Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 977

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

1 (1) The links between the development and adjoining / surrounding areas are as important as the links to the wider areas. Suggest policy should address "local context" in addition to the wider context.
Suggest policy should include the words "and local" after the word "wider"
1 (vii) - the wording "Natural environment and trees" is inappropriate in an built urban context
Add the words "and trees" to sub-para (iv)
Replace 1 (vii) with "Ecology and environment "l
1(ix) - there will be locations in the Borough, especially in the Central Area where Council and/or applicant may not want to enhance uses throughout the night
1(x) "Levels of activity" is ambiguous and may mean either "economic activity" i.e. jobs created on site or "social activity" - pedestrian movements / increased usage of urban space within and around the site

Comment

Representation ID: 978

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

5 - There is no justification for the design of a development particular regard to "Secure by Design" principles over other design objectives. In certain localities these principles could militate against the desire for increased pedestrian linkages and permeability.
This criteria should be deleted

Comment

Representation ID: 979

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

6- All developments required to incorporate high quality materials. Quality design and townscape can be achieved without demanding high quality materials in all circumstances, and it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow construction using materials that are not of high quality to meet other planning and sustainability objectives i.e. locally sourced materials.
Replace wording "high quality material " with "materials of appropriate quality"

Comment

Representation ID: 980

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

8 - Design and Townscape Guide SPD principles to be followed.
This wording should be incorporated into DM1 (1)

Comment

Representation ID: 981

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Para 5.6.7
We consider that the aspiration for high quality design is laudable, but needs to be tempered by commercial realities.
Although we support the thrust of the preferred option, the final draft policy needs to be modified so that the approach, although design-led, is more flexible. The policy should allow the design of development proposals to be considered on a site-by-site basis, having regard to local circumstances, the need to meet other objectives within the LDF and any other relevant factors.

Support

Representation ID: 982

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally support approach of preferred option (Q8)

Comment

Representation ID: 983

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Q9). 1 "Ensuring that tall buildings would only be permitted in the sites / areas identified in the Area Action Plans". This approach is inflexible and does not allow for tall (or large) buildings to come forward in changing circumstances over the life of the plan and on sites not foreseen in the AAPS
This wording should be deleted. The policy should allow for tall buildings to come forward on other sites, provided they meet the policy criteria.
Reference to be made to the joint CABE / EH guidance on Tall Buildings July 2007
Although the policy is entitled "Tall Buildings" the detail in points (i)-(vi) relate to both tall and large building. This is confusing and may results in criteria that are not appropriate being used to assess tall rather than large buildings.
e.g. (ii) building to relate in "scale and character to surrounding buildings" - not an appropriate criteria to consider introduction of tall buildings.
Tall buildings are defined as being different (standing out) from their surroundings or prevailing townscape scale. Therefore they are unlikely to relate to the scale of the surrounding.

Comment

Representation ID: 984

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

(1) (iv) "Incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials." - policy too rigid and inflexible
Should read "high standard of design" and "appropriate materials"
(1) ((vi) "Make a significant contribution to local regeneration"
The word "local "is undefined and confusing and should be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 985

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Need to differentiate in policy terms between additional development, conversion and redevelopment, as different levels of intensification are likely to be appropriate for each of these types of development proposals.
In this context it is not clear what is meant by "over intensification"

Object

Representation ID: 986

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The requirement for all new homes, including conversions, to meet Lifetime Homes Standards, is too onerous.
Redraft policy "should aim to be 100% Lifetime Homes Standards, unless there are special circumstances, which can be demonstrated. "