M - Proposed spatial spread of housing development

Comment

Representation ID: 1784

Received: 16/07/2011

The concept of planning focus areas is probably sound. However, the potential range of dwellings within an area should not be set in stone and the boundaries of these areas need to be interpreted flexibly. For example, there is scope for some development outside the existing built up margin in the north east corner of area 11 and the north west corner of area 13.

Comment

Representation ID: 1837

Received: 05/08/2011

It is difficult to comment on this without seeing the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan. The implication in paragraph 5.10 seems to be that if developers hang on and insufficient homes are being built various policies will not be applied in order to encourage building. We would not support that if it leads to higher densities and lower standards on some or all sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 1971

Received: 30/08/2011

Areas 3, 6 and 7 on the lower estimate are being expected to provide 45% of the housing. Developments should be of a density commensurate with that in the rest of the town; parts of south StL that still enjoy lower densities a recognistion of the prevailing standard should be shown. To keep on building at the proposed level will destroy the USP for tourism and residence and will not guarantee economic revival, but will contribute to ills associated with urban overcrowding. Before building, sites and funding should be identified for community facilities etc that are constantly overlooked.

Comment

Representation ID: 2000

Received: 04/08/2011

It is requested that a total for the data in table M is provided.

Comment

Representation ID: 2094

Received: 08/08/2011

The updated 'Shared approach to future prosperity' could usefully provide a context for the Spatial Strategy. It is assumed that this is not included in the consultation as it has not materially changed.

Comment

Representation ID: 2107

Received: 08/08/2011

Any spread of proposed development should make sure that they build to enhance the area with no interference to biodiversity - ie. Trees, meadow, water, we ned these spaces for general well being.

Object

Representation ID: 2145

Received: 08/08/2011

I believe that many of the proposed housing figures for specific planning focus areas are far too high, to the extent they imply:
1. Inappropriate development in historic areas eg. Archery Rd, The Convent etc.
2. Loss of green space, both small and large, that make an important contribution to the living environment of the densely populated Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 2154

Received: 05/08/2011

All areas under the Community Land Trust scheme, i would like to visit each proposed site to make a decisiion if that can be arranged i would be happy to go along, but i would need to have someone with me that knows the area involved.

Comment

Representation ID: 2177

Received: 08/08/2011

There should not be a potential range of dwellings by area, but a specific number based upon the sites available in the areas and the densities and types of properties to be built.

Comment

Representation ID: 2179

Received: 08/08/2011

A detailed calculation is needed on Areas 1-12 to show where development will occur.

Comment

Representation ID: 2193

Received: 08/08/2011

If as predicted the Link Road is not built there are very few large building sites available, therefore the area proposals will need a re-assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 2195

Received: 08/08/2011

I prefer planning in accordance with statement "Levels of growth should reflect environmental and infrastructure constraints", there needs to be an embargo on flats (35% flats built compared to 19% nationally).