34. Do you consider the alternative option to be more appropriate? If so, please state why.

Object

Representation ID: 455

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Finally we appose the suggested alternative option - which is not to have any policy regarding the seafront, but to rely on vague phrases such as "high quality environment". We can safely forecast that such a leaky policy would collapse under the onslaught of an appeal. We also suggest that there is little evidence that officers and elected members are capable of implementing a vague policy such as this.

Support

Representation ID: 1003

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

There are some omissions and suggested changes to the suggested option:

Comment

Representation ID: 1004

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

­ No reference to "Green Grid" in suggested approach
­ Green Grid and Green Corridor should be identified in policy text and on plan
­ No reference to "Seaside Character Zones" in suggested approach
­ Seaside Character Zones should be identified in policy text and on plan
Design Briefs and Codes may not be appropriate for "all major development sites"
For clarity and monitoring purposes, a list of the key development sites for which briefs / codes are to be prepared should be appended to the Submission versions of both the DMDPOD and CAAP
All public realm works should also include consideration of flood risk (point 3)
The detailed proposal to enhance Cliff Gardens may be more appropriately included in the CAAP
Redraft as policy / proposal in CAAP