82. Do you agree with the suggested option?

Support

Representation ID: 494

Received: 03/08/2010

Respondent: Carole Mulroney

support

Support

Representation ID: 706

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Planning Perspectives LLP

Whilst the overall approach is broadly supported, the way this policy is expressed is considered to be overly prescriptive in requiring "at least eqUivalent" jobs to the existing floorspace. A flexible approach is reqUired in line with the recommendations of the Employment Land Review. The redevelopment of old and unsuitable stock will attract investment to the area even if it is providing a lower amount of floorspace than the existing, and therefore would have a lower potential for job creation based on notional employment densities.

Support

Representation ID: 707

Received: 09/08/2010

Respondent: Planning Perspectives LLP

Whilst the overall approach is broadly supported, the way this policy is expressed is considered to be overly prescriptive in requiring "at least eqUivalent" jobs to the existing floorspace. A flexible approach is reqUired in line with the recommendations of the Employment Land Review. The redevelopment of old and unsuitable stock will attract investment to the area even if it is providing a lower amount of floorspace than the existing, and therefore would have a lower potential for job creation based on notional employment densities.

Object

Representation ID: 1039

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

1(ii) "Provision is made for alternative floorspace to accommodate employment generating uses of at least equivalent jobs to the existing employment floorspace ". This is not clearly worded and it is unclear whether the equivalence should be in the type of employment (sector and grade) or number of jobs measured as full time equivalents.
Clarification is also required of whether this provision can be made on or off-site or via developer contribution.