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

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

12 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Rachel Rae 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/308
  • Status: Accepted
We generally support the principles of this policy in relation to water quality and also contaminated land remediation. To improve this policy in relation to the benefits sustainable drainage schemes can have on water quality discharges to the environment, we would like to see the following wording included "Where practical, SuDS should be incorporated to minimise the discharge water to the sewer system" à "Where practical, SuDS should be incorporated to minimise the discharge water to the sewer
Barton Willmore (M Ed Pigott) 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/266
  • Status: Accepted
Within the third Paragraph of the Policy E3, the Council have listed out the noise mitigation measures which they expect as part of any development. It is considered that additional wording should be included to make it clear that other mitigation measures are available, and the solution will be site-specific. The policy is too prescriptive and there is a risk that the scope for more innovative measures will be removed. Within the fourth Paragraph, it sets out that proposals that have an advers
Royal Borough of Windsor and M… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/338
  • Status: Accepted
RBWM Highways broadly supports this policy. It should be noted that there are existing Air Quality Management Areas in Windsor and Hythe End, which could potentially be affected by major development in Spelthorne. 6 Appropriate assessment and modelling will be required for relevant sites in order to quantify the impacts and RBWM will seek suitable mitigation where negative impacts are identified.
Terence O'Rourke (Alex Chapman) 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/529
  • Status: Accepted
NPPF para 181 is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified at the plan making stage. The approach to air quality in the plan, including the provisions of Policy E3, fail to meet this requirement as it would be ineffective in improving or mitigating impacts on air quality. The requirement to offset any adverse impact to air quality that would result from a development through the contribution of funding should be linked to clearly identified initiat
Surrey County Council (Mr Jame… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/282
  • Status: Accepted
Policy E3: Environmental Protection Given the importance of air quality issues and that the entire borough is within an AQMA, it may be appropriate for a single policy to be dedicated to air quality. This could be linked to CO2 and climate change, although it is acknowledged that this is dealt with under design and construction. The statement in the reasoned justification– "the council has little or no influence on traffic" appears to understate the influence of the local plan and to undermine
Colne Valley Regional Park Com… 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/255
  • Status: Accepted
Policy E3 (Environmental Protection): Support.
Tasha Hurley 21 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/317
  • Status: Accepted
Policy E3 relates to environmental protection. Operational sites can potentially impact on adjacent land uses through noise, light, vibration and odour. The requirement in Policy E3 for the council to ensure that development proposals that may be unacceptably impacted by noise sources minimise the effects on new and existing residents is supported but should be expanded to also cover other issues. In accordance with Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework planning policies and de
Staines Town Society (Sir/Mada… 20 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/159
  • Status: Accepted
At the end of the guidance on air quality is the welcome statement that the air quality impact of development will be compared with the actual situation, disregarding any extant permission. This should be stated in the actual Policy E3. The section on noise is not strong enough and omits mention of any representations to Heathrow. No amount of good design etc will reduce the adverse impact of flightpaths over the borough to acceptable levels. Again, the guidance is good, but decisions are made
Spelthorne Borough Council (Cl… 20 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/199
  • Status: Accepted
Despite stating that "the Council has little or no influence over traffic" or most of the other environmental protection parameters, the Sustainability Appraisal Indictors suggest that the policy will actually improve the local environment. This position is not justified within the document. The development anticipated within the new Local Plan will damage and not enhance the existing environment regardless of what the Council does.
Surrey Wildlife Trust/& on beh… 20 Jan 2020

Spelthorne Local Plan Preferred Options: policies Environment Policy E3: Environmental Protection

  • Comment ID: pol/96
  • Status: Accepted
We support and welcome the Council's Preferred Option. On Light Pollution, it would seem slightly superfluous to state both "..wildlife and biodiversity".
Next pageLast page