Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

8 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 18 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Delivering a Prosperous Economy DM49-50

  • Comment ID: 4209089//1
  • Status: Accepted
On behalf of my client, St. Modwen Developments Ltd, I am pleased to provide representations to the current North Somerset Sites & Policies Plan Consultation (February/March 2013). Our representations focus upon the importance of ensuring the allocation of land for employment uses to the west of Kenn Road, Clevedon. The land in question ('the site') is referenced by Policy DM50 (Schedule 2) as a 'Site[s] for employment development' on 9.02 ha of land. The site is shown as Appendix 1a and 1b e
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Businesses in the Countryside DM58-63

  • Comment ID: 4209089//2
  • Status: Accepted
Policy DM58: 'New business development in the countryside' The policy refers to development proposals for new buildings for business use (B1, B2 or B8 use and non-residential institutions (D1) and assembly and leisure (D2) on greenfield sites in the countryside, advising that they will only be permitted subject to specified criteria. To avoid policy conflicts. We suggest that one of these criteria must be that development is acceptable where a site is allocated through Policy DM50.
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Living within Environmental Limits DM1

  • Comment ID: 4209089//3
  • Status: Accepted
Policy DM1: 'Flooding and drainage' The policy advises that sustainable drainage systems are expected, and that alternatives will only be permitted where sustainable drainage is impractical and the alternative 'does not raise insurmountable objections'. We consider that it is inappropriate to refer to 'objections'; technical feasibility and viability are, however, relevant considerations. We note that the policy refers to essential flood prevention and drainage works being completed and adop
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Living within Environmental Limits DM3-8

  • Comment ID: 4209089//4
  • Status: Accepted
Policy DM7: 'Archaeology' The policy states that where there is 'good reason to believe' that development proposals could affect archaeological remains, the LPA will seek a 'field evaluation' to establish the extent and importance of the remains 'before the planning application is determined'. This approach could result in a requirement for field evaluations to be undertaken without due cause, and delays in the determination of applications where a planning condition would in fact be the app
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Living within Environmental Limits DM9

  • Comment ID: 4209089//5
  • Status: Accepted
Policy DM9: 'Nature Conservation' The policy advises that development proposals may need to be accompanied by a 'full ecological survey' as part of the planning application. In most cases planning applications that relate to or affect ecologically sensitive areas will need only to be accompanied by a desk-based survey and Phase 1 ecology survey, albeit that in some cases further surveys may be required to be undertaken in advance of planning permission being granted.
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Living within Environmental Limits DM11

  • Comment ID: 4209089//6
  • Status: Accepted
Policy DM11: 'Landscape' The policy indicates that all development should avoid the introduction of harmful, incongruous or intrusive elements 'into views'. We consider that this text should be revised and clarified. Views of importance should be classified and assessed, but not all views to and from a development are 'important', or involve sensitive receptors.
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Transport DM25

  • Comment ID: 4209089//7
  • Status: Accepted
DM25: 'Public rights of way, pedestrian and cycle access' We have concerns that this policy appears to require that in all cases development will provide/improve, or contribute to providing/improving, multi-user infrastructure and strategic access routes and cycle routes. Such provision will not be appropriate in all cases and the reference to 'will be provided' should therefore be recast. Similarly, the suggestion that 'all developments will be expected to reconstruct' footways that have be
Deleted User 17 Apr 2013

Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Delivery DM75

  • Comment ID: 4209089//8
  • Status: Accepted
Policy DM75: 'Development contributions, Community Infrastructure' We consider that this policy should be substantially revised; it must explain correctly the difference between s.106 and CIL. For example, the policy text currently states that planning obligations will be entered into through s.106 in order to mitigate the impacts of a development proposal. Following the adoption of CIL this text would need to instead refer to the future role for s.106 in delivering site-specific contributio