Joint Local Development Plan Consultation Portal

Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

Representations on Deposit Joint Local Development Plan - STRATEGIC POLICY PS17

Representation ID: 1183

OBJECT Horizon Nuclear Power (Miss Sarah Fox)

Summary:

Horizon submits that greater flexibility needs to be included in these policies so that proposals predicted to have an adverse effect will be permissible subject to the identification and implementation of sufficient mitigation measures, supported by an appropriate implementation plan. Rather than seek specific amendments to these policies Horizon proposes to rely on the Wylfa Newydd specific policies proposed above which would be the relevant policies against which to make consultation responses to the DCO application and to determine its associated development applications.

Representation ID: 696

OBJECT Robert Llewelyn Jones

Summary:

Asking for the Great Breakwater in Holyhead to be the same as the two Heritage castles.

That the Constraints Map includes the Great Breakwater at Holyhead and that the building is given a higher profile alongside that of Beaumaris Castle and Caernarfon Castle due to its importance even today to the future of this Port of Holyhead - it is a living, working structure and has been since it was built over 150 years ago.

Representation ID: 695

OBJECT Robert Llewelyn Jones

Summary:

The need to do something to protect and make these Grade II listed buildings given to the public. They are at present closed to any tourist and locals wishing to have a casual look.

I wish to include these very special listed buildings into the plan. Strategic Policy PS 16/17 states that the aim of the plan is to safeguard the Plan area's history and landscape. This area does not appear to be part of our local authority's brief. It is not ring fenced or noted on the plan as being of such significance. I am requesting the area to be ring fenced and noted on the map of the area as being listed buildings.

Representation ID: 692

SUPPORT Bangor Civic Society 1 (Don Mathew)

Summary:

Noting very positive support for slate industry World Heritage Site bid.

Representation ID: 649

OBJECT Friends of Borth-y Gest (Tom Brooks)

Summary:

Policies PS17 Borth-y-Gest contains a scheduled ancient monument which is indicated on the constraints map.
The Seascape Character Area map referred to in the Deposit Draft includes for the Porthmadog Estuary a list of key scheduled ancient monuments which does not include the "Iron Age to Romano-British hut group" in Parc y Borth. Cadw have recently told us "The monument is of particular interest due to its survival in a lowland area where this type of earth constructed site is rare. It is of national importance for its potential to enhance our knowledge of prehistoric settlement practices. It is an important relic of the prehistoric landscape and retains significant archaeological potential. There is a strong probability of the presence of environmental and structural evidence, including preserved internal and external floor levels."
The principle document reference for the study of the site is "PARCYBORTH ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING - G1764 - Report number : 484 - Prepared for Gwynedd Council - MAY2003
We would wish the site to be specifically mentioned as an important heritage site feature.

We would wish the site to be specifically mentioned as an important heritage site feature

Representation ID: 427

SUPPORT Cyngor Tref Ffestiniog (Mrs Ann Coxon)

Summary:

Ffestiniog Town Council supports the effort to acknowledge the slate areas as a Heritage Site of the World. This would provide economic and social opportunities for these areas, that would greatly benefit as a result. This is an excellent way to make the best of the area's natural resources. This would build on the strengths of the area and the County, giving Wales a special status.

Representation ID: 243

OBJECT Lafarge Tarmac Trading Limited represented by Pleydell Smithyman Limited (Mr Robert Price)

Summary:

The reference to "other areas of archaeological importance" at point one is not defined. Again this is considered a catch all policy.

Suggest "other areas of archaeological importance" be removed from point one given the wide ranging scope and how this might inhibit mineral extraction development.

Representation ID: 242

OBJECT Ellesmere Sand & Gravel Company Limited represented by Pleydell Smithyman Limited (Mr Robert Price)

Summary:

The reference to "other areas of archaeological importance" at point one is not defined. Again this is considered a catch all policy.

Suggest "other areas of archaeological importance" be removed from point one given the wide ranging scope and how this might inhibit mineral extraction development.

Representation ID: 58

OBJECT Oaktree Environmental Ltd (John Williams)

Summary:

Reference to Candidate World Heritage Sites is unnecessary as no World Heritage status will apply to them. It would rather be more practical to change the text referring to specific world heritage sites (criterion 4) to cover World Heritage Sites in general so that if a candidate site is confirmed, it would automatically be covered by criterion 4. To include a specific criterion for candidate sites serves little purpose, given that they have little if any status. Interestingly, no reference is made in detailed policy AT1 to Candidate World Heritage Sites.

Re-draft policy to amend criterion 4 to offer coverage for World Heritage Sites in general as opposed to referring to specific sites and removal of criterion 5 which refers to Candidate World Heritage Sites.

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult