Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
Search representations
Results for Savills search
New searchComment
Draft Local Plan-Part 2 Site Allocations
GNLP0519
Representation ID: 19805
Received: 17/01/2020
Respondent: Savills
In summary, in your assessment of sites, the site that you refer to as GNLP0519, is stated as being ‘promoted for’ 266 dws. Planning permission ref. 20161770 – the permission referenced in your assessment, that has now been implemented, permitted 259 dws. However, the site is now subject to a subsequent resolution to grant planning permission ref. 20191999 for 304 dws (subject to completion of the S106 Agreement).
Your assessment states that the site is “not considered suitable for allocation as despite being a reasonable location for development it already had planning permission at the base date of the plan in 2018 and is currently under construction”.
Your reply to ------ advises that you have stated 266 dws as that is the number we included in our original site submission to the GNLP “back in 2016”, and that you haven’t updated the number of dwellings as we haven’t requested any change.
To avoid any further confusion, on behalf of our client – , I should be grateful if you would amend the figure of 266 dws to 304 dws to align with the most-recent resolution to grant permission.
In summary, in your assessment of sites, the site that you refer to as GNLP0519, is stated as being ‘promoted for’ 266 dws. Planning permission ref. 20161770 – the permission referenced in your assessment, that has now been implemented, permitted 259 dws. However, the site is now subject to a subsequent resolution to grant planning permission ref. 20191999 for 304 dws (subject to completion of the S106 Agreement).
Your assessment states that the site is “not considered suitable for allocation as despite being a reasonable location for development it already had planning permission at the base date of the plan in 2018 and is currently under construction”.
Your reply to ------ advises that you have stated 266 dws as that is the number we included in our original site submission to the GNLP “back in 2016”, and that you haven’t updated the number of dwellings as we haven’t requested any change.
To avoid any further confusion, on behalf of our client – , I should be grateful if you would amend the figure of 266 dws to 304 dws to align with the most-recent resolution to grant permission.
