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

Comment

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

1. This preferred option allows for a case to be made in exceptional circumstances to allow the redevelopment of redundant and underused employment buildings and land for non-employment use provided that "it can be demonstrated that there are no prospects of any employment generating use using the site in its current form or within a redevelopment aimed at meeting the accommodation requirements of the key existing and emerging employment sectors in the borough."
This approach applies to all sites and properties except those identified for protection and retention - for which the policy approach is too rigid and inflexible.
Grainger Road has significant neighbouring use and access problems and should not have been identified as a site for retention and protection.
In any event the proposed approach should extend to the sites identified for protection and intervention to allow for their review during the life of the Plan to allow for their release in where there is no demand for the sites / premises and/ or any prospect of redevelopment.

Comment

Representation ID: 1041

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

3. The suggested approach is to require a mix of units in all development proposals.
Speculative employment development is a thing of the past, without significant public investment and subsidy. The range of unit sizes provided in any employment proposals should be led by feasibility and viability criteria and if not for a named occupier, should be informed by a market demand assessment.