Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 9675

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

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: 9676

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

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: 9677

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

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: 9678

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

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: 9679

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

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: 9680

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The 5 ha urban site is expected to deliver approximately 200 dwellings. However,
the viability of the site for residential development has not been tested and the
potential land contamination on the site is unknown. Recommendation in concept masterplan that consideration given to relocation or removal of the telecommunications mast if possible.
Deliverability not demonstrated and should not be allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 9681

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

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.

Object

Representation ID: 9682

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Concept Masterplan recognises viability issues. To be considered
developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development with a
reasonable prospect that they will be available and could be viably developed.
Recommend that site 7 is not relied upon as an allocation for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 9683

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

St. George and Teresa School, site 155, capacity 31 dwellings, is in educational use and no evidence to show suitable alternative site. Should not be included in SHELAA sites calculation for housing supply.
Safeguarded land should be identified and removed from green belt to meet future need and avoid need to alter green belt boundaries in review.
Evidence behind Review flawed, no detailed landscape/ecological assessments of preferred/amber sites, additional/smaller parcels require assessment for GBA, no revision to IDP, no viability assessment, and no feasibility/masterplanning of SGS growth location recommendations.

Object

Representation ID: 10440

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Kendrick Homes Ltd

Agent: Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Given stated uncertainty over the extent of the site available for development and hence its deliverability, it is inappropriate and unsound for site 15 to be allocated.