Site Allocations Plan March 2016

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

12 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 24 Jun 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 931233//10
Core Strategy Policy CS19 establishes the need for strategic gaps and the value they bring but the wording in Policy SA9 appears to contradict by identifying what is permitted.
Nailsea Town Council 14 Jun 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 706241//4
That any change to the Nailsea settlement boundary can only be considered if the area described below is incorporated into the green belt, or into the Strategic Gap: to the north, Bucklands End, the southern side of The Perrings, the Bridleway from the junction of The Perrings and Youngwood Lane and across Morgan’s Hill (footpath N4). the railway line to the south. Station Road to the east (the current western boundary of the green belt). Netherton Wood Lane/Chelvey Lane to the west
Gladman Developments Ltd 03 May 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 11199745//9
Unlikely that any ‘Strategic Gap’ policy will meet NPPF tests. NPPF sets out that the planning system should contribute to and enhance valued landscapes. Inspectors have dismissed similar Strategic Gap policies as being inconsistent with the Framework in Appeals.
Deleted User 28 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 4602593//5
Nailsea/ Backwell Strategic Gap is proposed without justification and there is no robust evidence that supports such a designation in a scenario where the LPA has failed to deliver sustainable levels of housing for years.
Deleted User 28 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 14204193//5
Strategic gap between Yatton and Congresbury should not be reduced.
Wrington Parish Council 28 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 1019201//16
As time passes and if house building continues then there might need to be other Strategic Gaps defined. Some suitable provision should be made for this.
Deleted User 27 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 11221409//3
Support the strategic gap between Weston-Super-Mare and Hutton as proposed. Would withdraw support if boundary altered.
Deleted User 27 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 14651041//2
Support for the strategic gap boundary as proposed between Weston-Super-Mare and Uphill
David James & Partners Ltd 27 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 10412609//3
In the light of the expectation that the council will need to provide for a significantly higher housing requirements in settlements such as Yatton in the period to 2036, we do not consider that it has balanced the importance of meeting this requirements for sustainable development against the purposes of strategic gaps. We submit that, if the criteria are correctly applied, it is inappropriate to designate land at Frost Hill as strategic gap
Deleted User 26 Apr 2016

Site Allocations Plan March 2016 Strategic Gaps SA9: Strategic Gaps

  • Comment ID: 3568545//6
Therefore in light of the identified requirement for a review of the settlement boundary for Parklands Village discussed above, we request that further assessment of the Strategic Gap between Parklands village and Locking is carried out to ensure that the housing requirement for Weston Villages can be met.
Next pageLast page