Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Reg. 19 Pre-submission Addendum
Search representations
Results for Evolution Town Planning search
New searchObject
Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Reg. 19 Pre-submission Addendum
Policy VC BRM1: Land west of Old Yarmouth Road
Representation ID: 3903
Received: 19/09/2024
Respondent: Evolution Town Planning
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Please see attached Report E1057.C1.Rep02 - This submission Objects to the Allocation of Site VCBROM1, located on the north eastern periphery of Broome, on the basis that it is not justified (in view of a more sustainable alternative) and, on the basis that there is a more sustainable alternative, the allocation is not consistent with national planning policy which sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development. We also have concerns that certain elements of the policy will not be effective. As such, we consider that the policy and the allocation will not meet the ‘test of soundness’.
Please see attached Report E1057.C1.Rep02 - We continue to consider that the site with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) reference SN0346 in the Ditchingham and Broome Cluster would be a more sustainable allocation and we object to this site having been discounted without sufficient justification in favour of a less sustainable alternative. We do not consider that this is a decision which should be found to be ‘sound’. Site SN0346 was put forward initially in 2021. Clearly, site SN0346 is more central in the village of Broome and is well related to the built-up area. Moreover, the development of site SN0346 would be less harmful to the character of the open countryside. Site SN0346 is more sustainable than the draft allocation site, since it is closer to facilities such as shops, bus services, and the Primary School.
Please see attached Report E1057.C1.Rep02 - This submission Objects to the Allocation of Site VCBROM1, located on the north eastern periphery of Broome, on the basis that it is not justified (in view of a more sustainable alternative) and, on the basis that there is a more sustainable alternative, the allocation is not consistent with national planning policy which sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development. We also have concerns that certain elements of the policy will not be effective. As such, we consider that the policy and the allocation will not meet the ‘test of soundness’.