Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 1047

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The proposals for the provision of visitor accommodation (as well as those which included the loss of visitor accommodation) should be subject to a demand assessment and supported by viability and feasibility assessments.

Comment

Representation ID: 1048

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Certain types of visitor accommodation may be best located around the key employment areas (including the university) and/or the station.

Comment

Representation ID: 1049

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Other issues to consider may include
­ the type and seasonality of demand and how this is to be addressed in proposals for visitor accommodation;
the specialist needs of conference visitor accommodation.

Support

Representation ID: 1050

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We support the preferred approach which we agree meets the requirements of PPG23.

Comment

Representation ID: 1051

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The Council may wish to state a policy preference for the type of land remediation - encapsulation, soil cleaning, off site disposal of contaminated soils for various end uses
Contaminated land should also be included policy DM1

Support

Representation ID: 1052

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We support the preferred approach to require an applicant with proposals for development on unstable ground to demonstrate that building can be undertaken safely and that stabilisation measures are both environmentally acceptable and will have no adverse impact upon neighbouring uses.

Comment

Representation ID: 1053

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Land instability should also be included policy DM1

Support

Representation ID: 1054

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We support the full range of measures included in the preferred option.

Comment

Representation ID: 1055

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

It is not apparent that the release and retention of the industrial sites under DM21 had due regard to these sustainable transport management objectives.
Clearer cross-reference to this proposed policy needs to be included in the criteria for considering various types of proposals set out in this document including but not exclusively - DM1, DM2, DM 20, DM21, DM22 and DM23

Comment

Representation ID: 1056

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Consideration should be given to future residents and to the displacement of car parking from one area to another rather than simply new additional car parking. Standards need to reflect demand but also local circumstances. Too high or too low could destroy viability.
The policy should require applicants to be innovative about car parking and to promote reduction in parking by using incentives. Parking should not be an absolute figure and should be expressed as a maxima.