Preferred Options for Sites

Comment

Representation ID: 64542

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

It is not clear how the Council have cooperated with neighbouring authorities and thus whether they have fulfilled their 'duty to cooperate'. (Chapter 2)

Object

Representation ID: 64937

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

In order to be consistent, both in term of how sites were initially identified for Gypsies and Travellers housing needs and how housing sites have been identified through the Local Plan process for non- Gypsy and Traveller needs, the Green Belt boundaries should have been reviewed to ascertain whether any sites could be released from the Green Belt in order to meet Gypsy and Traveller housing needs. The lack of a consistent approach to site identification and allocation makes the Plan unsound and thus will undermine any attempts to use CPO powers. (Chapter 3)

Comment

Representation ID: 64938

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Consideration of the scale of sites in the context of the nearest settled community should also be included as a criteria as the preferred sites are concentrated within close proximity to each other. The Council need to consider the cumulative effect of the sites on the nearest settled community.

Object

Representation ID: 64939

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

The Council's assessment notes that the site should be maintained for its wildlife interests and that because much of the site is susceptible to flooding the potential developable area may be unviable. In addition to constraints identified by the council, the implementation of visibility splays would result in a loss of vegetation and will impact on the River Avon wildlife site. The site should therefore be classified as unsuitable ie 'Red'.

Object

Representation ID: 64940

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

There is no consideration given to the proximity to the Grade I listed Park and Garden at Castle Park and therefore any potential impact to the setting has not been considered. The size of site has not been reduced to accommodate the buffer and wildlife corridor the Council has previously identified as being necessary for this site.

Site should be reclassified as "not suitable" (Red).

Support

Representation ID: 64941

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

The only constraint is that it is in the Green Belt. Removing the site from the Green Belt would not undermine any of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. As such the site should be classed as suitable ie 'Green' and its removal from the Green Belt should be promoted.

Comment

Representation ID: 64942

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

It is not clear how the 'preferred sites' have been chosen from the list of suitable 'Green' sites as all the 'Green' sites meet the criteria in Policy PO1. The Council needs to make its site selection process available for inspection.

Object

Representation ID: 64943

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

This policy requires sites to be deliverable and available yet sites GT02, GT05, GT06, GT12 and GTalt12 will all require CPOs and so do not meet the policy requirement. There is no indication of the relative weight to be placed on each criteria but it is not rational to identify sites as Preferred or Alternative if CPO powers are required. As CPO powers must be seen as a last resort, the Council must be able to demonstrate that all other options have been considered. It is clear that the site selection process is flawed and has not been adequately evidenced or explained, which will undermine the Council's case. The time and costs involved in the CPO process mean that there is no guarantee that the sites can be delivered in a reasonable timescale or at all and therefore cannot be considered as deliverable. This in turn makes the Plan unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 64944

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

The Council appears to have ignored its own sustainability Appraisal and evidence base: assessments for GT15 and GTalt01 identify more negative than positive effects and therefore allocating these as preferred site will result in unsustainable development. Similarly, GT02 has more positive than negative effects and would be a more sustainable form of development than GT15 or GTalt01 but is not a preferred site. GTalt03 also has more positive than negative effects and so should be removed from the Green Belt and promoted as a Preferred Site ie 'Green' rather than a Potentially Suitable Site ie 'Amber'.

Object

Representation ID: 64945

Received: 02/05/2014

Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Sites must be deliverable and available yet site GT05 will require a CPO and so does not meet the policy requirement. There is no indication of the relative weight to be placed on each criteria but it is not rational to identify a site as Preferred or Alternative if CPO powers are required. As CPO powers must be seen as a last resort, the Council must be able to demonstrate that all other options have been considered. It is clear that the site selection process is flawed and has not been adequately evidenced or explained, which will undermine the Council's case. The time and costs involved in the CPO process mean that there is no guarantee that the sites can be delivered in a reasonable timescale or at all and therefore cannot be considered as deliverable. This in turn makes the Plan unsound.

Site GT05 should be reclassified as "not suitable" (Red).