Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 169
Received: 08/07/2008
We strongly support this policy and see this as a key element of a prosperous future for the town.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 302
Received: 23/07/2008
21.22 agree
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 375
Received: 24/07/2008
no comment
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 412
Received: 30/06/2008
Supported very much
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 456
Received: 23/06/2008
No comment
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 566
Received: 25/07/2008
Greater emphasis on the protection of the existing built historic environment that is not listed or protected by the new government proposals. (Regeneration shall not destroy existing buildings of quality)
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1143
Received: 07/07/2008
Further protection/designation needed for archaeological areas as on current plan - not just sites.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1505
Received: 08/07/2008
supported
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1553
Received: 08/07/2008
The tinkering with conservation areas must be resisted.
There should be a local list of historic buidings for the area
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Approaches
Representation ID: 1607
Received: 07/07/2008
We are pleased to see that generally you have related the level & location of development to specific places & have sought to identify how the area will change over the plan period. At submission you will need to ensure that all policies are locationally specific & focussed on local issues. PPS12 para 4.30 makes it clear that policies should not repeat national or regional guidance. It is not clear how this approach will add a local dimension to national guidance.