Attachment to FOI request 'Comments to SHLA November 2007' (HTML version)

RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND ASSESSMENT

BROTTON

Site Number

Respondents (list)

Summary of comments made (list to avoid duplication)

GENERAL

England & Lyle on behalf of Northumbrian Water

  • In essence the scope for future development in the East Cleveland towns is potentially limited because the current water supply to the area is by a single large water main. There could still be local issues in Moorsholm that would require local investment in infrastructure. NWL would request consultation on the earliest possible stage on potential preferred housing allocations in these settlements.

OFFICER RESPONSE:

BROTTON

Site Number

Respondents (list)

Summary of comments made (list to avoid duplication)

43

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Site is suitability located and accessible.

  • SHLA assessment states that the site is not currently available due to policy constraint (site is outside development limits). The Company would request an immediate review of the settlement development limits to ensure the availability of the site within the earliest possible RSS phase.

  • This site is the largest and most significant potential housing allocation site.

90

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Situated adjacent to GWNY's site 43. It is noted that the potential delivery of this site may be constrained by topography, ownership and access constraints. We would also note that this site does not appear to be particularly well related to the existing settlement pattern.

91

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Site is located beyond the eastern development limits. GWNY notes that in the Council's assessment this site would have a potential detrimental impact of the existing landscape. Development of this site would also result in the loss of a community facility (open space).

92

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Situated adjacent to GWNY's site 43. It is noted that the potential delivery of this site may be constrained by topography, ownership and access constraints.

93

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Situated adjacent to GWNY's site 43. It is noted that the potential delivery of this site may be constrained by topography, ownership and access constraints.

142

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • This site represents Greenfield land with significant topographical and accessibility constraints. There does not appear to be a specific promoter identified and there is no justification to warrant the land's Local Plan departure from its current recreational community space designation to a housing allocation. GWNY notes in the Council's assessment that achievability of development on the site is constrained by its reliance on adjacent sites and the need for `assistance' to make it developable.

143

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Provides the same opportunity to delivery the range of house types, scale of development or security supply that can be delivered by site 43. Issues of accessibility, ownership and deliverability of this site. Development of this site would result in loss of important community open space, including allotments/playing fields.

144

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Provides the same opportunity to delivery the range of house types, scale of development or security supply that can be delivered by site 43. Issues of accessibility, ownership and deliverability of this site. Development of this site would result in loss of important community open space, including allotments/playing fields.

145

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Provides the same opportunity to delivery the range of house types, scale of development or security supply that can be delivered by site 43. Issues of accessibility, ownership and deliverability of this site. Development of this site would result in loss of important community open space, including allotments/playing fields.

164

Gladedale (Sunderland) Ltd

Signet Planning on behalf of Gladedale (Northern) Ltd

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Keen to see the former coal depot come forward for housing given that the current retail and land use allocation is no longer appropriate. Marketing exercises carried out by both the owner and Gladedale (Sunderland) Ltd have clearly demonstrated that there is no interest in the site for retail use. The company would like to see the limits of the local centre redefined and the site allocated for housing use given that it is PDL. Moreover, the site is located within the identified settlement limits (in accordance with DP1 and DP2) and accords fully with the requirements of the locational strategy in Policy CS2.

  • Provides the same opportunity to deliver the range of house types, scale of development or security supply that can be delivered by site 43. Issues of accessibility, ownership and deliverability of this site.

193

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Site is located beyond the western development limits. GWNY notes that in the Council's assessment this site would have a potential detrimental impact on the existing landscape.

194

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Site would provide an extension to the northern edge of Brotton and is deemed to be less appropriate as a location for future housing allocations. GWNY also notes the poor relationship of this site with the existing settlement pattern and the potential conflict with their SSSI and Coastal Special Landscape Area designations.

232

England & Lyle on behalf of George Wimpey North Yorkshire Ltd

  • Site would provide an extension to the northern edge of Brotton and is deemed to be less appropriate as a location for future housing allocations. GWNY also notes the poor relationship of this site with the existing settlement pattern and the potential conflict with their SSSI and Coastal Special Landscape Area designations.

OFFICER RESPONSE: