Non Site Allocation Representations Report.pdf

IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK
5.16
Rep No Name
People Type
559 Cllr Greg Robbins [601]
1 Support
Summary With regard to site 448 Abbey road Llandudno.
whilst the development of this land is to be welcomed the high density of housing planned for this site would not be generally in keeping with the area and I
would request that this is reduced.
I would also request that this site be put to use as an overflow car park for the Town in the period prior to any development taking place as the site is ideal for
this use requiring very little work to make it suitable.
5165 Beech Developments (NW) Ltd [765]
1 Object
Summary In the first instance, this Table is unsound because it does not appear that the figures add up correctly (Test CE2?). The addition of each of the sub-totals,
plus the committed sites, windfall allowances and completions total 6954 and not 7026 as indicated.
Change Sought: It is proposed that a site at the junction of Pentywyn Road and Marl lane in Llandudno Junction be allocated as part of this process; the Proposals Map should
be amended accordingly. It is noted that the site was in fact identified for residential development in the Draft Llandudno Junction Masterplan prepared on
behalf of the Council and WAG.
355 Betws yn Rhos Conservation Society (Mr John Wickins) [630]
1 Object
Summary In Table 13, Site No. 274 Ffordd y Mynydd/Minafon: shows 5 houses in 2013-14 and another 5 in 2020-2021. This error in the duplication of the number of
houses was pointed out to Mr. Stan Yates by telephone earlier this May, who referred the matter to James Harland (Tel. 575180) who was responsible for this
table. Our Society requests that the 2013-2014 allocation of 5 houses be removed.
Change Sought: Correct table 13
1802 Redrow (Mr Robin Buckley) [1996]
Summary Redrow object to the Housing Delivery and Phasing Plan (Table 13) for the following reasons:
1.Land on the south east side of Abergele should be included in the list of allocated sites (refer to attached plan). For justification - see full submission.
2.The Table does not specify site areas, only densities, which makes it impossible to properly assess whether the claimed capacities of allocated sites are
realistic having regard to site constraints and open space requirements.
3.The Table includes a figure for existing commitments of 3340 which assumes all sites which currently have planning permission will be built out during the
plan period. Clearly that is unlikely to be the case.
4.The Table includes a grossly exaggerated windfall allowance. Hence, larger sites which would ordinarily have been allocated for housing have actually
come forward as windfall sites. The LDP will address this issue and therefore the past contribution of windfall sites will not be a realistic guide to future
performance.
Change Sought: Include land at Abergele south east within the plan for mixed use development. Additionally, all sites need to be re-assessed to determine whether they are
likely to deliver completions. A 10% slippage factor should then be applied to the remaining supply to compensate for unknown constraints which might
prevent a site coming forward (e.g. ownership constraints, infrastructure problems, viability etc). In addition, the figure of 3340 appears to comprise many
small sites (