Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Alternative Sites & Focused Changes (Reg. 18)

Question 1) - The Village Clusters Plan needs to ensure the allocation of 1,200 dwellings on new sites, for delivery in the period up to 2038. In terms of the overall number to be allocated, which of the three options above do you consider the most appropriate?

It is noted that as a result of a review of the selected housing allocations, some sites have been removed from the proposed Plan or the number of dwellings proposed to be allocated have been reduced. We therefore feel that it is sensible to include a healthy buffer to ensure that the Plan delivers sufficient dwellings, as some further sites may be rejected by the inspector or can’t be delivered for other reasons. Option (ii) therefore represents the most appropriate approach. It should also be noted that there are other shortlisted sites that have not been allocated and one in particular ref: SN0274REVA /B which was regarded as a ‘shortlisted site’ which represents an available and sustainable location for additional housing located outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment zone.

Question 10a) - Do you agree with the proposed allocation VC GIL1 REV, South of Geldeston Road and Daisy Way, Gillingham, on 2.92ha, for approximately 40 dwellings. Please explain your response.

Yes, this is fully supported, the site can easily accommodate approximately 40 dwellings as evidenced by the illustrative site layout submitted with planning application ref: 2022/1993. The site is very well located, as it is adjacent to the school and can offer the school expansion land, public open space, affordable housing and suitable access connections to the village and the commercial development to the north-east. As the planning agents for this planning application, we are working with all agencies to ensure that all aspects of the development comply with Council policy. It should also be noted that the site is located outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment zone. The Flood Risk Assessment which has been undertaken shows that the site of the proposed revised allocation, and the land to the east is outside of the Environment Agency’s projected flood zone, and so additional dwellings can be considered there too, either as part of the proposed revised allocation or otherwise.

Question 10b) - Do you think there are any specific requirements that should be added to the allocation policy to accommodate the extra 5 dwellings?

None

Question 1) - The Village Clusters Plan needs to ensure the allocation of 1,200 dwellings on new sites, for delivery in the period up to 2038. In terms of the overall number to be allocated, which of the three options above do you consider the most appropriate?

It is noted that as a result of a review of the selected housing allocations, some sites have been removed from the proposed Plan or the number of dwellings proposed to be allocated have been reduced. We therefore feel that it is sensible to include a healthy buffer to ensure that the Plan delivers sufficient dwellings, as some further sites may be rejected by the inspector or can’t be delivered for other reasons. Option (ii) therefore represents the most appropriate approach. It should also be noted that there are other shortlisted sites that have not been allocated and one in particular ref: SN0274REVA /B which was regarded as a ‘shortlisted site’ which represents an available and sustainable location for additional housing located outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment zone.

Question 10a) - Do you agree with the proposed allocation VC GIL1 REV, South of Geldeston Road and Daisy Way, Gillingham, on 2.92ha, for approximately 40 dwellings. Please explain your response.

Yes, this is fully supported, the site can easily accommodate approximately 40 dwellings as evidenced by the illustrative site layout submitted with planning application ref: 2022/1993. The site is very well located, as it is adjacent to the school and can offer the school expansion land, public open space, affordable housing and suitable access connections to the village and the commercial development to the north-east. As the planning agents for this planning application, we are working with all agencies to ensure that all aspects of the development comply with Council policy. It should also be noted that the site is located outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment zone. The Flood Risk Assessment which has been undertaken shows that the site of the proposed revised allocation, and the land to the east is outside of the Environment Agency’s projected flood zone, and so additional dwellings can be considered there too, either as part of the proposed revised allocation or otherwise.

Question 10b) - Do you think there are any specific requirements that should be added to the allocation policy to accommodate the extra 5 dwellings?

None

Question 1) - The Village Clusters Plan needs to ensure the allocation of 1,200 dwellings on new sites, for delivery in the period up to 2038. In terms of the overall number to be allocated, which of the three options above do you consider the most appropriate?

It is noted that as a result of a review of the selected housing allocations, some sites have been removed from the proposed Plan or the number of dwellings proposed to be allocated have been reduced. We therefore feel that it is sensible to include a healthy buffer to ensure that the Plan delivers sufficient dwellings, as some further sites may be rejected by the inspector or can’t be delivered for other reasons. Option (ii) therefore represents the most appropriate approach. It should also be noted that there are other shortlisted sites that have not been allocated and one in particular ref: SN0274REVA /B which was regarded as a ‘shortlisted site’ which represents an available and sustainable location for additional housing located outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment zone.

Question 10a) - Do you agree with the proposed allocation VC GIL1 REV, South of Geldeston Road and Daisy Way, Gillingham, on 2.92ha, for approximately 40 dwellings. Please explain your response.

Yes, this is fully supported, the site can easily accommodate approximately 40 dwellings as evidenced by the illustrative site layout submitted with planning application ref: 2022/1993. The site is very well located, as it is adjacent to the school and can offer the school expansion land, public open space, affordable housing and suitable access connections to the village and the commercial development to the north-east. As the planning agents for this planning application, we are working with all agencies to ensure that all aspects of the development comply with Council policy. It should also be noted that the site is located outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment zone. The Flood Risk Assessment which has been undertaken shows that the site of the proposed revised allocation, and the land to the east is outside of the Environment Agency’s projected flood zone, and so additional dwellings can be considered there too, either as part of the proposed revised allocation or otherwise.

Question 10b) - Do you think there are any specific requirements that should be added to the allocation policy to accommodate the extra 5 dwellings?

None