Object

Representation ID: 24633

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

The Policy is unsound on the basis that it does not provide for effective policy consistent with the evidence. Policy should be clarified in relation to maximum affordable housing provision; the application of CIL Regulations 122 and 123. The policy remains unsound with regard to the level of specificity for land uses and their disposition.

Modification suggested in attached full text.

Object

Representation ID: 24634

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

The proposed text asserts that infrastructure is justified without any reference to the evidence presented by planning applications. The text is also flawed insofar as it is inconsistent with other changes proposed by the Council and with the evidence available.

Modification suggested in attached full text.

Object

Representation ID: 24635

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

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.

Support

Representation ID: 24636

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

We support the proposed text insertion.

Object

Representation ID: 24637

Received: 01/12/2016

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

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.