Preferred Approaches

Comment

Representation ID: 484

Received: 24/07/2008

Where is the evidence for PA 1? (Pg 12, para 7.3 of summary document)

Comment

Representation ID: 508

Received: 24/07/2008

Wilting - One positive / five slightly positive 7 (out of 21) uncertain/potential effect, surely there is not the evidence to support this on the basis of sustainability. PA19

Comment

Representation ID: 509

Received: 24/07/2008

There are more significant negatives than positives. Para 7.64 is more negative than positive about the road (which may not be built!)
PA30

Comment

Representation ID: 1211

Received: 08/07/2008

We note that since our previous comments a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment has been completed for your area. This SFRA has been correctly used within the Sustainability Appraisal to inform your decisions on the preferred approaches.

Comment

Representation ID: 1275

Received: 03/07/2008

Objectives 1, 8 & 11 agreed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1276

Received: 03/07/2008

Objectives 2-5,12-16,18-21 no specific comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 1277

Received: 03/07/2008

Objective 6 - there is every reason to expect new housing development to provide safe & secure environments with the potential to reduce crime. It is thought that objective 6 should score at least a 'slight positive effect'

Comment

Representation ID: 1278

Received: 03/07/2008

Objective 7 - whilst this involves a somewhat subjective assessment being made, there is no reason to believe that the development of the land could not create vibrant & locally distinctive communities. We would contend that the opportunity to fulfil this criterion is high & should score as a significant positive effect.

Comment

Representation ID: 1279

Received: 03/07/2008

Objective 9 - the comprehensive planning for an area of undeveloped land of this size will have mixed impacts in terms of the protection, conservation & enhancement of biodiversity. Whilst open land will be built on, opportunities will be created for the management & improvement of (for example) areas of ancient woodland, streams & other landscape features. it will also provide the opportunity to assess & afford protection to species of value which may well not be recognised with the land in its current use. It is felt therefore that the score could reflect a less negative impact & we suggest that this may be a 'slight positive & slight negative effect'

Comment

Representation ID: 1281

Received: 03/07/2008

Objective 10 - It is considered that this is a negative response that does not reflect the beneficial effects of works that will be carried out as part of housing development on the land. Flood risk will be assessed in depth & where necessary remedial works are identified, mitigation measures will be introduced. It is unlikely that the site could be developed without this form of analysis & action, so we would not score this objective as low as shown.

Comment

Representation ID: 1282

Received: 03/07/2008

Objective 17-It is considered that this is a negative response that does not reflect the beneficial effects of works that will be carried out as part of housing development on the land. Highway improvements & new works will be introduced as part of the wider development of the land & these will be designed to mitigate existing & potential road congestion. The development of a major site also offers the prospective advantage of introducing improved public transport infrastructure creating less potential dependency on the car & greater travel choice. On that basis, we would be more inclined to score this objective neutrally at worst through there is we believe, real scope to score this on a 'slight or even 'significant' positive' basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 14/07/2008

We do not see how PA 2 and PA 3 perform badly in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) as the land given to car parking and roadspace should diminish over time with the mode shift away from the car. This gives opportunities for re-allocation of land to 'greenspace' that would improve biodiversity and also allow rainwater to permeate through to rechrage the aquifers.

Comment

Representation ID: 1586

Received: 07/07/2008

We challenge the assumption that Preferred Approaches 1 to 8 meet any of the listed sustainability objectives. No evidence is provided for the claims, nor is the employment strategy sufficiently diverse & risk-proof to cope with an uncertain economic climate.

Object

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 07/07/2008

We feel this is an incomprehensible document with a serious lack of realism. The appraisal of PF 7 and 8 ignores the many negative impacts - so there will be no proper planning for this and policies will not be sustainable. Over 1 million square feet of new development is proposed in a ward that already has some of the highest densities in Britain - creating major pressures on services and infrastructure. Lack of support for maintaining and improving existing built environment and making use of underused accommodation especially over the shop. Not enough support for creating environmental action areas - particularly upper Queens Road. There are too many competing economic drivers and the intensification of retail uses will create too much competition for existing businesses. We disagree with the claim that preferred approach 8 meets any of the listed sustainability objectives and feel insufficient account has been taken of the uncertain economic climate, thus creating a high-risk future employment strategy based primarily on large-scale retail and office expansion.

Likewise Preferred Approach 1 does not meet sustainability objectives and seems to be creating isolated urban sprawl totally at odds with national and regional planning guidance - viable smaller scale integrated developments such as those proposed in the MBM masterplan are both sustainable and preferable.