Object

Representation ID: 690

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The Borough is proposing to provide for 3,500 new dwellings however the PBA Objectively Assesssed Needs Report identifies 5,600 new dwellings to be provided over the plan period, this would result in a shortfall of 1,930 (128 dwellings pa).
It should also be noted that the Councils SHMA has not been finalised and therefore it makes it difficult to provide comprehensive comments when a complete evidence base is not available.

Object

Representation ID: 692

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The preferred policy states when considering development proposals the council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development as per NPPF. Although this approach is not questioned, it is assumed our clients landholdings are sustainable and meet the small sites requirement for Hutton and therefore we object to the site being excluded from development given the shortfall in the OAN for the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 693

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The proposed policy includes provision for minor amendments to the gb, where new development has the effect of consolidating settlement patterns to create a defensible boundary. Taking this provision into consideration, our clients site adjoins the settlement boundary of Hutton and is well defined with Hutton village Road providing a defensible barrier between development and the gb. Allocating our clients site would provide a natural rounding off the village settlement boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 696

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Allocating our clients site would provide a natural rounding off the village settlement boundary.

Given the Site falls within the Hutton Conservation area and that it is proposed as suitable for residential development in the SHLAA it should be added to the list at Appendix 2. It is not clear why our clients site was identified as being suitable through the SHLAA and then discounted without explanation. The allocation of our clients site provides the opportunity for a good quality development.

Object

Representation ID: 3402

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

In conclusion, the Council is not meeting its OAN and a proportionate evidence base has not been used to identify sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy. Given these considerations I think it would be fair to assume that the housing trajectory is unlikely to represent an accurate reflection of the expected rate of housing delivery.