Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

27 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS32: Service Villages CS32: Service Villages

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/24
  • Status: Accepted
In light of the representations made under policies CS13, CS14 and CS20, the policy should be amended to permit an increased level of both housing and employment development than the very limited extent currently envisaged under the proposed policy. The exclusion of Sandford as an identified Service Village is objected to, both in terms of this policy and CS13, CS14 and any other relevant proposed policy.
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/25
  • 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 03 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS30: Weston Urban Extension CS30: Weston Urban Extension

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/22
  • Status: Accepted
The allocation of the WUE for mixed use development is clearly supported in principal - there are however detailed points of concern. The requirement for 1.5 B use class jobs per dwelling in addition to jobs from non-B uses is considered to be too high and should be replaced with a more achievable figure. Regarding point 4 of the proposed policy, the Council has not fully taken on board all of the concerns expressed previously regarding the intended prioritising of brown field land.
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/26
  • 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 03 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/23
  • Status: Accepted
In light of the representations made under policies CS13, CS14 and CS20, consequential amendments will be required to this policy to give effect to same. 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.
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 6: Delivery CS35: Implementation

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/27
  • 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.
Deleted User 02 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3362433/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 02 Mar 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: 3362433/CSCD/6
  • 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. In respect of the sub-heading of "Masterplanning" the first sentence is an isolated statement without reasoned justification and should be deleted.
Deleted User 02 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS28: Weston-super-Mare CS28: Weston-super-Mare

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/20
  • Status: Accepted
The proposed allocations for 12000 new dwellings and about 10000 jobs centred on Weston-super-Mare are supported. The restrictions upon any strategic development taking place to the east of the M5 motorway and the reasoning for same in para 4.6 are not accepted. Land to the east of the M5 could play an important role in providing flexible opportunities for all types of economic development in line with the positive and proactive approach endorsed in PPS4 and its advice and policies.
Deleted User 02 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3362433/CSCD/10
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for 82% : 18% split as proposed in the wording should be more flexible so as to permit a wider range of permutations. This is potentially too prescriptive to cover all circumstances. The presumption that provision should be "without the need for public subsidy" is not reasonable and these words should be deleted. Further guidance should be stated upon the basis of viability analysis to be required by the Council.
Next pageLast page