence has been provided to justify the alternative approach now being
taken. It appears that the Council is using affordable housing policy to deal with identified issues associated with market housing mix such as delivering smaller housing, increasing densities and minimising Green Belt release.
The current approach of requiring affordable contributions on total sq meterage or habitable rooms/floorspace would not comply with affordable housing site thresholds set out by Government in the Written Ministerial Statement dated 28th November 2014 or para 64 of the NPPF 2019.
This is the response of Mr Taj Khan, Sid Kelly and John Green to the supplementary
consultation by Solihull Council on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The
purpose of the response is to comment on the draft Plan and promote the site at 15,
59, & 61 Jacobean Lane Knowle for inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan
and land north of Jacobean Lane being removed from the Green Belt and to support
the removal of land from the Green Belt to rectify anomalies and for consistency.
See detail response in attached letter and appendices
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10107
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Minton (CdeB) Ltd
Agent: DS Planning
No evidence has been provided to justify the alternative approach now being
taken. It appears that the Council is using affordable housing policy to deal
with identified issues associated with market housing mix such as delivering
smaller housing, increasing densities and minimising Green Belt release.
The current approach of requiring affordable contributions on total sq
meterage or habitable rooms/floorspace would not comply with affordable
housing site thresholds set out by Government in the Written Ministerial
Statement dated 28th November 2014 or para 64 of the NPPF 2019.
This is the response of Minton to the supplementary consultation by Solihull Council
on the Solihull Draft Local Plan January 2019. The purpose of the response is to
comment the draft Plan and promote the site at Oak Farm Catherine de Barnes for
inclusion as a housing allocation within the Plan. The response is by question order.
The original response to the Solihull Draft Local Plan 2016 consultation is also
attached which highlights the reasons why the full Oak Farm site should be an
allocation within the Local Plan. We have also carried out our own Green Belt
Assessment a copy of which is attached
Object
Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation
Representation ID: 10170
Received: 15/03/2019
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Lichfields
While Taylor Wimpey are supportive of SMBC's ambition to increase the delivery of affordable housing, it is not considered that changing the way affordable housing is calculated in any of the ways suggested is a practical and workable solution. Taylor Wimpey are of the view that affordable housing should be calculated by a proportion (40%) of the number of units being proposed. The type and size of housing provided for both private sale and affordable housing should instead reflect market demand and local need.
We write on behalf of our client Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (TW), with regards to the Supplementary Consultation document and Concept Masterplan for Site 12
.As you are aware, Taylor Wimpey own much of the land in the Proposed Housing Allocation 12 South of Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley. Taylor Wimpey therefore fully support the allocation of the site for residential development and can confirm that housing development at this site is deliverable. The site is well located to
shops, employment, public transport and schools and is therefore in a highly sustainable location.
To support the allocation and to demonstrate how this can deliver a new sustainable community, we include an updated Development Statement for Site 12 (Appendix 1) prepared on behalf of Taylor Wimpey. This clearly sets out how a masterplan for this site, prepared for Taylor Wimpey, has evolved to address all of the constraints and opportunities. In addition, the following technical reports have been provided in support of the allocation:
* Ecology Technical Note prepared by EDP (Appendix 2)
* Green Belt Position Note prepared by EDP (Appendix 3)
* Flood Risk Scoping Note prepared by BWB Consulting (Appendix 4)
* Transport Report prepared by Vectos (Appendix 5)
The Heritage Assessment will be finalised on receipt of the SMBC report currently being prepared.
Overall, we consider that a housing allocation at this site could deliver in the order of 1,200 new homes together with associated social and physical infrastructure and public open space within a well landscaped and high quality designed masterplan.