Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Comment

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 9644

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Arnold White Estates Ltd

Agent: Arrow Planning Limited

Representation Summary:

The Local Plan is not sound, as it is not justified or effective. To make the Plan sound the
trajectory should be amended. Reflecting the fact that the Local Plan may not be
adopted until 2023, and thus higher delivery in 2024 (compared to the Local Plan 2030),
the trajectory should be as follows:
2020/21- 2023/24: 970dpa
2024/25 – 2039/40: 1,423dpa

Attachments:

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 9931

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

OBJECT:
I. The ‘stepped trajectory’ against the minimum LHN of 1,355dpa is entirely unjustified. The exceptional circumstances to depart from the LHN – as required by NPPF61 – have not been demonstrated. This also goes against NPPF requirements for a positively prepared plan which helps boost the supply of homes.
II. Further detailed justification is provided in response to Policy DS2(S) and DS3(S).

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 10101

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited - Bromham

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

OBJECT:
I. The ‘stepped trajectory’ against the minimum LHN of 1,355dpa is entirely unjustified. The exceptional circumstances to depart from the LHN – as required by NPPF61 – have not been demonstrated. This also goes against NPPF requirements for a positively prepared plan which helps boost the supply of homes.
II. Further detailed justification is provided in response to Policy DS2(S) and DS3(S).

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 10111

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Rainier Developments Limited - Roxton

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

OBJECT:
I. The ‘stepped trajectory’ against the minimum LHN of 1,355dpa is entirely unjustified. The exceptional circumstances to depart from the LHN – as required by NPPF61 – have not been demonstrated. This also goes against NPPF requirements for a positively prepared plan which helps boost the supply of homes.
II. Further detailed justification is provided in response to Policy DS2(S) and DS3(S).

Object

Plan for submission evidence base

Representation ID: 10239

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Rapleys

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

TW object to the delivery rate assumptions for Little Barford as shown in the tables of the Stepped Trajectory Topic paper. The Delivery rates anticipated in the Stepped Trajectory Topic Paper are unrealistic and not achievable, irrespective of the uncertainty over the delivery of the EWR.
Please see attached representations…specifically paragraph 2.6, section 3 paragraphs 3.1-3.28, paragraph 5.6 bullet 4, section 6, Appendices A,B,C.