Core Strategy Submission Document
Search representations
Results for Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office search
New searchObject
Core Strategy Submission Document
Vision
Representation ID: 15736
Received: 25/09/2009
Respondent: Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The DPD does not fully recognise the policy in PPG2. The Vision should also allow for consideration of major developed sites to continue to be identified within the PPG2 Annex C policy framework. PPG2 recognises potential environmental/openness benefits of redevelopment of such sites and the Core Strategy vision for Green Belts should include similar recognition - if only by reference to policy in PPG2.
The DPD does not fully recognise the policy in PPG2. The Vision should also allow for consideration of major developed sites to continue to be identified within the PPG2 Annex C policy framework. PPG2 recognises potential environmental/openness benefits of redevelopment of such sites and the Core Strategy vision for Green Belts should include similar recognition - if only by reference to policy in PPG2.
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
6.6
Representation ID: 15737
Received: 25/09/2009
Respondent: Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Whilst stating continued support of restricting development as set out in PPG2 this paragraph does not accept or recognise what PPG2 Annex C indictaes regarding major developed sites in the Green Belt.
Whilst stating continued support of restricting development as set out in PPG2 this paragraph does not accept or recognise what PPG2 Annex C indictaes regarding major developed sites in the Green Belt.
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
6.7
Representation ID: 15738
Received: 25/09/2009
Respondent: Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We generally agree and support this paragraph as it wuite rightly recognises that not all Green Belt land is of a high quality and that it does include developed/brownfield land. There should be reference to major developed sites - how they will be identified and recognised and dealt with in policy terms.
We generally agree and support this paragraph as it wuite rightly recognises that not all Green Belt land is of a high quality and that it does include developed/brownfield land. There should be reference to major developed sites - how they will be identified and recognised and dealt with in policy terms.
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Policy GB1 - Green Belt Protection
Representation ID: 15739
Received: 25/09/2009
Respondent: Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The policy needs to address that major developed sites will be identified and that the general policy in PPG2 will be applied to them
The policy needs to address that major developed sites will be identified and that the general policy in PPG2 will be applied to them
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
7.9
Representation ID: 15740
Received: 25/09/2009
Respondent: Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Whilst the existence of Essex Marina is explicitly recognised there is no mention of Baltic Wharf and associated storage facilties (which lie alongside the Essex Marina). In physical and visual terms Baltic Wharf is more substantial and significant. Indeed the Wharf and storage facilty was identified in the Richfird District Replacement Local Plan as major developed site in the Green Belt. That recognition and identification should be carried forward. The redevelopment potential of the wharf site (as per PPG2 Annex C) should be recognised.
Whilst the existence of Essex Marina is explicitly recognised there is no mention of Baltic Wharf and associated storage facilties (which lie alongside the Essex Marina). In physical and visual terms Baltic Wharf is more substantial and significant. Indeed the Wharf and storage facilty was identified in the Richfird District Replacement Local Plan as major developed site in the Green Belt. That recognition and identification should be carried forward. The redevelopment potential of the wharf site (as per PPG2 Annex C) should be recognised.
Object
Core Strategy Submission Document
Policy URV2 - Wallasea Island
Representation ID: 15741
Received: 25/09/2009
Respondent: Steven Abbott Associates North Quarry Office
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The policy implies that all of the Wallasea Island area is of prime value for bird and other nature conservation inetrests. We fully recognise for specific areas to be protected and improved to enhance biodiversity. However, it would be inappropriate for the policy not to also recognise and seek to balance other legitimate land uses and interests that are well established on Wallasea Island - e.g. Baltic Wharf etc.
The policy implies that all of the Wallasea Island area is of prime value for bird and other nature conservation inetrests. We fully recognise for specific areas to be protected and improved to enhance biodiversity. However, it would be inappropriate for the policy not to also recognise and seek to balance other legitimate land uses and interests that are well established on Wallasea Island - e.g. Baltic Wharf etc.
