Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9745

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10241
No – statutory providers have an obligation to provide additional resource and capacity through their own capital programmes. The development sector cannot be expected to pay for additional doctors when the responsibility for this is with the NHS, they cannot be expected to pay for new reservoirs when this is the responsibility of the water companies.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9746

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10242
An Infrastructure Delivery Plan would be the best vehicle and one that is linked to Place Plans – so that CIL and other contributions can be targeted appropriately.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9747

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10243
Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9748

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10244
Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9749

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10245
Yes and Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9750

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10246
Safeguard subject to criteria


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9751

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10247
Yes


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9752

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10248
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9754

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10250
No – being too prescriptive with respect type, tenure and percentage split is not providing market flexibility and the policy needs to be more collegiate. For example, a site may seek to solely deliver First Homes or Custom/self-build homes and these should not be subjected to an autocratic policy that seeks to impose measures that would simply undermine delivery of these tenures.


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

Comment

Representation ID: 9755

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

I&O_10251
No – the 50% target must be subject to an overarching viability testing which takes into account other policy areas such as CIL, commuted sum contributions and infrastructure requirements – which cumulatively may over-burden schemes and could make them unviable – thereby risking housing delivery. In addition, the policy should also introduce a “subject to viability” wording. Furthermore, applying affordable housing to Older Persons housing and Student accommodation is counter-intuitive – these products are already delivering a specialist need and to burden them with a prescriptive tenure is likely to introduce feasibility and viability challenges.


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