Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Assessment Framework

There are no weighting considerations to the scoring of each option against the 33 performance criteria. However based on an equal weighting of the performance criteria, I note the west option scores 24 positives for the very strong, strong and reasonable categories and 9 negatives for the poor and very poor; the east option also scores 24 against the same positives and 9 negatives against the poor and very poor; whilst the combined option scores 26 positives and 7 negatives. The combined option also scores 8 very strong whereas the west and east options only score 5 and 6 very strong respectively. The east option scores poor or very poor against deliverability tests ruling the option out in principle. The west option is marginally better with a reasonable and very poor score. The combined option scores poor against the landownership deliverability but a reasonable against viability deliverability. Since viability will be central to determining whether an option is capable of deliverability in principle, and based on an equal weighting of the listed performance criteria, it would appear the combined option is the only option able to meet the principal purpose of the Southbourne Allocations DPD which is to ensure the option delivers the overarching policy objectives of the Local Plan in particular policy A13 (paragraph 3.5 4th bullet of the Site Allocations DPD).

No uploaded files for public display