Second Deposit LDP

Search representations

Results for Evans Banks Planning Limited search

New search New search

Object

Second Deposit LDP

SeC8/h2

Representation ID: 5226

Received: 12/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Objection to housing allocation SeC8/h2

It is clear that the Council considers that the site is deliverable for the purposes of 45 houses, although it is unclear on what basis this conclusion has been made. No justification is put forward as to how a figure of 45 units is arrived at?

Despite having almost 20 years of support for the principle of residential development at the historic allocation from the Council, only 5 housing units have been delivered to date. It is submitted that the allocation to be removed given that the site is within settlement limits, but the rate of build at the site would not be in line with that of the plan period.


Our response:

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

SeC8/h3

Representation ID: 5227

Received: 12/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Objection to housing allocation SeC8/h3

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 on this part of the Ffos Las Development Site. We would submit that the level of housing to be absorbed by the local housing market has been exhausted and consequently there is no further demand for more housing at the site.


Our response:

Disagree. the site is under construction.

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

PrC2/h1

Representation ID: 5236

Received: 12/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Object to housing allocation PrC2/h1.

Object to the inclusion of the allocation in question 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.


Our response:

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

PrC2/h4

Representation ID: 5237

Received: 12/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Object to housing allocation PrC2/h4. It is clear from the above that the Council considers that the site is deliverable for the purposes of 210 houses, although it is not clear on what basis this conclusion has been made. We suspect it is purely upon an outline permission granted by the Council as Local Planning Authority also acting as landowners.

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 are led to believe that the 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.

No evidence has been presented to demonstrate a change in circumstances to indicate the allocation will now be deliverable and so its continued allocation would lead to the plan being deemed unsound on this basis


Our response:

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

PrC2/h22

Representation ID: 5238

Received: 12/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Object to housing allocation PrC2/h22
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.


Our response:

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

PrC2/h23

Representation ID: 5239

Received: 12/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Object to housing allocation PrC2/h23. It is clear from the above that the Council considers that the site is deliverable for the purposes of 150 houses, although it is not clear on what basis this conclusion has been made.

Despite having almost 20 years of support for the principle of residential or employment development at the historic allocation from the Council, not a single housing unit or commercial 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.

The allocation in question also is situated in an area that has a vast history of coal mining. As a result, there are a number of mine entries located within the site (as can be seen below) meaning that the remediation costs of clearing the land would result in the development being potentially costly, and unsustainable in terms of profit margins.


Our response:

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

PrC1/MU1

Representation ID: 5282

Received: 13/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Objection to the inclusion of West Carmarthen (PrC1/MU1). The main reasons for the objection relate to the slow delivery rate on the site which has been allocated for some time, parts of which were previously allocated within the Carmarthen District Local Plan (1997), and subsequent Carmarthenshire Unitary Development Plan (2003). The main developer on the site has sold its last property. Clearly, there is no historic demand for a site of this scale in this part of Carmarthen. More physically challenging sites, such as the Roman Park site in Llangunnor by Redrow Homes, and the Mount Pleasant site, also in Llangunnor, by Lovell Homes have come forward, and been fully completed, long before West Carmarthen.


Our response:

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

PrC1/MU2

Representation ID: 5345

Received: 14/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Allocated Site at Pibwrlwyd is substantial in overall size, contributibg 14.6% towards that overall cluster total. That equates to one new house in every seven in the Carmarthen Cluster is being promoted at an “out-of-town” location, divorced from community facilities. After over 20 years of UDP and LDP Plan Periods, only Welsh Government have enacted upon the Mixed-Use allocation, as evidenced at Cabna Court. Coleg Sir Gar in contrast over this time have not even undertaken any known marketing campaign to realise the asset bestowed upon by the above two Development Plans. We submit that the Allocated Site be dramatically reduced in scale to only include the area about Cabna Court and Heol Glasdwr for employment purposes (B1, B2 & B8). The area about Coleg Sir Gar at Pibwrlwyd Lane could benefit from perhaps one sole modest field enclosure to allow for educational expansion. The remaining field enclosures, being the bulk of central 20 hectares, should be omitted from the allocation. The proposed housing allowance should be re-allocated elsewhere in Carmarthen to more sustainable Candidate Sites.


Our response:

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

SD1: Development Limits

Representation ID: 5464

Received: 13/04/2023

Respondent ID: 4967

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

There is an assumption that all settlement limits have been drawn correctly and logically. However, as has been seen from the numerous submissions made as part of the current consultation process with regards to the proposed settlement limits, this is not the case. The submissions made on behalf of our Clients with regards to Policy SD1 and specific areas of land, and those made by other parties, highlights that the level of ‘clarity’ and ‘certainty – and indeed confidence – that Policy SD1 has sought to secure, has not been achieved. The submissions highlight that residential gardens (as a whole or in part), natural infill plots and often domestic outbuildings have been illogically excluded from proposed settlement limits and in doing so, labelling them ‘open countryside’. As the aforementioned submissions clearly show, these areas of land and buildings are certainly not part of the ‘open countryside’ nor do they share their characteristics, and so should in fact be included within the defined development limits. However, under the current wording of Policy SD1 the above situations will in turn create confusion, with areas that quite clearly form a logical part of a settlement, in fact being defined by Policy SD1 as lying outside of it. In order to secure greater consistency and clarity, it is proposed that Policy SD1 should be amended – either as part of its core text or supporting text – to allow for a ‘case by case’ assessment of the suitability of small areas of land or property for development at ‘edge of settlement’ locations. It is proposed that this could be done by including the same form of locational criteria as used by Policy HOM3, which are as follows: • minor infill of a small gap between the existing built form; or,
• logical extensions and/or rounding off of the development pattern that fits in with the character of the settlement form and landscape; or
• conversion or the sub-division of large dwellings. The above would then ensure that all edge of settlement locations with regards to appropriate development are assessed in a consistent and clear manner, compensating for any such instances that the Deposit Plan has done so in an erroneous manner.


Our response:

Disagree, the Council has taken a sustainable approach to the formation of the development limits. It has been formulated on the basis of sustainable development principles and in accordance with the provisions of national planning policy. The development limits have been drawn in such a way that the settlements have been afforded with sufficient residential opportunities within the defined development limits. There are a notable number of ‘small settlements, large groups of dwellings and/or hamlets’ throughout the County which have not been defined within the settlement hierarchy set out within the Preferred Strategy. It is proposed that such residential groupings will not be identified within the settlement hierarchy and will not be defined by Development Limits. Such groups or settlements often display little or no sustainability attributes, are sporadic in nature and or contain insufficient physical mass or facilities to warrant definition. Whilst such examples are not proposed to receive development limits or market housing proposals, planning policy guidance allows for potential exceptions proposals that are intended to meet a demonstrated local need. Also, proposals that lie adjacent to the development limits may be considered appropriate if they meet the requirements of the relevant policies. The approach as set out within Strategic Policy - SP3: Sustainable Distribution - Settlement Framework is considered sound.

Object

Second Deposit LDP

Strategic Policy – SP4: A Sustainable Approach to Providing New Homes

Representation ID: 5465

Received: 13/04/2023

Respondent ID: 2988

Respondent: Evans Banks Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

There is significant concern that the new homes figure quoted by Policy SP4 and the framework that supports its provision is undeliverable.
As a result and on this basis, the 2nd Deposit LDP fails the required Tests of Soundness and consequently the Plan is ‘unsound’.
We therefore respectfully request that this Representation be given careful examination, and that the housing need figure be revisited to ensure that the document passes all the relevant tests of soundness.


Our response:

The allocation of the site within the LDP for residential purposes have been subject to full consideration through the site assessment methodology. As part of this assessment process detailed site pro formas have been prepared.

Furthermore, the LDP provides an additional housing supply above the requirement (flexibility allowance) to meet the identified need.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.