Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Support

Representation ID: 9371

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Supports the decision to review Green Belt boundaries to accommodate the
identified growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 9372

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Support proposed distribution, review of green belt boundaries, use of standard methodology, but concerned at lack of justification/agreement for contribution to wider HMA shortfall. Insufficient deliverable sites allocated to meet needs. Some green/allocated sites have significant questions over deliverability and compliance with national policies/sustainability considerations, meaning some 1,060 dwellings may not be delivered.

Comment

Representation ID: 9373

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Step 2 refinement is contrary to NPPF. Not appropriate to introduce physical boundaries in otherwise open green belt areas. Methodology should set out preferred criteria for defining clear defensible boundaries. Some red sites ruled out due to lack of defensible boundaries, whilst some sites rated green have caveat that physical boundaries will be created. Methodology not consistently and logically applied across all sites.

Object

Representation ID: 9374

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No clearly defined physical feature along eastern boundary, and site does not follow field boundaries. Reliance on bypass line problematic, no evidence that route/funding agreed. Line likely to be further east so could not provide boundary.
Low level of accessibility, Sustainability Appraisal identifies only 3 positive v 6 negative (2 significant) effects.
Only one third of site is brownfield, the eastern part of the site makes the highest possible contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 9375

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Lack of a clear defensible physical boundary and concern that there will be pressure for further development to south, as shown on the promoter's masterplan submission for site 26. Site needs to be assessed consistently with other sites rejected for lack of physical boundaries.
Severely compromises Green Belt purposes a to c.
Site should be re-evaluated and doubtful that stated capacity is realistic.

Object

Representation ID: 9376

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Lack of a clear defensible physical boundary and concern that there will be pressure for further development up to the Stratford Canal, as shown on the promoter's masterplan submission. Site needs to be assessed consistently with other sites rejected for lack of physical boundaries.
Severely compromises Green Belt purposes a to c.
Site should be re-evaluated and doubtful that stated capacity is realistic.

Object

Representation ID: 9377

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The 'Draft Concept Masterplan' document, January 2019, acknowledges
that alternative premises would need to be found for the wood shaving operation to
enable the residential development of both sites. This is likely to be problematic
given the 'bad neighbour' characteristics of the use.
Site preparation works required for brownfield element questioning viability.
These significant doubts over deliverability mean site should not be allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 9378

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Many sites rejected where there are no existing physical features, yet there is no clearly defined physical boundary along northern edge of NW proposal and site does not follow field boundaries. Topography means site more visually intrusive in green belt and impacts on openness. Impact on Local Wildlife Site, TPOs, right of way and setting of Grimshaw Hall.
SE proposal occupied by Knowle FC so question over deliverability. Further land promoted with potential impacts on Grimshaw Hall. Land is highly performing in Green Belt Assessment.
No very special circumstances to justify sports hub in green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 9379

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Given that there are likely to be significant site preparation costs, it seems inappropriate for the site to be allocated for development for 200 dwellings without a
detailed viability assessment. Until this evidence work has been carried out, we
contend that the site does not satisfy the national policy requirements

Object

Representation ID: 9380

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Mr. James McBride

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Concern over permanent loss of community playing field facilities in an
area identified in Playing Pitch Assessment/Strategy, 2017, as being deficient in this area. Unused pitches need to be replaced if lost and no information provided to suggest an alternative site.
Contrary to the strategic objective of protecting and promoting healthy
sustainable communities.