Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Comment

Representation ID: 2755

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Do not disagree with use of standard method, but consider delivery of housing in neighbouring authorities and HMA to ensure needs are met in full.

Suggest trajectory is provided in line with para 73.

Suggest including buffer of 20%

Aim should not be to prepare a plan with a stepped trajectory - the plan should allocate a range of sites to ensure provision is even across the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 2757

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Understand that requirement for this policy is no longer - as such it repeats national policy and should be deleted.

Comment

Representation ID: 2758

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Concerned that CDC not published viability evidence.

Approach of ensuring AH is indistinguishable not effective to delivery - AH is a different product and may be designed differently and use different materials. Provided the proposed devt is in keeping with design policies than differential appearance should not be an issue for consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 2759

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Suggest policy rewording

Support

Representation ID: 2761

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Welcome support for specialist accom, but suggest that Council seeks to identify number of specialist homes for older people and identify sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 2763

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Policy which specifies housing mix is overly restrictive and does not offer flexibility - mix should not be in policy.

CDC must identify need for accessible homes to ensure it does not compromise viability. If seeking to require proportion of homes built to part M4(2) of Regs, must be justified. Where CDC seeks to apply optional technical standards must be considered in viability assessment.

Should justify inclusion of Nationally Described Space Standard.

Object

Representation ID: 2764

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

No ref to parking provision required - unsound as does not comply with legislation that prevents CDC from setting policy in SPDs.

Support

Representation ID: 2766

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Welcome general approach but not clear how sequential test will be demonstrated:
1. which sequential test is it?
2. sequential test refers to new town centre uses not loss of older uses - not consistent with national policy

Comment

Representation ID: 2768

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Part 4 of policy not consistent with NPPF, suggest policy rewording

Comment

Representation ID: 2769

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Part 5 of policy inconsistent with NPPF para 16.