Strategic Land Assessment (Jan 2021)

Object

Representation ID: 16351

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Newett Homes

Agent: Quod North

Site WI/003

It is rejected in the SLA due to potential landscape impacts, but this is without any detailed assessment or consideration of the Site (other than on its Green Belt impacts) that, as noted below, do not correspond with the previously submitted information.

Reference is made to the supporting site promotion document SPD relating to landscape & green belt impact, deliverability.

Newett Homes disagree with the SLA’s unsubstantiated comments that are anticipated to be lined to the GBOP SSA’s assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 18407

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: The Emerson Group

Agent: Johnson Mowat

The Strategic Land Assessment (SLA), which forms part of the Evidence Base for the Preferred Options Local Plan, and replaces the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) rejects the site and refers to the reasons for the rejection being: Impact on ancient woodland; Landscape impact; and Access over railway tunnel.

Site SE/126 is included in the SLA within a list of sites considered ‘Unsuitable / Not available / Not achievable for residential development – Rejects’. This is identified on the SLA plan extract overleaf.

We object to the rejection of this site, and the SLA rejection reasons.

(See submission document for details)

Object

Representation ID: 28163

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Johnson Mowat

There are significant differences with the SLA estimated yield compared with the Draft Local Plan proposed yield. Further clarification relating to these yield discrepancies would be welcomed.

A number of detailed comments relating to yields and site boundaries are made in our detailed submission.

Object

Representation ID: 30132

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Clive Brook Planning

Rejected site IL/016. Object to reasons for rejection in the SLA.

Sensitive landscape – statement appears to be derived from the SA. Landscape/visual appraisal was produced in 2016, providing initial but comprehensive assessment. Not clear whether this has been taken into account. Masterplan contains substantial and positive landscape proposals. Description of landscape and other environmental enhancement potential appears not to have been considered.

Limited access – no specific analysis provided to support this position. 2 proposed accesses in the masterplan have been surveyed. Separate access identified to preferred site IL/011B. Would be highly desirable to have comprehensive master plan for all land to north of the A65 with the two accesses proposed. Eastern access (at existing Victoria Road traffic lights) is the preferable main access point with potential to increase capacity of currently installed system.