Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Search Representations

Results for Bolsover Land Ltd search

New search New search

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

D14 Strategic Co-operation

Representation ID: 5931

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd strongly supports Objective D14, Strategic Co-operation, specifically the co-ordinated approach which is suggested to achieving sustainable development and working across boundaries.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

The East

Representation ID: 5932

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd also supports Objectives E1, Regeneration and E2 Land Remediation and notes that these objectives are fully consistent with the NPPF and principles of sustainable development. Bolsover Land Ltd do consider there could be scope to identify the former Coalite site within the supporting text, particularly as the policy refers to remediation, regeneration and working with neighbouring partners and authorities.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Introduction

Representation ID: 5933

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd supports the growth strategy proposals in Chapter 4, in particular developing the M1 strategic growth corridor proposals as a principle economic growth location and bringing forward investment and site development in principal employment growth locations, including the former Coalite site. The proposed growth strategy appears to be justified and again, consistent with the principles of the NPPF.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS1: Sustainable Development

Representation ID: 5934

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

In respect of Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, we support these principles as per the NPPF para. 14, and highlight particular support for point 'B' 'promote the efficient use of land the re-use of previously developed land in sustainable locations.'

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Employment Land Provision

Representation ID: 5936

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd suggests that the Policy SS2: Scale of Development should be revisited once the Employment Land Update is reviewed and that a 50ha employment land provision may be too high. It is questioned if this takes into account the planning permission for the Coalite site; whilst this employment land will fall within Bolsover, it will however serve the M1 corridor. Bolsover Land Ltd feels that there is a credible argument that this provision could contribute to the overall NEDDC employment land provision due to its strategic nature and location.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS2: Scale of Development

Representation ID: 5937

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd therefore queries whether the proposed 50ha of new employment land within Policy SS2, Scale of Development, is justified; it may need to change subject to the most up to date evidence base being issued.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS3 : Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development

Representation ID: 5938

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd refers to this policy, especially to the provision for 64.8ha of employment land within the plan period and its focus of employment growth on primary employment areas as identified in Policy WC2 and on strategic sites. Bolsover Land Ltd suggests that the former Coalite site could contribute to this and thus reduce pressure for additional land.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Strategic Site Allocations

Representation ID: 5939

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd refers to paragraph 4.39 which indicates that the Coalite Site is not included as a Strategic Site due to concerns over its ability to deliver within the plan period. Bolsover Land Ltd queries this approach, on the grounds that the site is identified as a Strategic Site in the Bolsover Plan, and they reiterate the Inspectors advice on the strategic nature of the site. The respondent is keen to ensure the Local Plan is sound in its approach.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS7: Land to South of Markham Vale

Representation ID: 5943

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd objects to the strategic site allocation of Land to the south of Markham Vale on the grounds that it could undermine the delivery of the former Coalite site. If this greenfield site would become available in the short/medium term it could prove a more viable and attractive interest to parties considering relocating to the former Coalite site which received financial support from D2N2 and DCC and should therefore be protected as a priority.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS8: Coalite Priority Regeneration Area

Representation ID: 5944

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd is generally supportive of the "Priority Regeneration Area" status of the site and considers with regards to the uncertainty of HS2 the Council's approach in terms of not relying on this site for housing land supply to be appropriate. The respondent also supports the notion of a comprehensive masterplan for re-development on the whole site and welcomes maximum flexibility. However, an SPD could potentially generate further policy and potential burdens to deliverability and viability.

Full text:

See attachment

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.