Object

Representation ID: 24391

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

We support the Council's amendments in relation to Building Regulation standard M4(3) but object to the Council's requirement for 25% of homes to M4(2) complaint since this is not justified by the evidence, and hence not in accordance with national policy (NPPF paragraph 50 and PPG paragraph 006).

Suggested modification: The current requirement for 25% of new dwellings to be made Building Regulation standard M4(2) compliant should be discretionary rather than mandatory.

Object

Representation ID: 24393

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

The implications of the requirement for incorporating electric vehicle charging points is untested in viability terms and therefore that the provisions of this policy are not justified.

Suggested modification: The requirements of clause (c) should be made optional rather than mandatory.

Support

Representation ID: 24394

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

We support the proposed text insertion in relation to flexibility in the provision of open space typologies which introduces flexibility necessary to make the policy effective.

Support

Representation ID: 24395

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

We support the proposed deletion of trigger points from Table 8b. This is necessary in the context of the detailed work being undertaken by way of Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the two planning applications now submitted in respect of the IGS. It is entirely appropriate for the detail previously contained in Table 8b to be determined at a planning application level, guided by the SPD and IDP. The proposed change will support effective implementation of the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 24638

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: CBRE

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

It is inappropriate, unnecessary and inconsistent for the Local Plan Policies Map to identify specific and detailed land use allocations within the overall IGS allocation. The detail shown is not justified when considered against the evidence contained in the two live planning applications relevant to the IGS. In the case of the Henley Gate proposal, the disposition of land uses is to a limited extent different to that shown, and in the case of the application for land west of Westerfield Road, formal amendments are soon to be submitted which propose a different deposition of land uses to that shown on the Policies Map. These amendments are due to the more detailed technical information available to support planning applications and the design responses necessary as a consequence.