Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Comment

Representation ID: 761

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 5/6. Self evidently the policies which will eventually emerge from this participation exercise will not come into force until Feb 2012 based upon your timetable. Consequently should not the Council be making arrangements to keep the saved policies from the Borough Plan valid until they are superseded to avoid a vacuum?

Comment

Representation ID: 762

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 16. The question of density is an important one but is dealt with in a vague and woolly manner. I do not suggest setting rigid figures but do feel some guidance in the form of ranges reflecting development types would be appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 763

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 18. Para 6 This Para. Refers to maintenance, an issue that crops up in a number of different parts of this document and the central area action plan. In general insufficient attention is paid to the need for on-going maintenance and no more so than for public infrastructure work. The para. requires greater emphasis to be placed on minimising maintenance costs and ensuring a regime and finance exists to see it done over the lifetime of the project.

Object

Representation ID: 764

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 21. I cannot argue with the requirements put forward as a basis for approving tall buildings. I just cannot agree that the requirements are robust enough i.e. they are too vague and I doubt it is possible to design a tall building that does not cause a micro climate change nor create wind turbulence. Moreover I do not believe it is possible to accurately assess those factors in a modelling exercise. As a consequence any development proposal is bound to be speculative as to its impact.

Comment

Representation ID: 765

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 23. The analysis of the problems caused by conversion into flats is self evident and begs the question as to why the Council did so little in the past to resist the trend. Given the nature of the problems e.g. increased parking, it is difficult to see how a continued supply of 1 and 2 bed flats can be assured to satisfy the demand. Your suggested option does not deal with the loss of family accommodation, nor loss of private amenity space and is too vague on the concentration of flatted units in a street. Certainly the Council should provide a lower limit on conversions and 125sm seems an appropriate minimum. So far as the protection of bungalows is concerned there needs to be a firmer line taken which, aside from character and appearance, includes going against the grain of the area, intensifying activity levels and adversely affecting the living conditions of neighbours.

Comment

Representation ID: 766

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 29. There is every acknowledgement that reducing carbon emissions are crucial. However the Council needs to take care with regard to local or on site energy generation in terms of its visual impact on the local environment. The placing of photovoltaic cells/solar panels on roofs and the growth of small wind turbines threatens the street scene. Moreover there is growing resistance occasioned by the noise, vibration and flicker effect of wind turbines. In order not to unduly constrain development in the Borough I think the Council should await the Govt. changes to the Building Regulations.

Comment

Representation ID: 767

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 33. The suggested option presumes that the parent building has merit which the extension should emulate. That may not be the case and therefore some allowance should be made to ensure an extension respects both the parent building as it is and as its character was.

Comment

Representation ID: 768

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 36. There seems to be a conflict with the Environment Agency policy regarding development in flood risk areas. Can one assume that the SFRA due this year which purports to give a better interpretation of flood risk will be accepted by the Environment Agency? While there may be parts of the sea front within the high risk flood area which would benefit from development, the Council needs to be mindful of the safety of any residents and should as part of their policy emphasise the non residential priorities for development

Comment

Representation ID: 769

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 42. There is nothing specific in the document to suggest that an Article 4 directive is needed. This seems somewhat draconian.

Comment

Representation ID: 770

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Page 47. No mention is made about swimming/bathing or water quality or any mention of what measures might be sought to improve facilities for these activities.