Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

21 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Living Within Environmental Limits CS9: Green Infrastructure CS9: Green Infrastructure

  • Comment ID: 3591457/CSCD/4
  • Status: Accepted
In so prioritising the numbered points these should be applied having regard to both the need for flexibility and to reach a balanced conclusion in relation to all of the policy considerations associated with any planning application under consideration.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS19: Green Wedges/Strategic Gaps CS19: Green Wedges/Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 3591457/CSCD/11
  • Status: Accepted
The proposed policy should be deleted as it is tantamount to introducing green belt restrictions in areas without the need to justify same in planning terms. There is a lack of clear guidance upon the appropriate criteria that would be used to make any such assessment and where this would differ from the countryside policies alone.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering a Prosperous Economy CS20: Supporting a Successful Economy CS20: Supporting a Successful Economy

  • Comment ID: 3591457/CSCD/12
  • Status: Accepted
The Council's approach needs to now take into account the Government's latest planning policy and guidance set out in the recently published PPS4. Requiring employment-led development across the district is inflexible and unreasonable. All economic development should be positively encouraged, the comments regarding the predominance of B uses in para 3.300 are flawed and the intended strategy fails to secure the greatest range of opportunities for economic development within the District.
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: 3591457/CSCD/19
  • Status: Accepted
The strictly limited scope for residential development is not appropriate for those settlements currently with a settlement boundary. The requirement that employment development will not be permitted in the open countryside should be deleted.
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: 3591457/CSCD/5
  • Status: Accepted
In the third sentence of the first paragraph of this policy its meaning is unclear, by virtue of its grammatical construction, and it should therefore be deleted. All the requirements of this policy should again be subject to viability considerations and the wording amended accordingly. The general requirements for residential development to achieve the Building for Life Gold standard is considered to be unreasonable unless it is subject to viability considerations.
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: 3591457/CSCD/13
  • 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 6: Delivery CS34: Developer Contributions to Infrastructure

  • Comment ID: 3591457/CSCD/20
  • Status: Accepted
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. 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.
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: 3591457/CSCD/6
  • 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 (SWBUE). The viability and vitality of Clevedon/Nailsea/Portishead and the Service Villages is completely disregarded by the other proposed policies which severely restrict new development in such areas over the plan period.
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: 3591457/CSCD/14
  • 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 6: Delivery CS35: Implementation

  • Comment ID: 3591457/CSCD/21
  • Status: Accepted
In the absence of the relevant Infrastructure Delivery Plan the right must be reserved to make further comments/representations or objections in the future when this information is made available.
Next pageLast page