Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 66014

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (Andrew Taylor)

Agent: Framptons

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The assumptions made in the employment land review in relation to the site are flawed in its understanding of the use class for which planning permission was granted. WDC imposed a condition to restrict office floorspace to 5,000 sq metres in order to resist out of centre office development. Para 22 of the NPPF states that local authorities should regularly review land allocations avoid the long term protection of sites. There is no reasonable prospect of the Opus 40 site being used for B1 purposes. The site has been marketed over a lengthy period of time. The allocation of the site is at odds with Paragraph 173 of the NPPF. The allocation of the site for a town centre site on an edge of town location is unrealistic. This frustrates the early delivery of new homes on the site which could contribute towards acheiving a 5 year supply of housing. Opus 40 should be removed from DS9 and allocated for housing as an urban brownfield site within policy DS11.

Object

Representation ID: 66256

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (Andrew Taylor)

Agent: Framptons

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is no reasonable prospect of land at Opus 40 being used for employment within B1. The assumptions made in the 2013 Employment Land Review are flawed. Market signals and relative need for residential land in sustainable locations which is readily deliverable cries out for this site to be allocated for residential purposes.