Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Search representations

Results for Go-East search

New search New search

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Introduction

Representation ID: 3682

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• It might be helpful in the introductory paragraphs of your eventual Submission document to explain in slightly more detail, what has preceded the stage you have now reached (i.e. the earlier stages) in terms of the evolution of your Core Strategy, particularly in relation to the chronology and 'frontloading' (statutory consultees/stakeholders) including public engagement.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities

Representation ID: 3683

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• You might like to consider whether in your Submission document you should distinguish what is in effect your 'Spatial Portrait' (i.e. term it as such) from the other information that forms the 'Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities' in the introductory section.

• On page 14 under population, I think you are suggesting that the average household size in Rochford is a function of the relatively large number of families which is a feature of the District's population structure. The way you have expressed it appears to be somewhat ambiguous to me and this section of text may therefore benefit from being expressed in a way that is simpler and provides for clarity.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Vision

Representation ID: 3684

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• Under the section entitled 'Vision', the text referring to the latter seems to be based more upon the separate document 'Vision to Reality' that is referred to. In addition, the initial Vision Statement that is then set out as text amounts to little more than a 'Statement of Intent'. The way I feel the Vision should be expressed is in fact much like the way you have expressed it in text boxes at the start of each theme- based section that follows in the document. This is an unconventional way of handling the matter and consequently you will need to be satisfied that it is an appropriate method. Clearly though, I feel that the linkage between the section entitled 'Vision' and what is written subsequently in the initial text and later in the text boxes, is inconsistent and at present confusing (the Vision and the Objectives that follow from it, should set the scene for the Core Strategy policies and proposals, particularly in terms of time scales (which you do outline) local distinctiveness, the scale of development intended and its broad locations).

• The objectives as currently expressed are very general and not distinctive or 'spatially specific' to Rochford.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

H1 Distribution - Preferred Option

Representation ID: 3685

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• Policy H1 - The spatial dimension to this policy is in fact provided by Policy H2 and therefore there should be a cross reference in the text of Policy H1 to provide this linkage.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Introduction

Representation ID: 3686

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• Some of the text boxes are clearly making reference in 'plain English/general terms' to the 'Evidence Base' (i.e. when not setting out the Vision) without providing a reference to the appropriate 'Evidence Base' document. Given that the 'Evidence Base' is listed in detail in the first section of the Core Strategy document, it might be helpful to devise a system of Codes, or similar, to provide for cross references from the text box statements to the appropriate 'Evidence Base' document in the earlier list (the same system could be used in respect of 'non-specific references' to the 'Evidence Base' in the main text).

• You should avoid repeating national policy within the Core Strategy. In some instances in the supporting text you actually reproduce sections of PPSs. It may be appropriate in such instances to refer to such policy in general terms (a text box is a good way of doing this) but reproduction of actual PPS text should be avoided. Where references are made in some cases within policy wording to national policy (PPSs etc.) then the policy must be re-written in the Submission document to remove such references. The Core Strategy can only interpret national policy, indicating how it is to be applied to the local area - it must not repeat it.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Protection of the Green Belt

Representation ID: 3687

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• Whilst the use of text boxes is to be commended in general, that on P42 contains text which is repeated in some of the main text virtually alongside it. This occurs elsewhere in the document and it should be avoided in the Submission document.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

GB1 Green Belt Protection - Preferred Option

Representation ID: 3688

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• Several policies (e.g. GB1, ED2) are expressed in terms of: 'we will seek to direct'; 'we will encourage'; 'we will ensure'; we will enhance' etc. Expressed in this way the policies amount to little more than 'statements of intent'. Such expressions beg the questions 'how?', 'when?', 'where?'; and 'what?' etc. The policies in the Core Strategy need to relate to firm actions (albeit 'criteria based' if appropriate) and if there are not clear intentions in relation to delivery, then it is not appropriate to include the policy at all. I accept that as currently written, the policies may be indicating what the 'preferred option' for the policy is, rather than expressing it currently in its final form.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

ED2 Employment Growth - Preferred Option

Representation ID: 3690

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• Several policies (e.g. GB1, ED2) are expressed in terms of: 'we will seek to direct'; 'we will encourage'; 'we will ensure'; we will enhance' etc. Expressed in this way the policies amount to little more than 'statements of intent'. Such expressions beg the questions 'how?', 'when?', 'where?'; and 'what?' etc. The policies in the Core Strategy need to relate to firm actions (albeit 'criteria based' if appropriate) and if there are not clear intentions in relation to delivery, then it is not appropriate to include the policy at all. I accept that as currently written, the policies may be indicating what the 'preferred option' for the policy is, rather than expressing it currently in its final form.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

ED3 Existing Employment Land - Preferred Option

Representation ID: 3691

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

In policy ED3 other than mention being made of 'Baltic Wharf', the existing employment sites to be reviewed are not identified. In order for the policy to be 'spatially specific' the other sites should be identified.

• Other than mention being made in the supporting text that there is an identified requirement for 2 hectares of office space, there are not any allocations made in terms of quantum of floorspace, or land areas, to meet the jobs requirement for the District.

Furthermore, a policy has not been developed in terms of the distinction between locational implications of different uses (i.e. B1, B2 and B8). The submission policy should provide a clearer articulation of the locational implications relative to employment use types B1, B2 and B8 including any relevant split of land requirements relative to the different uses.

Comment

Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

ENV4 Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) - Preferred Option

Representation ID: 3692

Received: 11/12/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Representation Summary:

• In policy ENV4 'large scale' development is not defined.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.