WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL - UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Document Sample
WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL - UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Powered By Docstoc
					   WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL - UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
                               UDP DATABASE REPORT SR8
                 SUMMARY REPORT OF ALL REPRESENTATIONS - SELECTED POLICY
                                                                 04 June 2003


                                 DCS1 : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL STRATEGY
      This report lists all representations for the above selected UDP policy, together with a summary of the comment made for each
                     objection, and for some supports. A separate report is available giving the counts of representations.
                                  The report groups representations by Objection/Support and by UDP stage.
                                 The list shows the full representation reference, client name &/or organisation.
                              The representation reference is in four parts each separated by a stroke '/' character.
    Part 1 shows 'O' or 'S' for Objection or Support. A suffix refers to the stage of the UDP e.g. D1 is first deposit; RD is revised deposit.
                     Part 2 shows the Policy Code; Part 3 the Client Number; Part 4 the unique Representation Number.

                                                   The report is current at the date printed.

                                  If you require further information, please contact the UDP Team.
    Environment & Regeneration, Warrington Borough Council, New Town House, Buttermarket Street, Warrington,Cheshire WA1 2NH
                            Telephone 01925-442839. Fax 01925-442845. Email udp@warrington.gov.uk
                                                      www.warrington.gov.uk/udp



OBJECTION TO FIRST DEPOSIT
 O / DCS1 / 485 / 11766                    Federation of Cheshire Green Parties Mr Andrew Basden
  Insert a clause that all landscaping must be local, indigenous species.
 O / DCS1 / 1510 / 4496                       Mr Stephen Worrall
  Paragraph 4 implicitly allows the building of 2 1/2 - 3 storey homes in the name of efficiency in the use of land. The policy should
  explicitly ban the development of such dwellings. The plan should also ensure the provision of homes that the children of local
  families (I.e. first time buyers) can afford.
 O / DCS1 / 2913 / 11358                   Linden Homes (North West) Mr Richard Lee
  The policy contains repetitive statements and it may be more effective to combine DCS1 & 3 into one policy.
  Village Design Statements should be subject to full public participation and not merely be produced by a particular group if they are
   to be relied upon as a design tool. They should also recognise the economic realities of development.
 O / DCS1 / 2913 / 11359                   Linden Homes (North West) Mr Richard Lee
  The policy should appear in a prominent part of the UDP at the beginning of part 2, rather than what currently seems to be part of
  minerals section. In addition several amendments are proposed, as follows.

  The third part of DCS1 should have a rider added to allow for innovative design. It should generally welcome innovation and energy
  efficicient forms of development. ''Where possible'' should be added after the word ''integrated'' in DCS1 - 3. DCS1 - 4 should
  acknowledge that this may only happen on larger sites or where scale of development would support mixed use. The term "undue
  dependence" in DCS1 - 5 needs explanation. There may be a direct conflict between two elements of the policy (3 & 4) as many
  areas in the Borough comprise low density housing, but such areas can assimilate high densities if appropriately designed
 O / DCS1 / 2924 / 8965                      B&Q plc
  The allocation of a small area of land at the entrance to the B & Q Warehouse on Newton Road as an "employment commitment" is
   inappropriate as it has recently been developed for other purposes. The site is now developed as a Fast Food restaurant (Class
  A3). The site should be shown as unallocated land to mirror the situation on the ground.
 O / DCS1 / 2973 / 9169                      Chartwell Land plc
  Chartwell Land plc are owners of the B&Q Warehouse and Burger King restaurant on Newton Road, Winwick (UDP Site 90). The
  Burger King site is incorrectly shown on the proposals map as an employment commitment under Policy DCS1. The existing
  restaurant is an appropriate use for the site, and the employment allocation currently shown on the draft proposals map should be
  removed.
 O / DCS1 / 2985 / 11524                     American Electric Power
  The policy should include the following additional criteria:
  '' - it should utilise brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites.
      - it should adopt a sequential approach towards site selection and sustainable means of transport especially by rail.''
 O / DCS1 / 3005 / 11660                     Countryside Agency Ms Carol Davenport
  The policy should be re-worded in more positive terms, e.g.
  "All development must be of a high standard and should …
   - Enhance the amenities of people living nearby (bullet point 1)
   - Contribute to the conservation and enhancement of recognised historic … areas (bullet point 2)
   - Assist in the achievement of patterns of sustainable … (bullet point 5) etc…''
 O / DCS1 / 3012 / 11689                     CPRE Warrington Branch Mr John Hill
  The final paragraph should state that all relevant PPGs will be considered equally, rather than singling out PPG13.
 O / DCS1 / 3014 / 11635                     GONW Mr Phil Lally
  To meet the objectives of the development plan system as set out in paragraph 41 of PPG1.1, amendments are needed to the
  following criteria:
  - Criterion 1 is too vague as it does not say what might constitute 'unreasonable harm'.
  - Criterion 3 might perpetuate problems in areas of the Borough where the character and appearance of the built environment is
  poor.
04 June 2003                                                                                                                    Page 1 of 2
 WARRINGTON UDP DATABASE REPORT SR8 : SUMMARY REPORT - ALL REPS - SELECTED POLICY
 DCS1 : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL STRATEGY


  - Criterion 4 should deal with the location of development as well as density as this is an important aspect of making the most
  efficient use of land.
  - Criterion 6 should indicate what 'undue' pollution, nuisance or danger is or the criteria to be used in implementing this policy.
  - Criterion 8 should identify the circumstances where landscaping and tree planting will be appropriate.
  - Criterion 9 should avoid the words 'should promote' as it is unclear how this will be implemented. 'Promote' could be replaced by
  'achieve'.
  The policy also needs amendment to reflect updated guidance in PPG7 on farm diversification.
  The general nature of the policy means it may be preferable to deal with the various matters it covers individually and in more detail
  in Part 2 of the UDP. Alternatively, if it remains in Part 1, it should include appropriate cross-references to Part 2 policies.
  The paragraph commencing "In considering whether ... " should be deleted or incorporated as part of the introductory text as
 O / DCS1 / 3140 / 9811                       Mrs Jennifer Roberts
  Objects to inclusion of a field at the rear of Woodbridge Close, Appleton (UDP Site 21) within an area shown as a Committed
  Housing Development ( Appleton Cross). 3 years ago when Mrs Roberts bought her property at No. 32 Woodbridge Close, plans
  showed it as an amenity area to be landscaped (which, she assumed, is partly due to the gas pipeline which cuts through the
  field). The field should revert to being shown as a landscaped amenity area.
OBJECTION TO REVISED DEPOSIT
 O-RD / DCS1 / 493 / 16651                 Culcheth & Glazebury Action Group
  We are concerned about the down grading of sub paragraph 9 to allow a development to contribute to, rather than promote energy
  efficiency. We request that it should revert to the former wording.
 O-RD / DCS1 / 496 / 16440                 Warrington Cycle Campaign Mr Maurice Leslie
  Changes to section 1 and 4 weaken the commitment to high density, mixed use development. The UDP should actively be
  promoting a change in character and quality. Sections 1 and 4 should revert to the wording in the first deposit draft.
 O-RD / DCS1 / 2913 / 25604                Linden Homes (North West) Mr Richard Lee
  Object to the deletion of "unreasonable" in requirement 1. There is no definition of larger sites.
 O-RD / DCS1 / 2932 / 16755                British Telecommunications plc
  The removal of the word "unreasonable" does not allow for the balance of change to be considered as it simply seeks to prevent
  development that causes harm. Change the first criterion to "the development on balance, should not cause unreasonable harm to
  the amenities of people living nearby or to the character, quality and attractiveness of residential areas." This would enable the
  benefits and implications of development to be considered on balance.
 O-RD / DCS1 / 2985 / 16133                American Electric Power
  Criterion 1 should not frustrate development as "harm", like amenity can be quite subjective and some forms of development may be
   of benefit to the wider public. Planning permission should only be refused where unacceptable harm to amenity occurs and if not
  overridden by the positive attributes of the development proposed. As proposed the policy wording in DCS1 conflicts with certain
  policies relating to specific forms of development such as REP16 which refers to unacceptable impact on amenity. Criterion 3, in
  requiring all development to enhance character and appearance, sets a more stringent test to all development that applied to
  development in conservation areas. Reinstate the word "unreasonable" in criterion 1 or insert "unacceptable" and delete "enhance"
  from criterion 3.
 O-RD / DCS1 / 3012 / 16348                CPRE Warrington Branch Mr John Hill
  No need to delete the paragraph "….in considering….etc". Although it could be considered that all planning permissions should be
  reviewed in light of current policies, it did no harm to iterate that this would also apply to re-application for time expired
  unimplemented ones.
SUPPORT FOR FIRST DEPOSIT
 S / DCS1 / 488 / 11801                    Lymm Village Design Group Mr Derrick Clarke
 S / DCS1 / 496 / 1850                     Warrington Cycle Campaign Mr Maurice Leslie
  Support the policy, particularly paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 9 and the final unnumbered paragraph as this will encourage cycling.
 S / DCS1 / 1489 / 4320                      Mr Philip Rees
  Support the policy as little effort has been made to limit the harm from development to the environment. Good wildlife habitats are
  being lost and opportunities to improve or enhance sites wildlife potential during development should be taken.
 S / DCS1 / 3013 / 9311                    English Nature Ms Selina L Hill
  English Nature welcome the recognition of nature conservation, pollution and energy effeciency within this broad development
  control strategy.
 S / DCS1 / 3023 / 9446                    Environment Agency Mr Chris Waring
SUPPORT FOR REVISED DEPOSIT
 S-RD / DCS1 / 485 / 16797           Federation of Cheshire Green Parties Mr Andrew Basden
 S-RD / DCS1 / 2953 / 16085          Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd
  We continue to support Development Control Strategy bullet point one, particularly in respect of using land efficiently.
 S-RD / DCS1 / 3000 / 16036          Tesco Stores Ltd
 S-RD / DCS1 / 3005 / 16207          Countryside Agency Ms Carol Davenport
 S-RD / DCS1 / 3014 / 18815          GONW Mr Phil Lally
  The revised policy overcomes most of the original objection (O/DCS1/3014/11635) except for that relating to criteria 6 and 8, which
  are maintained.
End of Report
04 June 2003                                                                                                                       Page 2 of 2

				
DOCUMENT INFO