Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

Document Section Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering a Prosperous Economy CS20: Supporting a Successful Economy CS20: Supporting a Successful Economy [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 3556961/CSCD/28
Respondent Deleted User [View all comments by this respondent]
Agent Deleted User
Response Date 12 Mar 2010
Current Status Accepted
Comment
The allocation of the WUE for mixed use development is clearly supported in principal - there are however detailed points of concern.
The SPD addressing Master Plan, Design Codes and Delivery Plan should be ready to be read in concert with these draft policies. In the absence of this, the right must be reserved to make such appropriate future comments/representations in respect of this policy once the details are made available.
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 - say 1.0 in the absence of any futher evidence. This high requirement might be aspirational but it does nothing to help achieve the reality of the viability of development and the actual provision of employment development "on the ground". It reflects the Councils preoccupation with B1(a) office based jobs but is a very blunt tool to operate in very trying market circumstances. PPS4 also suggests a positive and proactive approach is taken to all economic development - the Council should heed this and actively encourage all jobs not just those arising out of (substantially) B1(a) office based jobs. The flexibility of a range of employment sites being available for the differing uses now envisaged as economic development is a fundamental requirement.
The quantum of employment land required will be subject to review in the light of the comments immediately above.
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. Not only may it facilitate strategic development if greenfield land is released but also the early release of some element of green field land could facilitate the early start of development, thus acting as an enabler, could also represent the most cost effective and resource efficient form of development. These considerations must rank of equal importance at a time when the viability of the WUE is a serious concern. Para 4.48 should be deleted.
The inclusion in point 9 of the proposed policy of the Junction 21 Bypass and A371 to Wolvershill Road/Churchland Way link is supported.
In respect of point 11 of the proposed policy, it is a fundamental requirement to resolve the position over the future activities of the helicopter museum. Equally the proposals for the off-site surface water drainage solution need to be clarified.
In respect of the development tarriff proposed under point 14 of the proposed policy, this must truly ensure that an appropriate comprehensive approach is achieved. In the absence of the SPD and WUE and the Developer Contributions SPD, the right must be reserved to make further comments/representations in the future once this information is available.
In respect of point 16 of the proposed policy, reference should also be made to the earlier comments relating to policies CS19 and CS22 (point 2).
In respect of the Key Diagram for the WUE, it is considered that the Park and Ride notation is wrongly sited, this should be sited near Junction 21. The legend and presentation needs better clarification as the proposed notations are not easy to define/read.
The representations under proposed policy CS16 relating to affordable housing are equally applicable to this proposed policy and should be considered to have been so reiterated.
Attachments