Object

Representation ID: 5381

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5382

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5383

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5384

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5385

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5386

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5387

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5392

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SP10 is not positively prepared or justified as the allocations included do not seek to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.
Insufficient sites are identified to meet the requirements for retail floorspace over the plan period, particularly for comparison goods. The evidence base identifies a requirement for additional retail floorspace. A single site is proposed for new retail development in the town centre (Westgate), which is carried forward as an existing commitment. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail development needed.

Object

Representation ID: 5394

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SP11 is not positively prepared or justified as the allocations included do not seek to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.
Insufficient sites are identified to meet the requirements for retail floorspace over the plan period, particularly for comparison goods. The evidence base identifies a requirement for additional retail floorspace. A single site is proposed for new retail development in the town centre (Westgate), which is carried forward as an existing commitment. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail development needed.

Object

Representation ID: 5395

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Opportunity Area guidance in Part C is inconsistent with the assumptions and content of site specific allocations in Policies SP2, SP3, SP5, and Tables 1-3. Opportunity Area B Merchant Quarter identifies a Development Opportunity for mixed use (max 50% [residential]). In SP2/Table 1 and SP3/Table 2 there are instances where the assumed residential component exceeds 50% (IP043, IP052, 1P136). Development Principles suggest that there should generally be a limit of 3 storey development, rising to 5 storeys in some instances, but for allocations IP136 and IP132, the assumed capacity is derived from a development scenario which is 10 storeys.