Object
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Representation ID: 24297
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Mr and Mrs P Rigby
Agent: Jennifer Owen & Associates Ltd.
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Figure 17 includes reference to a site in Northiam where dwellings in respect of a planning permission which is stated as now not coming forward are counted as being delivered under a large permission. The explanation is that the Council considers that the site has a capacity of 52 units. However, if the planning permission is not coming forward then the figure under large site permissions should be 0.
This site was originally an allocation in the 2006 Local Plan. By 2006 permission had been granted. Further permissions were granted (latest in 2016). Development has never proceeded and it should not be relied upon to deliver housing. This is a good example as to why Rother has persistently failed to meet its annualised housing requirement.
Including this site leads to a plan which is ineffective, not justified and which does not comply with national policy.
Furthermore, in order that the individual settlements requirements meet properly assessed housing need of the District (20% above CS requirement, see earlier representation) the figure for Large site requirement should be increased by 20% from 123 to 148 units.
Taking these two factors into consideration the residual requirement for Northiam should be 83 units.
Figure 17 includes reference to a site in Northiam where dwellings in respect of a planning permission which is stated as now not coming forward are counted as being delivered under a large permission. The explanation is that the Council considers that the site has a capacity of 52 units. However, if the planning permission is not coming forward then the figure under large site permissions should be 0.
The reason why this site should be discounted is that it was originally an allocation in the 2006 Local Plan. In fact by 2006 planning permission had been granted. Further permissions were granted including the latest in 2016 Development has never proceeded on this site and it should not be relied upon to deliver housing. This is a good example as to why Rother has persistently failed to meet its annualised housing requirement.
Including this site as an allocation which will not be developed leads to a plan which is ineffective, not justified and which does not comply with national policy.
Furthermore, in order that the individual settlements requirements meet properly assessed housing need of the District (20% above CS requirement, see earlier representation) the figure for Large site requirement should be increased by 20% from 123 to 148 units.
Taking these two factors into consideration the residual requirement for Northiam should be 83 units.