Second Deposit LDP
Search representations
Results for Evans Banks Planning Limited search
New searchObject
Second Deposit LDP
SeC13/h1
Representation ID: 5186
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
We object to the inclusion of the allocation on the basis that its inclusion within the Plan would result in the document being ‘unsound’. Despite having almost 20 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SeC14/h1
Representation ID: 5187
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Object to the inclusion of the allocation and that its inclusion within the Plan would result in the document being ‘unsound’. A Full Planning Application was made to the Council for the Proposed Residential Development of 16 Dwellings which was subsequently refused in 2019. The application was refused for a number of reasons including the applicant not signing a Section 106 agreement as well as the site being within a Special Area of Conservation. The failure of the applicant to commit to signing the S106 Agreement in itself puts the deliverability of the site in serious doubt.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SeC14/h2
Representation ID: 5189
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
We object to the inclusion of the allocation and that its inclusion within the Plan would result in the document being ‘unsound’. Despite having almost 10 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SuV38/h1
Representation ID: 5190
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Objection is made to the inclusion of the site as despite having almost 10 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date. We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SuV39/h1
Representation ID: 5191
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
An objection is made to the inclusion of the site, despite having almost 20 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date. We therefore respectfully request that this representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SuV41/h2
Representation ID: 5193
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
An objection is made to the allocation of the site, despite having almost 20 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date. We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SeC17/h1
Representation ID: 5195
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Objection to housing allocation SeC17/h1 in Llangadog.
The Council considers that the site is deliverable for the purposes of 16 houses, although it is not clear on what basis this conclusion has been made.
There have been no planning applications made in relation to the allocation in question to date.
Whilst we do not object to the principle of the allocation for residential development, we do object to the number of units assigned to the allocation. Based on our experience elsewhere in areas affected by the phosphate regulations, sites within sewered areas have to forfeit 25% of their site area to accommodate the necessary foul water treatment infrastructure. When this and the requirements for a SUDS scheme are taken into account, it is clear that 16 units on the allocation is undeliverable.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SuV51/h1
Representation ID: 5196
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
HOM1 objection to allocation SuV51/h1 in Cwmifor.
It is clear that the Council considers that the site is deliverable for the purposes of 8 houses, although it is not clear on what basis this conclusion has been made, especially as the Council state that there are concerns over the deliverability of the site as well as it being a longstanding residential allocation.
Despite having almost 20 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SeC6/h2
Representation ID: 5221
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
In summary, we object to the inclusion of the allocation in question on the basis that its inclusion within the Plan would result in the document being ‘unsound’.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.
Object
Second Deposit LDP
SeC4/h2
Representation ID: 5224
Received: 12/04/2023
Respondent ID: 4967
Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
It is clear that the Council considers that the site is deliverable for the purposes of 364 houses, although it is not clear on what basis this conclusion has been made. We suspect it is purely upon the outline permission granted by the Council as Local Planning Authority with the Authority also acting as landowners.
The allocation is brownfield in nature with its topography being generally level. The northern, and western perimeters of the site are bordered by the B4311 and a separate road leading to the Lifeboat Station. The southern boundary is bordered by further brownfield use with the eastern boundary bordered by open grassland.
Despite having support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit has been delivered to date. We are led to believe that there is also no active marketing strategy for the development and the Council being the landowners are merely seeking to secure an outline permission on their own land asset.
In summary, we object to the inclusion of the allocation in question on the basis of the above and that its inclusion within the Plan would result in the document being ‘unsound’.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the allocation be removed to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.
Disagree, the allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes has been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process a detailed site pro forma has been prepared.