Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

21 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 4: Area Policies CS33: Smaller Settlements and Countryside CS33: Smaller Settlements and Countryside

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/20
  • Status: Accepted
The strictly limited scope for residential development is not appropriate for those settlements currently with a settlement boundary. Reference to employment development should now be reviewed and replaced by wording in accordance with PPS4, particularly policies EC6 and EC10 therein.
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS16: Affordable Housing CS16: Affordable Housing

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/9
  • Status: Accepted
The proposed imposition of a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing on sites of less than 15 dwellings (or sites of less than 0.5ha) is unreasonable and should be deleted. The requirement for the 1.5 B jobs per dwelling (or any amendment thereof) should be specifically stated as not applying to the affordable housing element.
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Delivering Strong and Inclusive Communities CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only CS17: Residential Sites Providing Affordable Housing Only

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/11
  • Status: Accepted
The restriction on affordable housing sites under this policy (in rural exceptions and allocated sites) not to be permitted should be deleted. The present requirements as set out in Policy H/5 of the current Replacement Local Plan should continue to prevail.
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 6: Delivery CS34: Developer Contributions to Infrastructure

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/21
  • Status: Accepted
All requirements of this policy should be expressly stated to be reasonable, proportionate and have regard to the viability considerations associated with the proposed development. In the absence to the relevant SPDs or DPDs, the right must again be reserved to make further comments/representations in the future when this information is made available.
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.
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

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

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/22
  • 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 24 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Living Within Environmental Limits CS2: Delivering Sustainable Design and Construction CS2: Delivering Sustainable Design and Construction

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/2
  • Status: Accepted
Greater flexibility needs to be incorporated within the wording of the policy. The requirements in items 2, 3 & 4 under this policy are demanding particularly in the light of the present economic circumstances. Viability is the key consideration if the scale of both economic and residential development required for this District is to be achieved and the wording should be amended accordingly.
Deleted User 24 Feb 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: 3342657/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 be deleted.
Deleted User 24 Feb 2010

Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 3: Spatial Policies Living Within Environmental Limits CS3: Environmental Risk Management CS3: Environmental Risk Management

  • Comment ID: 3342657/CSCD/3
  • Status: Accepted
The area of search to be the whole of North Somerset should be amended to say that with regard to the Service Villages it is the Service Village and its immediate environs and economic hinterland that is the relevant area of search. In respect of 2) any Council land so identified must have already been formally declared to be surplus and be genuinely available for purchase by private treaty.
Deleted User 24 Feb 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: 3342657/CSCD/15
  • Status: Accepted
The requirements of this policy must be subject to the viability considerations of the proposed development.