Object

Representation ID: 331

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: East of England Co-Operative Society

Agent: Mr Matt Clarke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposal is broadly supported and the indicative capacity of 98 dwellings is considered achievable, potentially. The affordable housing element may not be viable, however, as as Affordable Housing Viability assessment by Fordham Research indicates that abnormal costs, including ground contamination from former uses, make viability finely balanced. Equally, use of a major part of the site for community use could further harm viability.

Comment

Representation ID: 333

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: East of England Co-Operative Society

Agent: Mr Matt Clarke

The proposal is supported and the density proposed is deemed realistic. Consideration of possible contraints that might affect viability are important such as flood risk, which might influence layout and possible land contamination, the site having previously been a petrol station and car showroom and workshop.

Object

Representation ID: 335

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: East of England Co-Operative Society

Agent: Mr Matt Clarke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The redevelopment of the area with a mix of uses is supported but the retention of the Carr St frontage is considered excessive and it is said that it could potentially affect site viability. The frontage is locally listed but the Local Listing SPD does not rule out demolition if a high quality design replaces it. It is suggested that in the Plan, after the stated desire for retention , the text should indicate that demolition will be considered if the replacement is of high quality; alternatively the reference to retention should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 336

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: East of England Co-Operative Society

Agent: Mr Matt Clarke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposal is broadly supported in principle; the Co-op's interest is in the north of the site where a proportion of the site would need to be retained as a car park to serve the existing Co-operative education centre. It is considered there is scope for development albeit with continued access to a reduced car parking area so as not to jeopardise the viability of the existing facility.