Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Support

Representation ID: 61311

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: CALA Homes (Midlands) Ltd & Mr & mrs Watkinson

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

-The proposed Settlement Boundary on the Burton Green Village Plan is considered to be positively prepared with the incorporation of the most appropriate development site (Site 1) incorporated within land to be inset from the Green Belt such that it will enable to delivery of sustainable development.
-The nature of the built-up area of Burton Green creates no opportunities for housing allocation or windfall development within the urban area.
-Building on greenfield sites on the edge of the settlement will create a tight Settlement Boundary inclusive of both the existing built form and land delivering the required increased housing numbers.

Support

Representation ID: 61504

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: CALA Homes (Midlands) Ltd & Mr & mrs Watkinson

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

-The proposed allocation of the site and its early development will accord with the provisions of the NPPF in that it is located in a sustainable position, compromising a sustainable form of development in which a clear net economic, social and environmental gain can be demonstrated.
-No environmental constraints (i.e. flood risk, biodiversity)
-Size is proportionate to the village and integrates well with the existing built form
-Development would deliver community facilities
-Available to deliver development in the early stages of the plan
-Large site maximises development viability minimising the risk that housing and community infrastructure cannot be delivered.

Support

Representation ID: 61505

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: CALA Homes (Midlands) Ltd & Mr & mrs Watkinson

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

The respondent supports the discounting of Site 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 due to the following reasons:
-The detrimental impact the developments would have on the landscape and visual and openness
-The Sites' isolated locations from the existing village and services.
-Issues regarding access and land ownership
-Environmental and physical constraints such as tree lines, scrubland and Grade 2 Agricultural Land (Site 2 and 3)
-HS2 restrictions (Site 2)
-All sites would fail to deliver the community benefits that Site 1 is able to provide.