Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

46 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 16 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3573697/CSCD/19
  • 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. A more positive approach to facilitating such development should be incorporated in the wording.
Deleted User 15 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3570689/CSCD/19
  • 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. A more positive approach to facilitating such development should be incorporated in the wording.
Deleted User 15 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3569313/CSCD/31
  • Status: Accepted
We support the scope given to allowing some housing development to come forward within the service settlements.
Deleted User 11 Mar 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3564609/CSCD/19
  • 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.
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 CS32: Service Villages CS32: Service Villages

  • Comment ID: 3371009/CSCD/23
  • 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. A more positive approach to facilitating such development should be incorporated in the wording.
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/19
  • 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. A more positive approach to facilitating such development should be incorporated in the wording.
Environment Agency 24 Feb 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 1020673/CSCD/51
  • Status: Accepted
There is no recognition of flood risk. NSC should use the SFRA to influence any infill, redevelopment or subdivision development. If additional housing is required in this area due to revised growth figures NSC SFRA Level 2 will need to be updated to ensure there is sufficient technical evidence to support this growth area. NSC needs to clarify the position.
Deleted User 23 Feb 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3619969/CSCD/9
  • Status: Accepted
The requirement for good design is welcomed - concerns are raised on the basis that the policy does not differentiate between the different roles of the service villages. The policy should differentiate between the differing roles of the villages. Some villages such as Long Ashton are subject to greater development needs due their proximity and functional relationship with nearby SSCTs.
Deleted User 22 Feb 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3556961/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. A more positive approach to facilitating such development should be incorporated in the wording.
Next pageLast page