Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Main Modifications

Object

Representation ID: 26710

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Overall, we submit that:
(a) There has never been any evidence before the Examination that would lead to a conclusion
that either the 35 dph density or the 60% residential site coverage were unsound, and therefore there is no need for any Modification in this respect in the first place;
(b) There has never been any objection from any party to either the 35 dph density or 60% residential site coverage;
(c) The initial view of IBC to change the yield to 449 was never substantiated or explained, and in any event is superseded by the subsequent view of IBC, as set out in the agreed Modifications, to support the figure of 489 units.

For these reasons, MM17 (and MM18) are unsound for the unjustified amendments to the site yield.

Object

Representation ID: 26711

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Overall, we submit that:
(a) There has never been any evidence before the Examination that would lead to a conclusion
that either the 35 dph density or the 60% residential site coverage were unsound, and therefore there is no need for any Modification in this respect in the first place;
(b) There has never been any objection from any party to either the 35 dph density or 60% residential site coverage;
(c) The initial view of IBC to change the yield to 449 was never substantiated or explained, and in any event is superseded by the subsequent view of IBC, as set out in the agreed Modifications, to support the figure of 489 units.
For these reasons, MM17 (and MM18) are themselves unsound for the unjustified amendments to
the site yield.