Revised Development Strategy

I have been instructed by my client The Rosconn Group, to respond to the recent publication of the Core Strategy Consultation and would make the following comments.

We are in general support of the overall approach taken within the plan but would question the total number of dwellings required especially in relation to the creation of 10,200 new jobs. We have read and understand how the figure of 12,300 new homes has been arrived at, however with the ambition to create so many new jobs, coupled with changing demographics and in-migration we believe this number needs to be higher.

We welcome the allowance for development in rural areas both in terms of Primary and Secondary service villages as well as feeder villages and Hamlets. We believe that this will allow for economic and social sustainability within these areas and sustain the wider rural communities.

With regard to the Primary and Secondary Villages we believe it is important to draft the village envelopes as a matter of urgency and that these envelopes need to be genuine village envelopes rather than being drawn with pre conceived ideas of where development will go. The same is true for the feeder villages and Hamlets. Further detail needs to be provided as to how these settlements might be grouped together in hubs or networked clusters. There should be further consultation on these aspects.

Further clarification needs to be given in relation to what 'proportional' means in terms of numbers or scale of development. Will this be a percentage of units in the village; will it be a maximum amount of units etc.? We consider a critical mass of units is required to ensure there is a realistic chance of these villages regenerating and becoming economic and socially sustainable.

It is important to avoid a "free for all" or "a first come, first served" approach to development. Having given the issue much consideration and having looked at examples in other areas we believe that development should meet one of the following four criteria.
* Be on previously developed land
* Be community led
* Be for an identified local need, or
* Should demonstrate a business case that development will help a local service or amenity




















The other aspect, which we have concern about, is the definition of infill or small group of dwellings? Concern is related back to needing a critical mass to ensure that local facilities continue to operate. Three new units built as infill development is unlikely to keep a school open for example. Critical mass will be the key to the survival of some rural areas.

We look forward to receiving acknowledgement of receipt and receiving your feedback and comments in due course.

I have been instructed by my client The Rosconn Group, to respond to the recent publication of the Core Strategy Consultation and would make the following comments.

We are in general support of the overall approach taken within the plan but would question the total number of dwellings required especially in relation to the creation of 10,200 new jobs. We have read and understand how the figure of 12,300 new homes has been arrived at, however with the ambition to create so many new jobs, coupled with changing demographics and in-migration we believe this number needs to be higher.

We welcome the allowance for development in rural areas both in terms of Primary and Secondary service villages as well as feeder villages and Hamlets. We believe that this will allow for economic and social sustainability within these areas and sustain the wider rural communities.

With regard to the Primary and Secondary Villages we believe it is important to draft the village envelopes as a matter of urgency and that these envelopes need to be genuine village envelopes rather than being drawn with pre conceived ideas of where development will go. The same is true for the feeder villages and Hamlets. Further detail needs to be provided as to how these settlements might be grouped together in hubs or networked clusters. There should be further consultation on these aspects.

Further clarification needs to be given in relation to what 'proportional' means in terms of numbers or scale of development. Will this be a percentage of units in the village; will it be a maximum amount of units etc.? We consider a critical mass of units is required to ensure there is a realistic chance of these villages regenerating and becoming economic and socially sustainable.

It is important to avoid a "free for all" or "a first come, first served" approach to development. Having given the issue much consideration and having looked at examples in other areas we believe that development should meet one of the following four criteria.
* Be on previously developed land
* Be community led
* Be for an identified local need, or
* Should demonstrate a business case that development will help a local service or amenity




















The other aspect, which we have concern about, is the definition of infill or small group of dwellings? Concern is related back to needing a critical mass to ensure that local facilities continue to operate. Three new units built as infill development is unlikely to keep a school open for example. Critical mass will be the key to the survival of some rural areas.

We look forward to receiving acknowledgement of receipt and receiving your feedback and comments in due course.