Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

22 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 19 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS14: Distribution of New Housing CS14: Distribution of New Housing

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/9
  • Status: Accepted
The policy should include and not exclude the urban extension areas. It is difficult to reconcile the figures. the proposals relating to Clevedon/Nailsea/Portishead should permit a greater scale of residential development than that proposed. Equally, the scale of development proposed to be permitted in respect of the Service Villages and small settlements is very restricted. In respect of previously developed land, the need for flexibility is reiterated. The target for net density is supported.
Deleted User 19 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS15: Mixed and Balanced Communities CS15: Mixed and Balanced Communities

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/10
  • Status: Accepted
The requirements of this policy must also be stated to be subject to consideration of the viability of any development proposed.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS12: Achieving High Quality Design and Place-making CS12: Achieving High Quality Design and Place-making

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/7
  • Status: Accepted
Third sentence of the first paragraph should be deleted. In respect of the sub-heading of "Masterplanning" the first sentence is an isolated statement without reasoned justification and should be deleted. The general requirements for residential development to achieve the Building for Life Gold standard is considered to be unreasonable unless it is subject to consideration of the broader viability of such development.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering a Prosperous Economy CS22: Tourism Strategy CS22: Tourism Strategy

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/15
  • Status: Accepted
This policy should be reviewed to take on the new advice and policy guidance set out in PPS4 recently published, in particular policy EC7 therein relating to the planning of tourism in rural areas. It should be made clear that tourism and appropriate leisure uses will not be precluded from any areas the subject of proposals in policy CS19.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS31: Market and Coastal Towns CS31: Market and Coastal Towns

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/21
  • Status: Accepted
In relation to both the employment and residential development elements of this policy, this should permit an increased level of development than the limited extent currently envisaged under the proposed policy. Land on the north west side of Nailsea is available and would be suitable for development should it be required to meet some element of the strategic developments needs of the district.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS13: Scale of New Housing CS13: Scale of New Housing

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/8
  • Status: Accepted
The scale of new housing for the District should identify land for meeting the RSS requirement of 26,750 additional units. There is no justification for the deletion of 9,000 dwellings attributable to the South West Bristol Urban Extension. The data purports to show and give a statistically based justification for the Council's assertions. It is upon this fundamentally flawed approach that the viability and vitality of Clevedon/Nailsea/Portishead and the Service Villages is completely ignored.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Ensuring Safe and Healthy Communities CS25: Children, Young People and Higher Education CS25: Children, Young People and Higher Education

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/16
  • Status: Accepted
The requirements of this policy must be subject to the viability considerations of the proposed development.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS33: Smaller Settlements and Countryside CS33: Smaller Settlements and Countryside

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/22
  • Status: Accepted
The strictly limited scope for residential development is not appropriate for those settlements currently with a settlement boundary.Reference to employment development should now be reviewed and replaced by wording in accordance with PPS4. The requirement that employment development will not be permitted in the open countryside should be deleted. It is not considered to accord with PPS4 and could be interpreted as deleting the effect of policies RD/2 and RD/3 contained in the current RLP.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Living Within Environmental Limits CS1: Addessing Climate Change and Carbon Reduction CS1: Addessing Climate Change and Carbon Reduction

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/1
  • Status: Accepted
In respect of point 2) the words "delivered early in the development" should be deleted. In respect of point 8) there should be greater flexibility than is implied by simply prioritising previously developed land in this way.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 6: Delivery CS34: Developer Contributions to Infrastructure

  • Comment ID: 3370849/CSCD/23
  • Status: Accepted
1. All requirements of this policy should be expressly stated to be reasonable, proportionate and have regard to the viability considerations associated with the proposed development. 2. In the absence to the relevant SPDs or DPDs, the right must again be reserved to make further comments/representations in the future when this information is made available.
Next pageLast page