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 Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS13: Scale of New Housing CS13: Scale of New Housing

  • Comment ID: 3597441/CSCD/7
  • Status: Accepted
You should identify land for 26,750 dwellings. No justification to delete 9,000 dwellings for SWBUE. Had no opportunity to critically examine data for land availability as at April 2009 . Reserve the right to do so and make subsequent reps. Approach of not providing for shortfalls (arising from not meeting full RSS requirement) elsewhere in district, and disregarding needs/viability of service villages through restrictive policies is flawed .
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: 3597441/CSCD/10
  • Status: Accepted
1. CS19 should be deleted, tantamount to green belt restrictions in areas without the need to justify same. Either such land is worthy of green belt status or else it remains countryside; the policy should therefore be deleted. 2. Lck of clear guidance upon appropriate criteria that would be used to make any such assessment and where this would differ from the countryside policies alone. Inclusion of area between Weston-super-Mare and Hutton is not accepted.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS29: Weston-super-Mare Town Centre CS29: Weston-super-Mare Town Centre

  • Comment ID: 3597441/CSCD/19
  • Status: Accepted
Paras 4.34 and 4.35 explain why the Council may permit residential development in the town centre area to proceed in isolation rather than in association with an employment-led strategy for elsewhere. The justification for doing so is based upon the need for flexibility - a need that the Council appears oblivious of in numerous instances elsewhere in its proposed policies. All housing should be treated equally in this respect or else other sites might be undermined re housing element
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: 3597441/CSCD/1
  • Status: Accepted
Re point 2), please delete words "delivered early in the development" (will be unrealistic re viability). 2. In respect of point 8) there should be greater flexibility than is implied by simply prioritising previously developed land in this way. For instance, an element of greenfield development may actually be a more sustainable and resource efficient option for the phasing of development and thereby enhance the viability of schemes.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Living Within Environmental Limits CS3: Environmental Risk Management CS3: Environmental Risk Management

  • Comment ID: 3597441/CSCD/3
  • Status: Accepted
The area of search to be the whole of North Somerset should be amended to say that with regard to the Service Villages it is the Service Village and its immediate environs and economic hinterland that is the relevant area of search. In respect of 2) any Council land so identified must have already been formally declared to be surplus and be genuinely available for purchase by private treaty.
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: 3597441/CSCD/6
  • Status: Accepted
.3rd sentence of 1st para of CS12 is of unclear meaning, should be deleted. All policy's requirements should be subject to viability considerations. RE "Masterplanning" , 1st sentence is isolated, no justification,should be deleted. Note that other LDDs etc will be produced to give further details. In their absence, reserve right to make further objections if need be. Requirements for housing to achieve the Building for Life Gold standard unreasonable unless viability considered.
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: 3597441/CSCD/12
  • Status: Accepted
1.Take account of PPS4 para 3 and its EC10. 2. Apparent requirement for all NS development to be employment led, self containing and reducing out commuting is inflexible, unreasonable. 3.All economic development should be positively encouraged, not just B uses. 4. In all categories on location of employment development, more flexibility needed, as PPS24. 5. Prioritising pdl may not be most sustainable. 6. Safeguarding sites is a SADPD isssue. 7. Employment land requirements may change.
Deleted User 19 Feb 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3597441/CSCD/20
  • 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.
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: 3597441/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 CS35: Implementation

  • Comment ID: 3597441/CSCD/21
  • Status: Accepted
1. 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