Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9546

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10041
No – this is not appropriate as it would tie large scale allocations to the delivery of a product that is unknown and uncontrolled


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9547

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10042
Evidence is needed to justify the demand otherwise the Authority is simply going to attract more uncontrolled and unsustainable camps from outside of the Borough – for instance if the housing need is 29,000 this equates to 232 pitches


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9548

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10043
No and R2 could be deleted. R2 was a “reaction” policy to an overwhelming demand at a point in time due to intense pressure placed upon the settlement by speculative developments. Tattenhall is not a special case. However, it is important to recognise that the plans overarching spatial and sustainable development polices recognise the demands placed upon all rural settlements and the need to deliver sustainable levels of development that maintain and enhance sustainability.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.