Issue and Options 2023

Yes

No answer given

Q-C1.1: An appropriate approach might combine elements of a and b. This would allocate land where this could be achieved based on current knowledge but also encourage other schemes to come forward at a later date. Q-C2: We would suggest a combination of both C2a and C2b – requiring large scale developments over a threshold as a must deliver, but also encouraging decentralised energy systems regardless of scale. Having a threshold would be to deny smaller schemes that are above micro generation – so would represent an opportunity missed. Suitability should be a case-by-case appraisal against criteria but should not be dismissed on green belt land, just because it’s in the GB but depend on the case. Q-C3.1: Yes, subject to this approach not undermining the attractiveness of the plan area for investment.

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

No answer given

Q-C4.1: Should be aligned with the national approach. Q-C4.2: Should be aligned with the national approach. Q-C5: Should be aligned with the national approach. Q-C6.1: Should be aligned with the national approach.

selected

selected

selected

Q-C7: Should be aligned with the national approach. Q-C8: Should be aligned with the national approach. Q-C9.1: Should be aligned with the national approach.

selected

selected

selected

Q-C10.1: Should be aligned with the national approach.

selected

selected

selected

Yes

No answer given

selected

selected

selected

selected

Yes

Q-D2: Option D2b: Develop design guides and/or design codes for specific places (e.g. existing settlements or groups of settlements, or an ‘area’ in the case of a new settlement) where the spatial strategy identifies significant change. We would support this approach although, at present, there is a tendency for planners applying design guidance too rigidly to developments and there is a lack of consideration as to whether (regardless of any deviation from the guidance) the development looks appropriate and/or adds value to its surrounding and functional for its needs. Any Design Guide/Code should not be overtly prescriptive or rigidly applied but, provide guidance and/or performance criteria – there is a real danger that this could prevent innovative and creative designs that are different but still appropriate and create interest. Designs should be considered on their merits in meeting performance. Option D2c: Develop design guides/codes for strategic development sites/locations. We would support this approach. Q-D3: We consider a flexible approach that considers the site context, local character and the efficient use of land, and ultimately the creation of high quality development, would be more appropriate. Q-D6: Please refer to earlier comments regarding unnecessary and too rigid application of design guidance.

Yes

Although we remain unconvinced by the 20-minute neighbourhood concept.