7.58
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20528
Received: 23/08/2011
Respondent: Devine Homes
Agent: Courtley Consultants Ltd
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Council have already identified the risk that its housing requirements will not be meet with reference to the uncertainity over the Bexhill Link Rd.Yet the Council has failed to set out ahousing implementation strategy describing how they will maintain delivery of a 5 yr supply of housing land to meet the housing need target.
The Council have already identified the risk that its housing requirements will not be meet with reference to the uncertainity over the Bexhill Link Rd.Yet the Council has failed to set out ahousing implementation strategy describing how they will maintain delivery of a 5 yr supply of housing land to meet the housing need target.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20640
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: J J BANISTER
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20653
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: Mr. R.T. Caine
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20666
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: J BLOCK
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20679
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: J MITCHELL
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20692
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: A AINSLIE
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20707
Received: 30/09/2011
Respondent: TOM SACKVILLE
Agent: Mr NICK IDE
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.
* This states that the contribution of windfalls may be such that inter alia certain other sites are not developed. If this were to apply to sites identified in the Site Allocations DPD, this would introduce yet more uncertainty. I note that this comment forms part of the reasoned justification and is not draft policy as such. Allocated sites in the SADPD should be safeguarded. It is the case windfall sites could be refused on housing supply grounds.