Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring of the Preferred Options

The Implementation and Delivery of Policy H2 states that the 'Call for Sites' exercise has ascertained that there are sites in these locations which developers are willing to develop. This is incorrect and a major flaw of this document. As set out above, the Core Strategy Preferred Options paper allocates land at preferred locations although in some cases no land has been put forward in the SHLAA, or insufficient land to accommodate the proposed allocation.

This section should give examples of other ways land can be acquired to expand the Country Park.

The tabulation of Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring matters should be expanded. In particular, the implementation and delivery material should provide a fuller description of schemes and projects, who will deliver them, funding requirements and/or sources, their priority and required timing, links with other projects and strategies, risk of non-achievement and contingency importance. Of particular importance will be highlighting of those schemes and projects that are critical to achievement of the policies and proposals in the plan. Similarly, the monitoring material should be expanded to include specific indicators and targets for assessing progress in realisation of the Strategy.

The proposed monitoring of Preferred Option CP1 by reference to the proportion of appeals dismissed, where refusal is on the basis of character of place is questioned. It is unclear what this approach would measure. Would a high proportion of such dismissed appeals indicate that policies are supported and therefore successful? Or, would a low proportion of dismissed appeals show increased design quality of schemes and that policies were therefore successful? A better approach would be to base evaluation and monitoring of the policy on the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment's (CABE) 20 Building for Life principles, particularly as Government has endorsed these principles and is urging local authorities to use them to assess design quality. It is suggested that the monitoring arrangements for Preferred Option CP1 be revised to incorporate the following text, 'The success of the implementation of this policy will be monitored by assessing schemes, or an appropriate sample of schemes, against the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment's (CABE) Building for Life principles.'

The proposed monitoring in respect of Preferred Option CLT2 should be amended by addition of the words 'and Early Years & Childcare' to the Preferred Option title and description of implementation and delivery and by addition of reference to the 'Childcare Sufficiency Assessment' to the description of monitoring arrangements.