16.23
Support
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 20807
Received: 26/09/2011
Respondent: John Jempson and Son Ltd
Agent: Mr Christopher Atkinson
This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.
This section of the Core Strategy rightly identifies the need to secure sustainable economic growth as an essential function of the Strategy, and this is translated into policy via policies EC1, 2 and 3. Policy EC3 in particular focuses on existing employment sites and seeks to retain and enhance them, allowing intensification and redevelopment of such sites where appropriate.
Object
Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 21120
Received: 09/11/2011
Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Part (iv)
It is not clear how priority would be established for assessing alternative uses of redundant employment sites/premises in relation to community uses, affordable housing and market housing. Furthermore, paragraph 16.23 draws attention to Policy HO2 "regarding the priority of economic potential, rather than affordable housing potential in such situations", however there appears to be no policy HO2 in either part (iii) of the PSCS (Spatial Strategies) or part (iv) (Core Policies) of the PSCS. Therefore, stronger justification and clarification is needed or alternatively, this element of the policy should be deleted..
Part (iv)
It is not clear how priority would be established for assessing alternative uses of redundant employment sites/premises in relation to community uses, affordable housing and market housing. Furthermore, paragraph 16.23 draws attention to Policy HO2 "regarding the priority of economic potential, rather than affordable housing potential in such situations", however there appears to be no policy HO2 in either part (iii) of the PSCS (Spatial Strategies) or part (iv) (Core Policies) of the PSCS. Therefore, stronger justification and clarification is needed or alternatively, this element of the policy should be deleted..