Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Search representations
Results for AECOM search
New searchSupport
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
200 Dunton Hills Garden Village
Representation ID: 19831
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: AECOM
Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes are pleased to submit joint representations in respect of their land interests to the West of Basildon. Our clients strongly supports proposal for the allocation of DHGV and its proposed removal from the Green Belt.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Housing Need
Representation ID: 19833
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: AECOM
the Draft Plan does not fully account for the shortfall/backlog of past housing delivery within the text. In addition, the next iteration of the plan should revise the housing target to reflect the most up to date evidence on affordability and household projections. The plan would be made more flexible with an increased buffer of allocated sites.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
An Evolving Evidence Base
Representation ID: 19834
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: AECOM
The Duty to Cooperate - there is insufficient evidence of meaningful duty to cooperate
discussions and no clear mechanism set out as to how the South Essex authorities
shall consider and apportion the unmet needs of their partners. There are also
unresolved matters related to the location of Dunton Hills Garden Village and its
relationship to the west of Basildon.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Vision
Representation ID: 19835
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: AECOM
Deliverability of the Draft Plan - the stated delivery rates for Dunton Hills Garden
Village are overly ambitious, especially if there were to be an over reliance on one
developer. BBC should ensure the next iteration of the plan keeps the allocation
flexible and open to delivery on the eastern side of site 200.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
An Evolving Evidence Base
Representation ID: 19836
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: AECOM
Green Belt - the removal of Parcel 17 from the Green Belt is supported, however, it is
considered that the assessment of Parcel 17 overstates the lands contribution to a
number of the Green Belt 'purposes'.
See attached.