Object

Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) Draft Methodology Consultation

Representation ID: 10114

Received: 17/11/2023

Respondent: Hopkins Homes

Agent: Hopkins Homes

Representation Summary:

Previous SLAA as a data source for sites – predetermined conclusion?
Concerned regarding the potential loss of the ‘Amber’ category within the Red-Amber-Green assessment
Red-Amber-Green approach to things like agricultural land classification, utilities and land ownership – without an Amber option, sites could be prematurely discounted from further assessment?
Wording suggests that site visits will be undertaken where considered necessary, table confirms these are how evidence will be gathered - lack of consistency?
Landscape, archaeology and heritage - What evidence base will be used for these and how will officers make informed judgements that can be consistent and “sound” in their approach/conclusions?
Windfall allowance based on evidence of previous delivery

Full text:

Hopkins Homes Ltd is the largest independent house building company in East Anglia with a reputation for delivering well designed, high quality residential and mixed-use development harmonising with its local context. In the past decade the company has succeeded in delivering sustainable developments which improve neighbourhoods, improve local infrastructure and add to local distinctiveness throughout the area. In respect of the content of the SHLAA Methodology Local Plan Consultation, Hopkins Homes wish to make the following comments:- Why previous SLAA documents are being used as a data source for sites - there is then the potential for this to lead to a predetermined conclusion ? Concerned regarding the potential loss of the 'Amber' category within the Red-Amber-Green assessment and how officers will seek to assess elements regarding access, close proximity to a site/feature, etc. ? Similarly, concerned that the Red-Amber-Green approach to things like agricultural land classification, utilities and land ownership - without an Amber option, sites could be prematurely discounted from further assessment ? Wording suggests that site visits will be undertaken where considered necessary, but the table confirms these are how evidence will be gathered - this seems like a lack of consistency ? Approach to judgements in respect of landscape, archaeology and heritage - What evidence base will be used for these and how will officers make informed judgements that can be consistent and "sound" in their approach/conclusions ? Any windfall allowance should be based on evidence of previous delivery to justify such an approach.

Attachments: