Chief Executive’s Report on Draft Plan Consultation
Volume 2 – Summary of Submissions Received
• The re is a list of ‘Strategic Landmark Buidings’ incorporated at Table 2 that is not mentioned in the written statement of the Plan. Request that the following sentence of section 6.30 is deleted as misleading… ‘While an illustrative list of local landmark buildings is provided and other local landmark buildings will emerge during the Plan period through the development management process, and where these are identified important linear views to these buildings will need to be taken into consideration.’ Also c onfirm that any such additional buildings would have to be subject to a variation to the plan? • To meet the requirements under S10(2)(e) of P&D Act 2000 as amended, the View Management Framework should manage views and prospects as part of the objectives of Ch.6 Green and Blue Infrastructure, Open Space and Biodiversity, rather than risk having this be conflated with architectural heritage objectives of Ch.8 as per S10(2)(f)(g).
• Request removal of the R&H Hall defunct silo building as key built heritage from figure 10.9 South Docks Drainage Strategy Placemaking and Landscape context. This is to be replaced.
• Audit schedule of Strategic Landmark Buildings with Vol.3 Table 1 and 2 View Management Framework to remove buildings that are not Protected Structures. This is required for to allow the demolition of the R&H Hall defunct building which is not a protected structure. Where such non protected structures are to be kept, the ‘building’ should be replaced with ‘site’.
• The View Management Framework map legend symbols at Volume 2 of the Draft Plan match the categories and items names in the View Management Framework Tables of Vol.3.
• Thew View Management Framework maps at Vol.2 of the Draft Plan be reviewed to include view directions and nomenclatures in order they may be individually identified and audited against the views and prospects scheduled at VMF tables in Vol.3.
Car Parking Standards
•
• A reduced car parking requirement for new developments be linked to delivery of the proposed public transport and facilities infrastructure over the lifetime of the plan, as current service provision is limited. South Docks ABTA car parking standards should be phased with public transport otherwise will potentially make development unviable. Request that a flexible approach to car parking is taken as LRT and suburban light rail won’t be developed during plan period.
Supporting Documents
•
• Asking for City and Tivoli Docks Drainage Strategies and Docklands Area Based Transport Assessments to be made publicly accessible as supporting documents to Plan.
• Request change to remove comment in para. 10.118: ‘Equally, deep excavations for basements should be avoided ’
• Request change to paragraph 10.119 to remove sentence which states: ‘development proposals must demonstrate that piling / structural design avoids penetrating the aquitard soil layer in any planning application.’ Response and Recommendation to issues located in (Located under relevant chapter in the CE Report):
Volume 1 part 3 under Chapter 4 & 10 and part 4 Land Use Zoning and Mapping
176
Powered by FlippingBook