NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Council Norfolk 23 Policy TH 33 Comment Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 23 Policy TH 33 Comment Mr Stephen Faulkner Norfolk County Council Norwich 23 Policy TH 33 Comment Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Comment Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Agree Mrs L Brightman Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Comment [Note changed placement of acronym in heading.] The Committee wants any ESCos/MUSCos to be sited within proposed settlement boundaries. Section 23 Energy and the policies within it TH32 Energy and Carbon and TH33 Energy Service Company Development (ESCo) appear to duplicate Policies TH15 and TH16. Table 23.1 is identical to Table 16.1; there is an opportunity to reduce duplication. The comments regarding TH15 and TH16 apply equally here. Agree to some extent. Proposed biomass power station is a separate issue that is subject to the usual planning application procedure. Expand the section giving more detail. Any proposal will need to go through planning application process and there are strict environmental standards and some constraints that govern the type and location of facilities. Refresh section giving more detail. Policy TH.33 - Welcome reference to the promotion of ESCo / MUSCo. This will fit in well with the work the County Council is currently doing to develop a business case to set up a Norfolk ESCo. Support noted. No further action. Any such development should not compromise the countryside, wildlife or residents' amenity (ref. TH2 ). Mrs Patricia Poel Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Agree But not on Mundford Road site. Mrs Sarah Wilson Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Comment Any such development should not compromise the countryside, wildlife or residents' amenity (ref. TH2 ). If this means the proposed power station on the A134. This is in the wrong place, it will take too much productive agricultural land and will impact detrimentally on the village of Croxton, and will be very visible on the approached to Thetford. There is no existing tree screening, as there was for the other power station further along the road, which was also partially built below ground, planting a screen will take 20 years to be of any use. Also finding suitable fuel for this new station may prove difficult and may be used to burn landfill material. Could the existing power station be extended instead? I wouldn't want local ESCO's encouraged just anywhere. The present idea of siting a new biomass plant right next to the road, on perhaps the highest piece of ground just outside the town seems ludicrous. Where things like this would be sited is key and I don't have faith at all in Breckland's planners. In light of the recent budget/The Plan for Growth (http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/ukecon_growth_inde x.htm) revisit relevant policies. Refresh energy and carbon sections. TH15 and TH32A removed. TH16 changed to refer to connecting to decentralised energy supply. TH32 a changed to emphasise importance of FEES. Proposed biomass power station is a separate issue that is subject to the usual planning application procedure. Expand the section giving more detail. Any proposal will need to go through planning application process and there are strict environmental standards and some constraints that govern the type and location of facilities. Refresh section giving more detail. Proposed biomass power station is a separate issue that is subject to the usual planning application procedure. Expand the section giving more detail. Any proposal will need to go through planning application process and there are strict environmental standards and some constraints that govern the type and location of facilities. Refresh section giving more detail. N. D. Winser Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Agree Be as environmentally friendly in Thetford as possible Support noted. No further action. T Friend Thetford 23 Policy TH 33 Comment Mr Stephen Faulkner Norfolk County Council Norwich 24 24.08 Comment ESCO should be away from the development area unlike the proposed biomass power station - good idea, wrong location. Proposed biomass power station is a separate issue that is subject to the usual planning application procedure. Expand the section giving more detail. Any proposal will need to go through planning application process and there are strict environmental standards and some constraints that govern the type and location of facilities. Refresh section giving more detail. Proposed biomass power station is a separate issue that is subject to the usual planning application procedure. Expand the section giving more detail. Any proposal will need to go through planning application process and there are strict environmental standards and some constraints that govern the type and location of facilities. Refresh section giving more detail. Page 106 paragraph 24.8- reference to Norfolk County Council should be as "SUDS Approval Body" (SAB). Agree. Make change as per representation.
Melinda Raker By email 24 Policy TH 34 Comment Mike Jones RSPB 24 Policy TH 34 Agree Mr DM Hall Thetford 24 Policy TH 34 Comment Mr Ed Chambers All new houses to have a water demand of 105 litres per day as opposed the national average of 150 litres. UK is 15 th on the world water consumption tables - just above India. This is a laudable idea but will do little to improve the image of Thetford. A public garden with imagination, sensory planting and water would, on the other hand, lift the spirits of those who live there and bring some finesse to the town centre. Noted. Reason for policy is to address water usage. No further action. The initial HRA considers the potential impacts of the TAAP on European sites through water abstraction. The initial HRA notes that there is uncertainty over how much development can occur before additional resources are needed to ensure no adverse effects on European sites. The TAAP should be able to indicate the level of development that would be possible before an adverse effect is expected. We recommend that the wording of policy TH34 is revised to ensure that no development beyond this level can occur until it can be demonstrated that adequate capacity exists to avoid an adverse effect on European sites. A similar policy approach was taken in the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) Joint Core Strategy (JCS), under Policy 3, Energy and Water. This policy as presented in the submission draft of the GNDP JCS states that ‘the release of land for development will be dependent on there being sufficient water infrastructure to meet the additional requirements arising from the new development and to ensure that water quality is protected or improved, with no significant detriment to areas of environmental importance ... This water infrastructure will be upgraded as required and be operational in time to meet the demands of any development .' The results of the Inspectors' report into the GNDP JCS has recently been released and does not appear to make any changes to the above policy wording. RSPB Norwich Agree. Amend TH34 as per rep. Thetford waste water plant is on the edge of town. The smell is very bad in the summer months. Before any work on the growth takes place, the new plant should be installed outside of the town as is not capable of dealing with another 5,000 homes. There are no plans for a new plant. The plans are for the current one to be upgraded. To move a plant is approximately 25 to 30 million pounds. Environmental performance of such plants are monitored by the Environment Agency. Pass on comments to BDC Env Health team. Thetford Town Council Norfolk 24 Policy TH 34 Agree Approved Support noted. No further action. Mr P Dunnett Thetford 24 Policy TH 34 Comment Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 24 Policy TH 34 Comment An assessment of total potential water needs should surely have been made prior to publication of these proposals and set against existing local aquifer supplies as one of the criteria used to decide whether the proposed urban growth was feasible and sustainable. It would seem that no such assessment has been made. The ability to provide adequate water from local water sources is surely one of the determining factors in deciding the extent and nature of any new development. When will this be undertaken? Again with Section 24 Water and Flood Risk we would suggest that through appropriate editing of Policy TH34 Water and Drainage there is an opportunity to remove duplication (with Policy TH6) or vice versa. Water cycle studies have been completed. Please go to the LDF pages of www.breckland.gov.uk. Anglia Water Services and Environment Agency involved in steering such studies. No further action. Disagree. Given the scale of development of the Urban extension it is felt that it warrants a SWMP and this policy. TH34 dealing with cross town issues. There is a slight overlap, but policies should remain separate. No further action.
Page 1 and 2:
Full Name Company / Organisation Po
Page 3 and 4:
Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 5 and 6:
Mr Simon Malone Thetford 4 4.21 Com
Page 7 and 8:
Ian Poole St Edmundsbury Borough Co
Page 9 and 10:
Mrs Jenny Gladstone Norfolk Geodive
Page 11 and 12:
Tony Poulter Brettenham and Kilvers
Page 13 and 14:
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 15 and 16:
Mr. neil Thetford healthy blackshaw
Page 17 and 18:
Mr A M Cox Thetford 11 Map 11.1 Com
Page 19 and 20:
Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Ed Chambers B
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society T
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Charlotte Poel Thetford 13 Policy T
Page 29 and 30:
C A Brooks Thetford 13 Policy TH 11
Page 31 and 32:
Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 33 and 34:
Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Velda Luckhurst Thetford 13 Policy
Page 39 and 40:
E Friend Thetford 13 Policy TH 8 Ag
Page 41 and 42:
Katie Benford Planning Potential Lt
Page 43 and 44:
P Dunnett 19 Admirals Way Thetford
Page 45 and 46:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 14 Policy
Page 47 and 48:
Katie Benford Katie Benford Plannin
Page 49 and 50:
Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Stephen Faulk
Page 51 and 52:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 16 Policy
Page 53 and 54: Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Stephen Faul
Page 55 and 56: Mr P Dunnett Thetford 16 Policy TH
Page 57 and 58: Mr. neil blackshaw Thetford healthy
Page 59 and 60: Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 61 and 62: Melinda Raker By email 18 Policy TH
Page 63 and 64: Mr John Kitson Thetford 18 Policy T
Page 65 and 66: Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 18 Policy
Page 67 and 68: Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 69 and 70: Mrs L Brightman Thetford 18 Policy
Page 71 and 72: Val Moore By email 18 Policy TH 21
Page 73 and 74: S Lenane Thetford Mr Anthony Lewis
Page 75 and 76: Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Counci
Page 77 and 78: Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 79 and 80: E Friend Thetford 19 Policy TH 25 D
Page 81 and 82: Mr and Mrs Baker Mr and Mrs M Moor
Page 83 and 84: Mr E Leeder Thetford 19 Policy TH 2
Page 85 and 86: Mr P King Thetford 19 Policy TH 25
Page 87 and 88: Mrs E McGuire Thetford 19 Policy TH
Page 89 and 90: Mrs L Holmes Thetford 19 Policy TH
Page 91 and 92: S Lenane Thetford 19 Policy TH 25 D
Page 93 and 94: Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 19 Policy
Page 95 and 96: Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 97 and 98: D Tricker D Tricker D Tricker D Tri
Page 99 and 100: Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 101 and 102: This is another vague and wishy was
Page 103: Mrs K Turner Thetford 22 Policy TH
Page 107 and 108: The WW2 pillbox at the entrance to
Page 109 and 110: Mr. neil blackshaw Mr. neil blacksh
Page 111 and 112: Mr. g Brighton Thetford 29 Policy T
Page 113 and 114: P Dunnett 19 Admirals Way Thetford
Page 115 and 116: Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Neil Stott N
Page 117: Tony Poulter Brettenham and Kilvers
show all

NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?