We agree that the character of a locality is a relevant consideration in the formulation of development proposals. We disagree that it is always necessary to "reflect" the character or identity of an existing area in new development schemes. This is particularly the case for major development proposals, where it is possible to create new character areas and distinctive architectural styles, but even smaller scale development or infill proposals can successfully adopt new approaches. In some cases of course, the identity of the existing built environment may not necessarily warrant repetition.

We agree therefore with the comment in the third paragraph that developments should "consider" the identity of the surrounding area, but not that they should necessarily "reflect" it. Incidentally, there is a degree of repetition between the 1st and 3rd paragraphs in relation to this matter, and the word "reflect" should be deleted from both in our submission, or perhaps for the sake of conciseness the first paragraph should be deleted.

In terms of the list of items in the second paragraph, we do not disagree that these are relevant issues. Obviously different types of application will require different considerations, and not all of the factors will apply in every case.

On a matter of detail, we note the reference in the third paragraph to the effective running of the Council's recycling scheme. We agree that recycling is an important design consideration, and clearly the Council has a major role to play in the overall cycle by collection. There are of course many alternative approaches to recycling, and practices will change over the lifetime of the Plan. It is important that the application of the Policy does not lead to overly prescriptive solutions.