EXAM/103 Appendix Ai - Wiltshire Council PDF
Preview EXAM/103 Appendix Ai - Wiltshire Council
Appendix Ai – Representations received on chapter 1-4 (Introduction - Spatial Portrait - Spatial Vision - Spatial Strategy) (TPL1 – TPL13) with officer comments June 2014 Consultee Agent Is the Change Lucy Cliffe legally Comment 1 GPSS Fisher German LLP compliant? ID: Is the Change Person ID: 390747 Person ID: 812424 sound? Identified proposed Reasons for General change unsound Please give details of Thank you for your email to GPSS, Government Pipelines and Storage Systems dated 14 April 2014 regarding the above. Please find why you support or attached a plan of our clients apparatus. We would ask that you contact us if any works are in the vicinity of the GPSS pipeline or do not support the alternatively go to www.linesearchbeforeudig.co.uk our free online enquiry service. consultation material. Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your I did not submit any comments on the objection through the proposed changes previous stage Attached files (Please 390747 - 1 GPSS Pipeline Map.pdf see Objective) Officer Response Comments noted Consultee Agent Is the Change Mr Francis Morland legally Comment 32 Heywood Parish Council compliant? ID: Is the Change Person ID: 836317 Person ID: sound? Identified proposed Reasons for General change unsound Those comments reflected the longstanding policy of Heywood Parish Council that none of the settlements in the Heywood Village ward should be regarded as villages for the purposes of the Development Plan. The Settlement Strategy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy is set out in Core Policy 1, and its application to the Westbury Community Area Please give details of is set out in Core Policy 32, which identifies the categories into which each of its specified settlements falls (including Small Villages: why you support or Edington and Tinhead). None of the settlements in the Heywood Village ward are identified in Core Policy 32 as being within the do not support the settlement hierarchy of Core Policy 1, and hence in accordance with the introductory paragraph to Appendix F: List of settlement consultation material. boundaries removed (and not being identified as "Small Villages" in List 1 and List 3), they are all to be regarded as "settlements outside the settlement hierarchy" set in and part of the open countryside. At the meeting held on 14 April 2014, it was agreed to respond to the current scope and content consultation that there should be no changes at all to that position. Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your objection through the proposed changes Attached files (Please 836317 32 Heywood PC CP1 see Objective) Officer Response Comment noted. However, they do not appear to relate to the proposed modifications that are being consulted on. Consultee Agent Is the Change Major William Naesmyth legally Comment 33 compliant? ID: Is the Change Person ID: 550018 Person ID: sound? Identified proposed Reasons for General change unsound I see no plan to save agricultural land that will be needed to help feed the increasing population and residents of the houses that you want to build. I have pointed this out to my MP and Ministers again and again. When a crisis comes it will be too late to avoid it, as it was with the recent floods. Please give details of why you support or I do not know if your many and various plans deal adequately with the need for improved infrastructure to match housing growth in the do not support the form of roads, public transport, parking etc, retail outlets, medical and education facilities, besides the lesser known local government consultation material. facilities and employment opportunities. We fear that the town centre will be swamped and the houses and employment sites will be too far away. The plans for after 2020 look worse and worse. I expect that many other towns will fear the same. Also I see no plan to ensure that all brown field sites are used first, before devouring the likes of Coate Bridge and Lay Wood sites. Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your objection through the proposed changes Attached files (Please see Objective) Comments noted. The essence of the Core Strategy is to steer development to the most sustainable locations and to ensure that housing development occurs in a controlled manner with appropriate infrastructure, and the loss of agricultural land minimised. Core Officer Response Policy 2 supports development within existing urban areas and sets a target for 35% of development across the county to be on previously developed or brownfield land. Consultee Agent Is the Change Ms Andrea Witcombe legally Comment 76 compliant? ID: Is the Change Person ID: 839604 Person ID: sound? Identified proposed Reasons for GENERAL change unsound Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 3: Infrastructure Requirements With regard to section 4.40 onwards, the nature of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be of great concern for the agricultural community depending on the specification of its use. Given the importance of agriculture to the rural economy of Wiltshire, it is clear that there should be an exemption for all agriculture, agriculturally tied buildings and any barn conversions in order that the sector may become more sustainable in the future. We would be grateful to see Wiltshire Councils specification for this in due course. Schedule of Proposed Modifications – August 2013 Core Policy 34: Additional employment land In general, we are pleased that Core Policy 34 recognises agriculture and land-based industries play a role in the move towards a higher-value economy. The Policy states that applications for employment developments in identified settlements and towns and Please give details of service centres for example will be supported, however it is concerning that developments in other areas must be identified by lower why you support or level plans – such as Neighbourhood Plans etc - before they can be considered. Despite our consultation responses to Neighbourhood do not support the Plans etc, these Plans may also overlook the positive impact of agriculture on the local economy. consultation material. We also note that our request for clarification from the Council in section 6.12 has not been considered in the revised document. Our comments as of October 2012 and 2013 were as follows and we still recommend the following change: The “Core Policy 34 aims to support the rural way of life through the promotion of modern agricultural practices, appropriate diversification of the rural economy and provision of broadband”. This statement requires extra substance and clarity for Agriculture and the Rural Economy - we suggest the addition of the following: The Council recognises the importance and changing role of agriculture and the need for new employment in the rural areas. In particular initiatives aimed at ‘adding value’ to food and goods produced on farms through processing and packaging initiatives are encouraged. It will however, be essential to carefully consider the appropriateness of new uses, their impact upon the surrounding area and implications of public access, and their relationship to continuing agricultural operations. Warminster Area Strategy- page 143 bullet point 9 This area strategy notes in the ‘issues and considerations’ section that concentrations of phosphates in the River Wyle system are high. It is therefore essential that the Core Strategy recognises the needs for agricultural businesses to be able to develop in order to comply with regulations (such as the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone regulations) and any future requirements of the Water framework Directive for example. This need should also be reflected in other parts of this document. Core Policy 42: Standalone renewable energy installations We are pleased to see that in principal the Core Strategy is supportive of standalone renewable energy developments where they are appropriately situated. Agriculture is well situated to contribute to county and national targets for renewable energy developments, and diversification into renewables can proved constant income streams for farm businesses – which can be essential during times of market volatility for example. Core Policy 48: Supporting Rural Life – page 189 With regard to ‘Dwellings required to meet the employment needs of rural areas’, we are pleased to see that some further clarity has been included as to what is required when applications are being made. In addition, this Core Policy states under ‘New Shops’ that farm shops will be supported where they utilise existing buildings, are small and cause no unacceptable impact on nearby village shops or the character of the area. We have suggested that the word ‘small’ is removed and it has not been as yet; the size of the farm shop is irrelevant and it is the impact on other local amenities which should be considered in the main. Core Policy 67: Flood Risk It is essential that any developments do not increase the flood risk to productive agricultural land. Protection of Wiltshire productive agricultural land from such risks will be essential as our farmers rise to the challenge of contributing to the rising global demand for food. Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your objection through the proposed changes Attached files (Please see Objective) Officer Response Comments noted. However, these comments do not relate to proposed changes that are currently being consulted upon. Consultee Agent Is the Change Mr Peter Bell legally Comment 78 compliant? ID: Is the Change Person ID: 700470 Person ID: sound? Identified proposed Reasons for GENERAL change unsound There is rising concern over the Government's highly controversial planning policies. There is reportedly sufficient "brownfield" land available for 1.5 million houses, but all over the country, villages are now under siege by developers. In Market Lavington, where we live, we face an avalanche of housing, way beyond the capacity of the village, and which is likely to completely change its nature. Having scrapped all the Planning laws, developers can now effectively build wherever they choose, flouting local concerns. Our narrow, and already very congested, High Street would become totally gridlocked and quite unable to copewith the additional traffic likely to be generated thereby, both during and after its construction. Large container lorries and farm tractors already often have to mount the pavement in order to negotiate the street, which has parked vehicles all along one side. And school children are already obliged to cycle on the pavement in order to avoid the heavy traffic. At the eastern end of the High Street the road narrows into a kind of chicane between two brick walls just before the mini-roundabout. Please give details of This is quite unsuitable to cater for the increased traffic likely to be generated by another 150 houses at Fiddington Clay in addition to why you support or the large new housing development on the site of the former Jam Factory at Easterton - not to mention all the other proposed new do not support the housing. And the roundabout by the surgery is constantly used by primary school children and their parents who have to cross the consultation material. road when making their way to and from St Barnabas School. Moreover, there is an exceptionally dangerous blind exit from Stobberts Road at the eastern end of the High Street. There is another problem with regard to the additional traffic on the village High Street concerning quite a number of residents, like ourselves, who have garages exiting onto the High Street. We are obliged to back out of our garages into the traffic flow with little or no visibility due to all the parked cars, and this is becoming increasingly hazardous, indeed sometimes nearly impossible, and could result in a fatal accident. In short, we would say that the proposed development (if it is to go ahead) should be greatly reduced in scale, and the Government's housing targets are really quite unrealistic. The High Street is in danger of becoming like India, only without the sacred cows! Where are the occupants of all the new houses going to come from, and where will they work? Nobody should build another new house in the village until the traffic problem has been sorted out, otherwise it will become impassible. Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your objection through the proposed changes Attached files (Please see Objective) Officer Response Comments noted. The policies within the Core Strategy as a whole seek to ensure that development is managed and does not adversely impact on an area. Consultee Agent Is the Change Mrs Gill Smith legally Comment 91 Dorset County Council compliant? ID: Is the Change Person ID: 634998 Person ID: sound? Identified proposed Reasons for GENERAL COMMENT change unsound Please give details of why you support or Thank you for consulting Dorset County Council on the Proposed Modifications to the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Dorset County Council do not support the does not wish to raise any comments on these Modifications. consultation material. Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your objection through the proposed changes Attached files (Please see Objective) Officer Response Comments noted.
Description:The list of books you might like
