Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Object

Representation ID: 61299

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-The whole document is based on an estimated requirement for 12,300 dwelling over the plan period. The latest SHMA puts the assessed requirement at 14,400, meaning that a residual need is 8,722 rather than 6,622.
-Therefore the process has begun from entirely the wrong premise and is based on evidence which is partial, inaccurate and subjective.
-It shows that there is no connected between the suite of documents which will make up the evidence base of the new Local Plan restricting the ability for the documents to be read harmoniously.

Object

Representation ID: 63194

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Nothing in Section 3 of the Options Report demonstrates that local planning authority has followed the approach set out in the NPPF and all government policies that preceded the Framework; in particular the Exceptional Circumstance must be demonstrated before boundaries are amended.
-The reassessment of sites against the purposes of the Green Belt is entirely the wrong starting point. All of the decisions relating to these purposes were taken when the Green Belt was adopted and the permanence of the Green Belt boundaries must continue to be taken as the starting point, irrespective of the local planning authority's current views.

Object

Representation ID: 63195

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-This Options Report appears only to support the local planning authority's preconceived conclusions. Plans that are based on non-objective evidence will undoubtedly be found 'unsound' by the Inspector. Views that challenge the preconceptions of the local planning authority should be taken into accounts as well as those supporting the preconceptions.
-This Options report entirely ignores the legitimate view that increased development could, reasonable and sustainably be accommodated in the larger villages outside the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 63196

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Paragraph 4.6 ignores the view that the amount of housing proposed in some of the villages is insufficient when compared to local needs and assumes that the villages should be limited to local needs rather than providing beyond that for the Districts growth needs as sustainable settlements capable of growth.

-The point made in previous consultation responses are ignored that a sustainability assessment that ignores Green Belt as a negative constraint, as with the local planning authority's assessment is an entirely unsound basis for making locational choices for new development. This approach flies in the face of longstanding government policy.

Object

Representation ID: 63197

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Paragraph 3.8 of the Options Paper, the local planning authority seems to openly accept that the District has sufficient capacity outside the Green Belt to accommodate its needs for new housing.

Object

Representation ID: 63198

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Barford is wrongly re-categorised as a Secondary Service Village down from a Primary Service Village. With the simultaneous 'promotion' of Green Belt villages such as Cubbington via the statistical manipulation of their sustainability scoring system, as well as the convenient disregard for any impact of Green Belt considerations in such assessments, this is completely intuitive to National Policy leading to a baseless set of biased categorisations.

Object

Representation ID: 63199

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-There is an issue about the partial two responses in Paragraph 4.6 to those people wishing to see the allocations reduced. A third equally valid point points towards increased rather than reduced allocations - surveys carried out represent a minimum not a maximum identified need. At our recent appeal in Barford, the inspector did indeed clarify this was the case.

Object

Representation ID: 63200

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-The situation at Site 6 is misrepresented. Paragraph 5.7 sets the local planning authority's context for considering this site.
-It is not a Registered Park or Garden and at the recent appeal, the local planning authority and Inspector referred to the site only as part of the setting of Barford House and the Conservation Area... not an 'important landscape'. This point has been reinforced by English Heritage. As a visually enclosed site, we submit that the authority's starting point for the analysis of Site 6 is flawed and unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 63201

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Area is by far the most sensitive location in the village.
-The highway conclusions presented by the local authority are based on partial work and studies that are disparate to the more detailed studies of the promoting developer. There is the risk that a site is allocated on the false premise of a highways solution that is not achievable, and then condemns the village to a development that will need to use a far more unacceptable access.
-Feature of the village would be ruined by significant infrastructure upgrades needed to sustain development.
-There are much less sensitive sites for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 63202

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-A housing allocation on Site 1 is completely counter-intuitive when there are much less sensitive and achievable alternative supported by the Parish. For example, Site 3 is suggested to be ruled out of highway concerns, yet the required visibility splays here are actually achievable - the evidence base of this option document is simply crude, inaccurate, incomplete, and incorrectly leads to manifestly unsound decisions on site allocations.