Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for Arden Wood Shavings Ltd search
New searchYes
Draft Local Plan Review
06 Hampton-in-Arden - Meriden Road
Representation ID: 1979
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Arden Wood Shavings Ltd
Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP
Support the allocation of the Meriden Road Depot as part of site 6. The boundary of the allocated site should be adjusted to reflect the Depot site boundary, through the development of the concept masterplan for the site. To ensure delivery, clarification of the site's relationship with site 24 in the SLP2013 is required
see attached response by agent
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q14. Do you agree that we are planning to build the right number of new homes? If not why not, and how many do you think we should be planning to build?
Representation ID: 3230
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Arden Wood Shavings Ltd
Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP
The housing requirement figure of 15,029 additional homes does not respond sufficiently to the unmet need from the Greater Birmingham housing market area. Whilst the distribution of the full shortfall of 37,900 has yet to be established, other authorities within the housing market area consider the contribution in the Draft Local Plan of 2,000 houses is inadequate. Further work is yet to take place to establish the distribution of the unmet need and is likely to report in Autumn 2017. The Local Plan Review should allow flexibility to address this without further Plan or Green Belt review.
see attached response by agent
No
Draft Local Plan Review
Q23. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?
Representation ID: 3238
Received: 16/02/2017
Respondent: Arden Wood Shavings Ltd
Agent: Stansgate Planning LLP
The Local Plan Review evidence base generally supports the allocation of site 6 but underestimates its benefits within a sustainable settlement with services and facilities in easy reach, which offers planning gain from removal of the existing use, firm defensible Green Belt boundary following physical features with visual enhancement potential. The SHELAA suitability assessment does not accurately reflect the site's suitability, as there is no known contamination/landfill, no explanation is provided re ground conditions or bad neighbour constraints and it is not a builders yard, and the EA flood map shows only 1% of the site within zone 3.
see attached response by agent