Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Support

Representation ID: 967

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The text on the approach to handling applications - pre-application discussions and detail of information to be provided during pre-application stage (page 8, paras 2 and 3) - should be drafted as a policy.
This policy on pre-application discussion could be an important Key Performance Indicator for the Annual Monitoring Report.
Insert new policy

Comment

Representation ID: 968

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The role and purpose of including the references to the Saved Policies of the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan under each of the subject chapters has not been explained and is unclear. We have therefore not made any comments on which, if any, should be retained in modified form in the DMP

Comment

Representation ID: 969

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally we would comment that there are no sustainability criteria for assessing whether sites are suitable for various types of residential and other uses either during the LDF process or as part of planning proposals. The criteria in DM26 should be explicitly used to justify site allocations in the CAAP and other location specific allocations in the DMDPD (e.g. DM21 and DM22) and in future LDDs. Sustainable transport management issues should also be required to be addressed in development proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 970

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

In general we support many of the suggested options, but consider that the overall approach is too rigid, most policies will not able to respond either to changing market or to site-specific circumstances

Comment

Representation ID: 971

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We do not consider to evidence base adequate, as many of the supporting studies have yet to be completed.

Object

Representation ID: 972

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

We do not consider to evidence base adequate, as many of the supporting studies have yet to be completed.

Support

Representation ID: 973

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Generally support design objectives and criteria for assessment of development proposals. However we consider that the policy is too inflexible and makes no allowance for other factors. The preferred option places high quality of design above all other planning considerations, such as feasibility/viability, in all cases.

Comment

Representation ID: 974

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The policy focuses too much on high-quality architectural design and townscape, at the expense of a variety of environmental, social and economic factors that should have a strong influence on the design of sustainable development. (Q7)
The policy should be redrafted to include many of the criteria currently included in DM4 and in Sections 8.4- 8.11 (Addressing Resource Minimisation And Carbon Emissions) of the CAAP.
­ Flood risk
­ Passive design for energy efficiency and carbon minimisation
­ Water efficient design and SUDS
­ Energy efficiency - district heat and energy systems
­ Green Travel Plans
­ Part L of Building Regs
­ Zero Carbon developments by 2016

Comment

Representation ID: 975

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Revise wording for clarity to read: "the Council takes the view that the applicant should demonstrate how the development proposals will take account....

Comment

Representation ID: 976

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

The detailed design criteria set out in DM1 (1) are very detailed and there is potential for the detail to overlap / or conflict with the policies of the Design and Townscape Guide SPD, and with Policies in Section 8 of CAAP leading to duplication and potential confusion.
Replace the detailed criteria in the numbered bullet points in DM1 (1) with a cross reference to the DTG SPD and ensure that all points are covered in the SPD.
If this is not considered appropriate, changes are required to the detail in Policy DM1 (1) subsections as set out below in this table.