Preferred Options November 2021
Search representations
Results for Tyler Parkes search
New searchSupport
Preferred Options November 2021
Question 3
Representation ID: 694
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: Tyler Parkes
Yes, but please see response to Question 3b) below also.
Support
Preferred Options November 2021
Question 4
Representation ID: 695
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: Tyler Parkes
Yes, but there appears to be some contradiction with the proposed Settlement Hierarchy and the restrictions placed on development within defined settlement boundaries, particularly those falling with Tier 5 as indicated within the RSFA (see previous comments made under Question 1).
Object
Preferred Options November 2021
Question 5
Representation ID: 696
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: Tyler Parkes
No. Please see attached document for full response.
Object
Preferred Options November 2021
Question 8
Representation ID: 698
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: Tyler Parkes
As previously commented there are also missed opportunities with regard to the allocation of smaller sites within defined settlement boundaries, such as Acton Trussell, which can provide a valuable boost to housing supply and deliverability, often being capable of being developed quickly.
Support
Preferred Options November 2021
Question 12
Representation ID: 699
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: Tyler Parkes
Yes. The listed policies (DS1-DS4 and SA1-SA7) do appear to meet the requirements of paragraph 21 of the NPPF and as such it is agreed that these amount to strategic policies, albeit that it is suggested that Policy DS3 should be amended, as indicated in the responses to question 5 above.
