GNLP2171

Object

Representation ID: 21802

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Quantum Land

Please see attached for full submission
We object to the omission of the GNLP2170 and GNLP2171 sites from the Site Allocations, and the identification of these sites as being ‘Unreasonable Sites’ for the following reasons:
a. At Stage 2 of the HELAA, both sites were given ‘Green’ ratings in respect of site access, open space/GI, and transport and roads, and as a result of this and their other ratings they passed the Stage 2 assessment and were considered to be ‘reasonable alternatives’ and therefore ‘suitable sites’;
b. Stage 4 concluded that both sites were still considered to be ‘reasonable alternatives’.
In relation to GNLP2171 (Langley South) it as noted that access to the site would be via the previous Yarmouth Road access so there were ‘no obvious concerns’, and that subject to managing the constraint of the Ancient Woodland the site remains a ‘reasonable alternative’;
c. At Stage 6 of the HELAA, detailed assessments of the reasonable alternative sites were undertaken. In respect of both GNLP2170 and GNLP2171, Highways commented that both sites were acceptable subject to an access strategy. In other words, Highways did not object to the inclusion of the two sites. Development Management commented that:
▪They were not convinced that estate-scale development could be delivered due to the site constraints, although these constraints weren’t identified;
▪Queried whether the allocation should be open-ended in terms of housing numbers; and
▪Identified the need for a masterplan and/or a Design Code to be prepared;It is not clear what the site constraints were to which Development Management referred, as no significant constraints or ‘showstoppers’ were identified by other consultees; and
d.At Stage 7, the preferred sites were identified, and both GNLP2170 and GNLP2171 were dismissed on highways and ecological/landscape grounds, despite there being no objections from Officers on those grounds. This exclusion of the sites from being identified as being preferred sites and therefore becoming site allocations does not reflect the conclusions of the earlier stages of assessment, and on those grounds, we object to the exclusion of these two sites from the Site Allocations.We do not believe that there are sufficient grounds on which to exclude these sites from the Allocations, for the following reasons:
▪Both sites are previously developed, and in the case of GNLP2171, have a significant developed footprint;
▪These sites either have an existing access in place, or can be accessed via land within our Client’s control and via a site already benefitting from outline planning approval for residential development;
▪We note and are aware of the Ancient Woodland constraint on GNLP2171, but it is our view that this does not preclude the residential development of what is a previously-developed and sustainably located site on which the principle of development has been accepted.