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

4.1.51 The GCT JCSR should set out the contributions expected from development including the level and types of affordable housing provision required and other infrastructure for education, health, transport, flood & water management, open space, digital communication. As set out in the Paragraph 34 of the NPPF18 such policy requirements should not undermine the deliverability of the GCT JCSR.

4.1.52 Viability assessment is highly sensitive to changes in its inputs whereby an adjustment or an error in any one assumption can have a significant impact on the viability or otherwise of development. The cumulative burden of policy requirements should be set so that most sites are deliverable without further viability assessment negotiations, as per the requirement set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework. It is important that the Council’s understand and test the influence of all inputs on viability as this determines if land is released for development. An updated viability assessment should be undertaken.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:57
#714414

When considering strategic allocations, the JCS review should consider opportunities to promote the new link road that is proposed between Tewkesbury and the Teddington roundabout, which will ultimately enable the urban expansion to the south of Ashchurch. The additional land put forward as part of this representation could provide a sensitive development which would help fund and incorporate the new bypass.

 

01 Apr 2019 15:39
#713403

We note that the JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be updated as part of the review. It is crucial that as part of the review dealing with strategic infrastructure requirements that these are presented up front as part of the preparation of and engagement on strategic policies. Furthermore, the JCS review should also respond to opportunities arising from major improvements in infrastructure in a coordinated and effective manner, by anticipating projects likely to be delivered through other means, for example the Strategic Economic Plan for Gloucestershire and the Gloucestershire 2050 project. In this way, appropriate policies can be taken forward that facilitate and support new development without risking undermining the deliverability of the JCS.

28 Mar 2019 12:49
#711643

The circumstances requiring viability assessment at the decision-making stage should accord with the NPPF (at para 57) and the revised Planning Practice Guidance. RPS supports an approach that ensures that changing circumstances regarding viability can be taken into account at the point at which a planning application is submitted. This would ensure the policy is responsive and sufficiently flexible in circumstances where legitimate issue or factors become apparent and which, if not taken into account, may delay or prevent appropriate development from coming forward.

27 Mar 2019 16:27
#711448

Education and in particular secondary school provision was not properly considered at the JCS EiP apparently due to the lack of openness demonstrated by Gloucestershire County Council during the hearings. Their contribution on transport was also lacklustre. As a result issues which should have been subject to public consultation and scrutiny through the JCS process, including EiP have not been.

27 Mar 2019 14:55
#711396

(1) The IDP accompanying JCS-1 is high cost, unfunded, and is not proceeding (especially at vital Cheltenham).

(2) Chargrove Lane is one of the top "desirable routes for walking and cycling" (para. 13.4) close to a large urban population, thereby attaining high Amenity value, which merits its designation as a 'Quiet Lane'.

(3) JCS-2 (and/or TBC) should create a "keep off" Index of important Amenity landscapes, which feature footpaths and historic landscape features, (amounting to 'valued landscape'), and record them in the Gloucestershire HER (Historic Environment Record).

(4) Provision of Secondary schools, whose 'school planning areas' (as defined by GCC) range across District boundaries (and even across the county boundary for Gloucestershire's high provision of Grammar schools).

27 Mar 2019 14:26
#711289

The JCSR should set out the contributions expected from development including the level and types of affordable housing provision required and other infrastructure for education, health, transport, flood & water management, open space, digital communication, etc. Paragraph 34 of the NPPF2 states that such policy requirements should not undermine the deliverability of the JCSR. Viability assessment is highly sensitive to changes in its inputs, whereby an adjustment or an error in any one assumption can have a significant impact on the viability or otherwise of development. The cumulative burden of policy requirements should be set so that most sites are deliverable without further viability assessment negotiations (NPPF paragraph 57). It is important that the Councils understand and test the influence of all inputs on viability, as this determines if land is released for development. It is important that the JCSR is informed by an updated viability assessment.

27 Mar 2019 13:06
#711255

The impact of development growth on the M5 needs to be considered as well as cross traffic movements on the M5 where commuters are travelling laterally between places but having to use the M5 for short ‘one junction’ journeys.

As set out earlier in these representations, there may be a need to consider infrastructure requirements for a longer period than the plan period – post 2041. Strategic infrastructure may need to be delivered in part, in advance of strategic allocations.

27 Mar 2019 12:12
#709766

No response

 

22 Mar 2019 16:05
#709762

No response

 

22 Mar 2019 16:01
Next pageLast page

Powered by INOVEM Consult™ - Online Consultation Software