Object

Representation ID: 6361

Received: 10/09/2021

Respondent: Bidwells

Agent: Bidwells

Whilst Taylor Wimpey have not reviewed all of the site assessments published by the Council, the general conclusions drawn and the approach to assessing the suitability of sites for development is concerning.
The site assessment forms have not been underpinned by a detailed review of the evidence available to the Council. Taylor Wimpey’s site at Wilstead (referred to as ID819) has previously been promoted for development and a planning application has been progressed (ref:
20/01666/MAO). However, none of the technical work or statutory consultee responses to this application are referenced in the form. For example, the Heritage Team and the Ecology Team both responded to the application, but the forms state that there is ‘uncertain or insufficient information’ or that there is the potential to cause harm. Another illustration of this is Environmental Health; the site assessment form states ‘A6 road noise’, however as part of the recent application Environmental Health responded that the proposed mitigation measures included as part of the proposal were acceptable and therefore no objection was offered in relation to the application. Similarly, Taylor Wimpey’s site at Willington (referred to as ID855) has previously been promoted for development and a detailed Vision Document was submitted providing a significant amount of evidence in relation to the site opportunities and constraints. None of this background information appears to have informed the site assessment forms published online.
The site assessment forms also lack any detailed assessment. For example, in relation to Wilstead, at 9a in the assessment form the Council have stated that ‘The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF’. This is a simplistic response which does not properly represent the planning history of this site. The site was previously used as a camp site associated with Briar Bank Park to the north, and the remains of an amenity block building can be seen at the centre of the site, along with the access road and associated underground drainage system. The site is not a pure green field site. Linked to this, 9b which focuses on best and most versatile agricultural land, states that ‘The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b’. The site is not used as agricultural land and has not been used as such for a long time due to the historic camping use; significant work would be required to bring this site back into agricultural use. Before any site selection process is undertaken, each site should be properly reviewed by members of the policy team.
The site assessment forms do not allow for a consideration of the potential planning benefits that sites may offer. For example, in relation to Willington, it is proposed that 10ha of this site is delivered as public open space and this should be given significant weight in the decision making process.
Moving forward, the assessment of sites should be more thorough and refer to the evidence base used and referenced in submitted representations to justify decisions. Other plans have been brought down in recent years because of a lack of transparency in the assessment process which was considered to undermine the conclusions made. All sites should be assessed on a fair and equitable basis, utilising the available evidence, which does not currently appear to be the case.

Site Assessment Process
The site assessment process needs to be made robust through the use of all available evidence when considering of site suitability.