Draft Local Plan Review

Back to document

Search representations

Results for The NEC group search

New search

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q23. Are there any other comments you wish to make on the Draft Local Plan?

Representation ID: 1402

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

see comments in letter about need for DLP to include reference to potential re-location of Airport passenger handling terminal/facilities

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

Representation ID: 2141

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

Support the extension of the metro and Sprint services as per Policy P8 in the DLP (page 3 of representation)

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q19. Do you agree with the policies for protecting the environment? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

Representation ID: 2142

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

welcome the references in Policy P9 of DLP to CHP.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q18. Do you agree with the policies for improving accessibility and encouraging sustainable travel? If not why not, and what alternatives would you suggest?

Representation ID: 2144

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

Support for Policy P7 and in particular final points of the policy

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?

Representation ID: 2145

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

Welcome the revisions to P1 in the DLP from the SIO version, and provision within the Policy to support residential and other business uses on this site.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

19 Bickenhill - The Hub, UKC

Representation ID: 2146

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

state that 600 units (out of allocated 1000) could be delivered on NEC site during plan period. Overall may need a higher level of residentiall but not clear as whether this would be within Plan period.

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q2. Do you agree with the Borough Vision we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

Representation ID: 2147

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

Agree with the vision but would like to see minor amends to it to make consistent with P1

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q1. Do you agree that we've identified the right challenges facing the Borough? If not why not? Are there any additional challenges that should be addressed?

Representation ID: 2148

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

Agree with the challenge and make comments on challenge D

Full text:

see attached letter

Yes

Draft Local Plan Review

Q3. Do you agree with the spatial strategy we have set out? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?

Representation ID: 2149

Received: 09/02/2017

Respondent: The NEC group

Representation Summary:

Agree with content of Paragraph 101 in relation to category B(iii) extension

Full text:

see attached letter

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.