Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on VALP Proposed Submission - H5 Self/custom build housing

Representation ID: 2432

OBJECT Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Mr Jonathan Clover)

Summary:

As yet the feedback
suggests support for a small self /custom built scheme (either an individual house or
small scale project). This might involve a scheme for 1 to 3 houses/homes. This will
need to be explored more fully in the WNP Questionnaire and/or housing needs
survey in the first half of 2018. However there certainly is demand for this locally.
The indication from current feedback is that it is difficult to find land which could be
used for a small scale scheme

More details about Rep ID: 2432

Representation ID: 2053

SUPPORT Manlet Group Holdings represented by Barton Willmore LLP (Ms Jane Harrison)

Summary:

Support self build housing requirement

More details about Rep ID: 2053

Representation ID: 1976

OBJECT Persimmon Homes Midlands represented by Bidwells (Mr Robert Love)

Summary:

Reference should be made to Section 9 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the update to the NPPF, acknowledging this guidance is emerging and further consultation required. My client questions there is evidence of demand for custom/ self-build housing in this part of Aylesbury Vale and its requirement for the Council to have evidence before setting out a policy. Consider the viability of providing serviced land plots; whole sites would likely be more suitable. Smaller sites/ sites with a wide design approach may not be. Policy H1 [sic] is unsound: the policy is unjustified in its evidence base.

More details about Rep ID: 1976

Representation ID: 1959

OBJECT Careys New Homes represented by Bidwells (Mr Robert Love)

Summary:

Overall, we consider that Policy H1 is unsound as the policy is unjustified in terms of its evidence base.

More details about Rep ID: 1959

Representation ID: 1852

OBJECT CALA Homes Limited represented by Hunter Page Planning (Guy Wakefield)

Summary:

There is no clear justification as to why developments of 100 or more houses trigger the requirement for a percentage of self-build. Requirements should be justified with a clearly evidenced need supported by the self-build register to get an accurate understanding of the district.

This representation does not oppose the promotion of custom/self-build housing but suggests it is provided for in a less prescriptive policy. This could be done by removing policy H5 entirely and be promoted in more general policies such as H6 promoting self-build as a potential for the proposed housing mix, or by enabling custom/self-build housing to contribute to affordable housing provision, such as at policy H2. The policy should encourage rather than require self-build provision.

More details about Rep ID: 1852

Representation ID: 1781

OBJECT Cerda Planning Limited (Tina Pearsall)

Summary:

As drafted, the policy is unnecessarily vague and does not set out what percentage of serviced plots for sale to sell/custom builders will be required. It is also not clear why the threshold of 100 dwellings was identified, nor whether a sliding scale of provision has been considered.
Whilst it is important that a site by site assessment is undertaken, as set out in the policy, broad parameters should be identified at this stage to provide certainty both to developers and landowners, as well as those involved in the delivery of self/custom plots

More details about Rep ID: 1781

Representation ID: 1624

OBJECT Gladman Developments Ltd (Ms Nicole Penfold)

Summary:

Policy needs greater flexibility and a mechanism for serviced plots to revert back to the wider scheme if not taken up within given time period.

More details about Rep ID: 1624

Representation ID: 1601

OBJECT Waldridge Garden Village Consortium represented by Pegasus Group (on behalf of Jeremy Elgin) (Mr Neil Tiley)

Summary:

Policy H5 is unjustified and provides an unnecessary burden to applicants.

More details about Rep ID: 1601

Representation ID: 1532

OBJECT Catesby Estates Limited represented by Barton Willmore (Alastair Bird)

Summary:

We however object to the inclusion of this requirement as the District Council have provided no
evidence to justify that such an approach would be appropriate. information has not been made publically available. As such, whilst it is noted that
paragraph 5.53 of the draft VALP refers to paragraph 50 of the NPPF, there is no District-specific
evidence available to justify such a need. In the absence of any such evidence, it is considered that
the Policy should be deleted in its entirety.

More details about Rep ID: 1532

Representation ID: 1353

OBJECT Bellway Homes Ltd, Bellcross Co. Ltd and Fosbern Manufacturing Ltd represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

The policy requirement for a proportion of serviced plots for sale to self/custom builders is considered unduly onerous and will not be practicable. There are difficulties for health and safety, the overall appearance of finished development and the impact of this on sales. This could impact viability, with developers unable to predict take of of serviced plots, considered unlikely that self builders would wish to be within a large scale development. Specific allocations would be preferable.

More details about Rep ID: 1353

Representation ID: 1330

OBJECT Dandara Ltd (J Richards)

Summary:

Object to H5: policy requirement should be informed by entries in the self-build and custom housebuilding register and consider deliverability and viability. Self/ custom build plots in major developments should be brought forward in parallel with main development; should not conflict with scale, appearance or timescales; and should be taken into account from a viability perspective given that such plots would be provided at below market value.

More details about Rep ID: 1330

Representation ID: 793

OBJECT Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose) represented by Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose)

Summary:

For the reasons set out above, Bovis Homes object to Policy H5, which is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy and has not properly considered reasonable alternative strategies; and
- is inconsistent with national guidance in that it does not fully reflect the Government's objective to ensure the housing requirements are not prohibitive to the delivery of development.

More details about Rep ID: 793

Representation ID: 774

SUPPORT Peter Brett Associates LLP (Mr Tim Coleby)

Summary:

Support reference to custom build in policy H5 on page 176.

More details about Rep ID: 774

Representation ID: 152

SUPPORT Mr. Tom Walsh

Summary:

Successful self build projects require designated sites not maybe patches on larger developments. True self builders are independent by nature but often work as a cooperative sharing/trading skills and advice.
By designating small, say 6 to 10 house, self build areas it should be possible to truly gauge the self build demand, without the self interest of major developers influencing that market.

More details about Rep ID: 152

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult