Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

72 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 15 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: 3570689/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 11 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: 3564609/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 10 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: 3563169/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 08 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: 3556961/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. For instance, an element of greenfield development may actually be a more sustainable and resource efficient option for the phasing of development and thereby enhance viability.
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 02 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: 3362433/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.
Environment Agency 24 Feb 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: 1020673/CSCD/11
  • Status: Accepted
Principle 10) is unsatisfactory. Mitigation, including resilience, is the last step in the Flood Risk Management Hierarchy provided by the PPS25 Practice Guide (Assess - Avoid - Substitute - Control - Mitigate). Core Strategy should emphasise avoiding flood risk, locating vulnerable development at lowest flood risk and controlling flood risk over the lifetime of development including flood risk as stated by the SFRA's.
Environment Agency 24 Feb 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: 1020673/CSCD/12
  • Status: Accepted
Para 3.10 - NSC refer to "resilience" and not the basic principles of PPS25 by applying the flood risk hierarchy to avoid the risk. Reference has not been made to the purpose of the Level 1 SFRA or the Level 2 SFRA to bring clarity. Why move straight to mitigation? This implies moving straight to high flood risk areas.
Environment Agency 24 Feb 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: 1020673/CSCD/13
  • Status: Accepted
Para 3.12 - We are encouraged by the approach to green spaces, and corridors. These can be dual purpose areas with an enhanced commitment to delivery of flood risk management infrastructure including sustainable drainage features in new development, which PPS25 asks LPA's to promote through their policies.
Deleted User 24 Feb 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: 3342657/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.
First pagePrevious page Next pageLast page