Spelthorne Local Plan - Preferred Options Consultation: Policies and Site Allocations

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

15 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 29 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Further comments and how to respond Any further comments

  • Comment ID: pol/363
  • Status: Accepted
The Spelthorne Local Plan is comprehensive in the health issues that it covers and there are no significant omissions that we would want to address. We would however like to promote the use of trees, green roofs, vegetation etc. to help reduce the effects of urban heat islands whilst also contributing to the health and wellbeing of Spelthorne residents. The above comments are advisory and do not comprise formal representations. In any case I understand that we have missed the deadline for respo
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Spatial policies Policy SP2: Ashford, Shepperton and Sunbury Cross

  • Comment ID: pol/277
  • Status: Accepted
Policy SP2 Ashford, Shepperton and Sunbury Cross Whilst Sunbury, Ashford and Shepperton offer opportunities as outlined in Policy SP2 there are significant congestion issues along Ashford High Street and poor public realm which might also be mentioned in the context of this policy as they support the need for sustainable and active travel opportunities. Although we recognise the potential for development opportunities in Ashford, Shepperton and Sunbury Cross the inference that they comprise tra
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Infrastructure and Delivery Policy ID2: Sustainable Transport for New Developments

  • Comment ID: pol/285
  • Status: Accepted
Policy ID2: Sustainable Transport for New Developments It is noted that the Policies Document states that Policy ID2 will replace CC2 of the Core Strategy. Whilst the required points on sustainable travel are covered, Policy CC2 also covered highway safety, which is not covered and needs to be incorporated into the plan. To manage expectations, it might be worth mentioning in the text supporting Policy ID2 that modes of travel may need to be prioritised, given the constraints on the public high
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Design Policy DS3: Heritage Conservation and Landscape

  • Comment ID: pol/398
  • Status: Accepted
Heritage An archaeological assessment will be required for these sites and possibly evaluation prior to the determination of any planning application for redevelopment, in accordance with the provisions set out in Spelthorne's Local Plan policies on archaeology. Should you have any queries about this response, or require further information,
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Spatial policies Policy SP3: Stanwell and Stanwell Moor

  • Comment ID: pol/278
  • Status: Accepted
Policy SP3: Stanwell and Stanwell Moor Policy SP3 seeks to minimise the adverse impacts of the Heathrow expansion in terms of the pressure on existing infrastructure. Air quality and noise are not mentioned, presumably because these issues are dealt with under the separate Policy E3 environmental protection. It might be useful to add a cross reference between these policies to make it explicitly clear that all issues related to mitigating the impacts of Heathrow and other major developments will
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Infrastructure and Delivery Policy ID1: Infrastructure and delivery

  • Comment ID: pol/399
  • Status: Accepted
Minerals and Waste Planning An increase in development in the Borough will generate increased demand for waste facilities and construction minerals to support any increase in housing development and growth within the Borough. In our response to the Issues and Options Consultation, we pointed to the lack of any reference to both Surrey County Council's Waste Plan and the Minerals Plan within the evidence base for the Spelthorne Local Plan. The minerals and waste plans remain unmentioned in this c
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Spatial policies Policy SP4: Local Centres, Shopping Parades and Isolated Retail Units

  • Comment ID: pol/279
  • Status: Accepted
Policy SP4: Local Centres etc Point 9 of policy SP4 appears to be a conditional requirement that needs to be edited. Reference should be made here to secure cycle parking at all local centres, as well as bus stop improvements and access.
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Spatial policies Policy SP7: Heathrow Airport

  • Comment ID: pol/280
  • Status: Accepted
Policy SP7: Heathrow Airport The reasoned justification for this policy should mention traffic congestion which is a key driver for promoting sustainable modes of travel. Airport parking development is an issue that should be considered for inclusion within this policy. Heathrow Airport Limited is developing a surface access strategy and reference should be made to this within either this policy or the supporting text.
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Infrastructure and Delivery Policy ID2: Sustainable Transport for New Developments

  • Comment ID: pol/274
  • Status: Accepted
Transport Our letter dated 25 June 2018 in response to the consultation on the Spelthorne Local Plan issues and options indicated that Option 2, which proposed dispersed development, would be likely to increase the need for journeys by low-occupancy motor vehicles which contribute to congestion. This remains a concern with regard to the allocated sites around Sunbury, Shepperton and Ashford. Nevertheless it is considered that the Local Plan offers an opportunity to promote an active travel strat
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E2: Flooding

  • Comment ID: pol/281
  • Status: Accepted
Policy E2 Flooding To improve consistency in how surface water flood risk is reviewed across the county we would recommend that the following policy wording is considered in terms of surface water flood risk under part 3 of Policy E2: Flooding: 3. All development proposals are required to demonstrate that land drainage will be adequate and that they will not result in an increase in surface water run-off. Sustainable drainage systems are required on all developments, unless proved to be not rea
Next pageLast page