Skip to main content

Joint Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Joint Core Strategy - Issues and Options

Responses

List of answers to the specified question
ResponseOptionTextDate
#714423

4.1.10 All existing policies within the adopted JCS should be reviewed so as to ensure compliance with the NPPF18 and revised National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

 

01 Apr 2019 15:57
#714414

Much of the revised NPPF in relation to Plan Making is similar to the 2012 document. There is still a requirement to boost housing and to promote growth in sustainable locations. Paragraph 72 of the revised NPPF perhaps places a greater emphasis on new settlements or significant extensions. Our ,client’s land would facilitate the creation of a significant extension of Tewkesbury and the required road link between Tewkesbury and the Teddington roundabout. It would also comply with Paragraph 72, should the JCS follow this approach.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:39
#713403

It is our view that the emerging JCS should contain a range of strategic policies that anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, including those arising from related economic strategies and major infrastructure investment. These would establish the overall strategy for the scale and distribution of development for housing, employment and other associated uses sufficient to meet the development needs of the area in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should specifically address the total housing needs of the area and the supply of land to meet the need over the plan period.

To achieve this, strategic policies should, as a minimum provide for the objectively assessed needs of the JCS area including any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas.

28 Mar 2019 12:49
#711790

The JCS should concentrate on wider strategic issues allowing District level plans to deal with site allocations.

27 Mar 2019 16:54
#711643

Given the issues raised during the consultation and examination on the current Plan regarding cross-boundary housing issues, RPS consider that a clear planning issue that faces the emerging Plan remains the issue of unmet needs on the boundary of its area (at Tewkesbury). Whilst cross-boundary issues are mentioned (at para 4.3 of the IOD), the next Plan iteration will need to reflect on and respond to this important cross-boundary matter with clear actions and proposals that provide sufficient clarity and certainty, preferably as part of an agreed approach between neighbouring areas. This would include the identification of additional strategic housing sites.

27 Mar 2019 16:27
#711497

The revised NPPF reinforces the need to allocate sufficient sites to meet the anticipated needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses and highlights the role residential development can play in ensuring vital town centres. Accordingly, following the urgent evidence base update, the immediate retail review of Policy SD2 needs to follow the sequential approach to provide for the retail needs on centrally located sites and set out a positive approach to town centre growth, management and adaptation.

27 Mar 2019 15:36
#711448

We do not yet consider ourselves sufficiently expert in the changes introduced by the NPPF 2018 to comment on this question.

27 Mar 2019 14:55
#711396

For Cheltenham's UEs, the JCS Transport strategy (DS7) needs total revision to become viable. GCC should take its cycling and walking blinkers off regarding the desperate need for planning some 'outer orbital' route to connect from M5-J11 to Bishops Cleeve passing through the West and NW UEs, thereby accelerating their perceived viability.

In view of very slow delivery (especially at Cheltenham), there should be no further allocations for aspirational "growth". Gloucestershire is a top-rank county with its sensitive rural-urban balance. The adopted JCS-1 has suddenly precipitated more than enough damage to the Severn Vale and its smallest Green Belt (now split into two pieces), all of which massive development needs to seek delivery and bed in first.

27 Mar 2019 14:26
#711289

It will be important for the JCS Councils to review all policies of the adopted JCS to ensure consistency with revised national planning policy and guidance in the NPPF2 and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). As part of this, the number, extent and scope of allocations must be reviewed to ensure that it meets the needs of the JCS area for the extended plan period, as identified by the evidence base.

27 Mar 2019 13:06
#711264

All existing policies should be reviewed against the 2018 NPPF and revisions to Planning Practice Guidance.

27 Mar 2019 12:28
Next pageLast page

Powered by INOVEM Consult™ - Online Consultation Software