Language:

Draft Development Plans Manual: Edition 3

 

Question 1: The content of an LDP is now set out in the Manual (see Table 1). Is this sufficiently clear and comprehensive enough? Are there elements which would benefit from further clarity, or have been omitted? Please state what should be changed and why.

 

Question 2: Is the guidance on how to undertake a comprehensive call for candidate sites early in the LDP process clear and sufficiently detailed? If you disagree, please specify what is unclear or requires amendment and why.

 

Question 3: Do you agree with the criteria for what constitutes a ‘deliverable’ and ‘financially viable’ candidate site? (paragraph 3.40). If you disagree, please state what should be changed and why.

 

Question 4: Is the Manual sufficiently clear on how to undertake an SA, HRA or a holistic ISA? If you disagree, please detail how you think the guidance could be improved and why.

 

Question 5: Is the ‘de-risking plan checklist’ (page 83) a useful summary of the core issues of plan making as summarised in Chapter 5? If you disagree, please state what changes should be made and why.

 

Question 6: Do you agree the guidance on formulating a spatial strategy adequately covers all the key elements necessary when assessing the role and function of places? If you disagree, please state what should be changed and why.

 

Question 7: Is the guidance on housing and economic growth scenarios sufficiently clear to enable a plan maker to consider a range of growth options and identify a requirement/plan provision, for both homes and jobs that is appropriate and deliverable? If you disagree, please state why and how you consider the guidance should be improved.

 

Question 8: Is there sufficient practical guidance on how to prepare a housing trajectory to support the delivery of housing? Are the definitions of the components sufficiently clear? If you disagree, please state what should be changed and why.

 

Question 9. Do you agree with the definition of viability (paragraph 5.81) and the key components of viability (tables 24 and 25)? If you disagree, please state what requires amending and why.

 

Question 10. Does the Manual clearly differentiate the viability requirements for high level testing and site specific testing? If you do not consider this is sufficiently clear, what do you consider requires amending and why.

 

Question 11. Does the Manual provide sufficient guidance to enable the preparation of an infrastructure plan and how to embed the core elements of the infrastructure plan into the development plan? If you disagree, please specify what you think requires amending and why.

 

Question 12. Do you agree with the list of indicators to be included in the monitoring framework (table 29)? If you disagree, please specify what changes should be made and why you consider them necessary.

 

Question 13. Is the guidance on the short form revision procedure sufficiently clear and helpful? If you disagree, please specify what could be amended and why.

 

Question 14. Do you agree with the scale and content of issues to be covered in an SDP? If not, what do you disagree with and why.

 

Question 15. Is there sufficient and clear guidance to enable the preparation of an SDP? If you disagree, what do you think should be amended and why.

 

Question 16: Any other comments. We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this opportunity to report them.