MM90

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1

Comment

Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Representation ID: 33064

Received: 10/01/2014

Respondent: Raven Group

Agent: Pomery Planning Consultants

Representation Summary:

MM 89 needs to be amended to make it clear that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) is not exclusive to existing occupiers of BFR1 (north) and that it shall be treated simply as a new employment allocation.

Full text:

The Inspector's Interim Report confirms that the original proposal for allocation NEL 3 was unsound. The Inspector recommends a modification, which reflects the broad location of Option E19. The respondent anticipated the Inspector's conclusions and put forward Master Plan Option 3 with his representations, which broadly reflects Option E19. There is a need to be clear as to how NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) will be accessed as detailed in representations made in response to MM93, 94, 95 &AM1. It is also the case that the Inspector draws the Councils attention in his interim report (para 13) that the Council may with to consider the content and implications of paragraph 5.1 of the Plan. In doing so, the Inspector is referring to the unlikely scenario of the displaced users on BFR1 (north) finding their way onto NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) . It is acknowledged that paragraph 5.1 of the Plan advises that the new employment allocations are not only to provide for displaced uses from the BFR sites, but also to accommodate new employments uses. The suggested modification to paragraph 5.54 suggests as drafted that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) shall only provide for displaced uses from BFR1 (north), which is not the intention and certainly not likely to be the case in reality. The Council accept that there are likely to be difficulties in controlling where existing BFR users might relocate to and that there will be no synergy, unless site's like NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) are able to be approved as separate entities as new employment allocations where any B1, B2 or B8 user might choose to locate. Any proscriptive requirements on the potential occupiers on the NEL sites, will render them commercially unviable and thus jeopardise the proper delivery of the Plan.
The Inspector's Interim Report confirms that the original proposal for allocation NEL 3 was unsound. The Inspector recommends a modification, which reflects the broad location of Option E19. The respondent anticipated the Inspector's conclusions and put forward Master Plan Option 3 with his representations, which broadly reflects Option E19. There is a need to be clear as to how NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) will be accessed as detailed in representations made in response to MM93, 94, 95 &AM1. It is also the case that the Inspector draws the Councils attention in his interim report (para 13) that the Council may with to consider the content and implications of paragraph 5.1 of the Plan. In doing so, the Inspector is referring to the unlikely scenario of the displaced users on BFR1 (north) finding their way onto NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) . It is acknowledged that paragraph 5.1 of the Plan advises that the new employment allocations are not only to provide for displaced uses from the BFR sites, but also to accommodate new employments uses. The suggested modification to paragraph 5.54 suggests as drafted that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) shall only provide for displaced uses from BFR1 (north), which is not the intention and certainly not likely to be the case in reality. The Council accept that there are likely to be difficulties in controlling where existing BFR users might relocate to and that there will be no synergy, unless site's like NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) are able to be approved as separate entities as new employment allocations where any B1, B2 or B8 user might choose to locate. Any proscriptive requirements on the potential occupiers on the NEL sites, will render them commercially unviable and thus jeopardise the proper delivery of the Plan.
MM 89 needs to be amended to make it clear that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) is not exclusive to existing occupiers of BFR1 (north) and that it shall be treated simply as a new employment allocation.