Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

26 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3371009/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 03 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3371009/CSCD/26
  • 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 03 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: 3371009/CSCD/9
  • 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 03 Mar 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: 3371009/CSCD/12
  • 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. Either the land is worthy of green belt status or else it remains countryside; the policy should therefore be deleted. 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 03 Mar 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: 3371009/CSCD/16
  • Status: Accepted
The requirements of this policy must be subject to the viability considerations of the proposed development.
Deleted User 03 Mar 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: 3371009/CSCD/1
  • Status: Accepted
In respect of point 2) the words "delivered early in the development" should be deleted as this will be an unrealistic proposition in many instances due to viability considerations. In respect of point 8) there should be greater flexibility than is implied by simply prioritising previously developed land in this way.
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Ensuring Safe and Healthy Communities CS26: Supporting Healthy Living and the Provision of Health Care Facilities CS26: Supporting Healthy Living and the Provision of Health Care Facilities

  • Comment ID: 3371009/CSCD/17
  • Status: Accepted
Health Impact Assessments should not be required as part of the planning application stage, adding to the already significant front-end loading (and costs) of information sought by local planning authorities. There should also be a clear definition as to what these will comprise. The requirement in point 2) of the proposed policy must be subject to the viability considerations of the proposed development.
Deleted User 03 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: 3371009/CSCD/8
  • Status: Accepted
The policy should include and not exclude the urban extension areas proposed so that this policy can be properly and logically related to policy CS13. As stated in comments upon the previous policy, the proposals relating to Clevedon/Nailsea/Portishead should permit a greater scale of residential development than that proposed. It follows from the objections above that the settlement boundaries will need to be amended accordingly.
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Ensuring Safe and Healthy Communities CS27: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities CS27: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities

  • Comment ID: 3371009/CSCD/18
  • Status: Accepted
The requirements of this policy must be subject to the viability considerations of the proposed development.
Deleted User 03 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3371009/CSCD/21
  • 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.
Next pageLast page