Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
No.
Respondent
Issue Area
1.
Mrs A.C.
Gravina
2.
Mrs A.C.
Gravina
3.
Mrs A.C.
Gravina
4.
Mrs A.C.
Gravina
Welcomes the acceptance of criticism
of the suggested 4 storey buildings and
the return to 2/3 storeys
Welcomes the provision for fitting gates
if problems arise due to anti-social
behaviour associated with late-night
drinking
Good that the design is not to be either
contemporary or traditional and in
keeping with the setting
Wonders how appropriate it is at this
stage to go into such detail [in the brief]
when fundamental problems about the
site as a whole, and its integration into
the town, remain. 3 unresolved
questions which will affect the final
development and determine its design –
the Link road, the question of rear
access to shops in the High Street and
West Street and replacement of the lost
West Street car-parking spaces, (if in
deed they are to be lost)
5.
Michael
Clare
Thames
Pleased to see comment at 147 of the
Summary of Public Consultation
Responses about the build form to
Respondents proposed action
WDC response/ action
Comment noted
Comment noted
Comment noted
Further effort on the Portlands Design
Brief should be suspended since the
whole situation will be changed once
these vital questions have been
addressed.
The Local Plan and the brief are explicit
on all three of these issues and identify
the overall aims that development
needs to achieve. These aims will not
change, but detailed design responses
will. The development brief is not
intended to stifle innovative solutions to
achieving the development aims but is
meant to give developers a more clear
guide to the expectations that any
development proposal will be required
to meet. As such, the issue areas
identified will need to be resolved, but it
will be at the detailed application stage
that these issues will need to be
resolved.
Noted
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Valley Crime
Prevention
Design
Advisor
Michael
Clare
Thames
Valley Crime
Prevention
Design
Advisor
Secured By Design Standards being
added to the document on Page 46
7.
CABE
8.
Ann Davies
9.
Ann Davies
No comment. However, should not be
interpreted as tacit endorsement of the
scheme
It is difficult to comment in the form of
categories you suggest as these titles
do not match the form of titles in your
statutory documents list.
The proposal to have a turning circle on
the link road would necessitate removal
of ‘preserved’ trees. Would all
6.
Pg 32. agree with principles made, ask
that the following advice is also
considered for the development
Parked cars can be particularly
vulnerable to crime and, unless they are
in a private garage must be overlooked.
The most secure place to park a car is
in a ‘home’s garage, usually followed by
a driveway (preferably behind gates). If
there is no in-curtilage parking, parking
should be provided where cars can be
seen. The could mean on-street
parking, which benefits from overlooking
but leaves cars more vulnerable to
opportunistic crime and vandalism. A
further alternative is parking courtyards,
but courtyard parking that is not
adequately overlooked by capable
guardians should be avoided. Courtyard
parking should be small in size and
close to the owners’ homes.
Noted. Amended suggested text added
to car parking principles.
Noted
This is in reference to the Sustainability
Appraisal document. This comment is
noted for future public consultation.
A turning circle has not been suggested
in the text. Turning heads are
suggested where dead end roads occur
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
preserved trees be so expendable?
10.
Jonathan
Pemberton
Upon reading many of the responses to
the first draft plan to the Portland’s site I
was surprised by the fact that WDC had
very few PDF files on the reactions of
local people to the proposed
development. Does the Council not care
about the views of local people???
I certainly object to the proposed
development but cannot see mine or
any other local inhabitants – who I know
also objected – aired on your web site
11.
Suzie Moon
Pleased that the provision of rear
servicing has been reaffirmed as part of
the brief, if it is practical and possible. It
would provide an opportunity, perhaps,
for some businesses to consider
converting some of their gardens to
parking provision for their staff and
customers. More car parking provision
is much needed in Marlow, where I
often cruise from car park to car park
trying to locate a parking space at busy
periods such as lunch times, and town
centre workers can take up valuable
spaces from other shoppers/ visitors to
to enable larger vehicles to exit the site.
There is no suggestion at this stage that
trees will be removed to accommodate
this.
J Pemberton response to
WDC email response –
“Thank you very much for your mail.
I know I sent a rather long letter
objecting to the temporary Waitrose
development at Portlands – but you
may very well be correct and myself
wrong – in which case I apologise – as I
may well have sent them re the Riley
Road Waitrose application.”
Comment noted, no change to brief
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
12.
Suzie Moon
13.
Thames
Water
the town centre, or else they clog up
nearby residential roads.
Pleased therefore to see mention that
the car parking spaces provided by the
West Street car park at the present time
must not be lost. For many of the West
Street businesses, this car park is a
lifeline and at the moment the street is
enjoying something of a regeneration,
but I know for a fact that one business
at least has it written into their lease
that they will vacate if the West Street
car park disappears.
Pg 28 thank you for including our
comments regarding sustainable water
efficiency. Catchment planners have
now had the opportunity to review the
consultation document in detail and we
would like to see the following
amendment to this paragraph
Comment noted, no change proposed
to brief.
“Sustainable water supply and
management must be included and
should be wider than simply grey water
recycling, to cover water efficiency more
generally, such as reducing the size
of wash basins and baths. The local
water supply network is unlikely to
support the demand anticipated from
development of the area, and it may
be necessary for water infrastructure
assets to be upgraded. In some
circumstances developers may be
required to fund studies to assert
whether the proposed development
will lead to overbearing of the
existing water infrastructure. The
developer will be required to
accommodate excess water and control
its release into the local water-courses.
The Thames Water suggested text can
not be insisted on through the planning
system. However, slightly amended
advisory text will be included in the brief
as suggested. Amendment to brief.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Surface water run-off should be
controlled as near to source as
possible.”
14.
WDC Waste
& Cleansing
15.
W.K. Purdie
Are you able to confirm that the
principle of replacing the public parking
if the existing car park is developed has
been embraced in the brief and
adequate land allowed for this purpose.
From my glance at the plans the
development is comprehensive and it
does not look as if there is much if any
public parking provision. Given parking
pressures in Marlow I can not support
any proposal that reduces the overall
provision
Somewhat absurd to offer an alleged
impartial document which is contrived
by Barton Willmore who just happen to
be a) consultants to Waitrose and b) the
propagators of the two- alleged – open
meetings/ exhibitions in Marlow the
Reports of which were essentially
selective and completely omitted the
more crucial, critical, comments offered
by concerned Voters.
The Amended Draft brief is explicit on
this issue and the illustrations will be
amended to reflect this change.
Considered that this will satisfactorily
deal with the issue of parking.
Policy G4 of the local plan allows for the
preparation of development briefs by
land owners and their consultants, and
states that they will be considered for
adoption following public consultation.
Appendix 3 of the local plan outlines the
procedures with which briefs prepared
in this way must comply. The brief
prepared by Barton Willmore with
amendment and revision by WDC is in
accordance with this policy.
It should further be noted that WDC
would not considered the adoption of a
document that favours the landowner at
the expense of government and local
plan policies or the quality of the
environment of Marlow Town Centre.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
16.
W.K. Purdie
The ultimate proposal of 50 (in
Waitrose’ estimation MORE THAN 80)
dwellings to be provided on the
Portlands site offers no comment on the
fact that most will be one-car families –
and some inevitably two-car- but there
is no mention of accommodation for
those cars!
17.
W.K. Purdie
18.
W.K. Purdie
There is no indication of the ownership
of the site. It is, however well known
that Waitrose obtained ownership some
years ago on the assumption that they
could develop a monster supermarket
there but, if that, hopefully, does not
materialise, then it seems obvious that
by suggesting “more than 80 houses on
the site” they are out to capitalise on
their investment!
Traffic situations are just ignored like
the garaging and parking! Whilst the
demolition of the West St car park is
virtually “taken as read” no suggestion
is offered as to alternative provision for
parking in the Town Centre.
We do not agree that the document is in
favour of Waitrose maximising the value
of the land over and above public
benefit, nor is it agreed that the open
meetings/ exhibitions were selective.
The brief as well as the existing local
plan policies on car parking provide a
clear guide as to the development
objectives to be achieved on site. The
Government provides clear guidance
that providing parking to satisfy demand
will not deliver sustainable
development. No amendment to the
brief.
Disagree. The brief is clear as to the
ownership interests of the site.
The issue of the potential development
density is also clearly set out in the brief
at page 24, placing the importance on
the achievement of a high quality
development not on the number of units
for their own sake. No amendment to
brief.
The brief is clear as to the requirement
for garaging and parking and the
requirement for a Traffic Impact
Assessment at the time of an
application for the site. As stated above
it is not considered that the brief is in
favour of the landowner maximising the
value of the land over and above public
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
19.
W.K. Purdie
Is Riley Road to have a second tier?
20.
W.K. Purdie
It is necessary to provide valid evidence
to support the statement that “English
Heritage believes the proposals are of
good quality”! This is essential in that, if
it is a fact, then there are those who will
write to the Press and cast doubts on
English Heritage’s code of Ethics!
21.
W.K. Purdie
Why have Barton Willmore TOTALLY
IGNORED the Marlow Open Town
Meeting where, for the first time in its
history, the Rotary Club, the Residents
Ass., the Marlow Society, and the
benefit. The brief does not take the
removal of West St car park “as read”.
The brief states that the parking lost
from the car park would need to be
replaced on site or alternative travel
methods in place for the loss of West St
car park to be considered as an option.
The brief will clarify this issue further.
The consultation is with regard to
Portlands and not Riley Road. Present
proposals as part of planning
application 04/07492/FUL on Riley
Road include for basement parking.
As stated in the previous summary of
public consultation responses
20_05_05, it was confirmed that this is
a statement relating to a criteria for any
future proposal to satisfy, not a
statement of current opinion from
English Heritage. There is no
requirement therefore to provide valid
evidence, as English Heritage have not
yet commented on any planning
application for residential development
on the site. English Heritage have
provided comments on the development
brief.
These comments refer to the Riley
Road applications and not to the
Portlands Amended Draft Development
Brief, the subject of this consultation. It
is considered that the views of the
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Marlow Group all attended with a large
group of Marlow Voters – and the
Waitrose proposals were rejected by a
vote of 180 to 1!
I suggest that to ignore this collective
view would be political suicide for the
District Council since the proposals are
liable to be “called in” for Government
re-appraisal. It would suggest that our
Councils are much more concerned
with MAXIMISING the income and
profits of landowners and commercial
developers than they are in developing
MAXIMUM benefit for the Community,
for the Safety of Borlase pupils – who
use West Street – and have any
concept, interest, or sympathy, for the
historical ethos of Marlow Town!
After all they should remember that the
VOTERS elected them – NOT
WAITROSE – and those same Voters
can dispense with them if
“representations” is ignored in favour of
genuflection to “profit”!
public that have been submitted in
response to the public consultation
have been fully taken into account.
This development brief provides
additional detail and guidance to
supplement the broader policy M5 in the
local plan. Development briefs do not
fall into any of the categories that can
be called in by the Government.
Government ‘call ins’ are only
applicable to planning applications.
However, if any person is aggrieved by
the SPD, they may apply to the High
Court for permission to apply for judicial
review of the decision to adopt the SPD.
Any such application for leave must be
made promptly and in any event not
later than 3 months after the date on
which the SPD was adopted.
It is the duty of the council to protect the
character and appearance of the
Conservation Area, whilst having regard
to other issues such as safety and
making the best use of previously
developed land. It is within the context
of the government’s guidance that the
brief has been written.
The development brief will be
considered against the local plan
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
22.
F.R.W Dagg
23.
F.R.W Dagg
24.
Barton
Willmore
25.
Barton
Willmore
It is important to have in mind the wider
implications of the development since
it’s within the periphery of the largest
residential property concentration in
West Marlow, served by road access –
Pound Lane. It initially was not a
through road link i.e. Henley Road/ High
Street (Bridge). As a consequence of
becoming a through road hundreds of
vehicle movements take place every
day on a “short cut “ basis to the
detriment of residents and safety.
Berkley Homes (Brewery) plus
Wethered Park are additional to Closes
etc. off Pound Lane and any suggestion
of a link road parallel to the High Street,
through the Brewery site, into Pound
Lane will, without doubt, cause more
acute compounding at the traffic
congestion points.
Pg 6. suggest
Pg 8 – inclusion of PPS 1 is welcomed
but suggests
policies, and national planning guidance
as well as the public comments
received, and will be adopted by the
Council through democratic procedures.
Comment noted. No change to brief
proposed.
“The brief sets out what the issues are
that any design on the site needs to
address, and explains why these are
considered to be the key design issues
for the development.”
PPS 1 text is checked for variations
between the consultation and adopted
drafts.
The link road from Pound Lane to West
Street has been a development
principle secured by the Wycombe
District Local Plan to 2011. The
objective has undergone public inquiry
through the local plan process and is
therefore not open to amendment. As
such, no change to the brief.
Amendments agreed and changes
made to brief.
Agreed. Text to be checked and
amended if necessary.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
26.
Barton
Willmore
27.
Barton
Willmore
Barton
Willmore
28.
29.
Barton
Willmore
30.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 9 - request that the references to
PPG 25 are removed from this
document, as the statutory document
entitled “Statutory Documents to
accompany the Draft Brief” states at
page 12 (objective 14), the site is not
within a floodplain. The guidance in
PPG 25 is not relevant.
Pg 12 – Please note that the site is
owned by Waitrose Limited.
Pg 21 suggest rewording of (d)
Pg 22 – The second proposed
amendment relating to Built Form
Strategy plan should also reflect the
land ownership issues relating to the
deliverability of achieving such
pedestrian permeability
Pg 22 – Movement Strategy Plan –
amendment proposed should reflect the
approach to the provision of the link
road proposed elsewhere in the
Amended Draft Brief, that is that an
access road should be provided within
the Portlands site which does not
preclude the potential to provide the link
road between West Street and
Malthouse Way in the future, subject to
demand. It is acknowledged that this
should include the provision of an area
Whilst development is not in the flood
plain, it is in close proximity. There is a
need to design the site so as to not
increase the risk of flooding as a result
of the development. PPG 25 identifies
sites in this context as important.
The provision of rear servicing was not
seen as a lesser priority over than tree
retention and the overall quality of the
design.
Mistake acknowledged and change
made to brief.
Agreed, amendment made to text.
Agree, amendment made to text.
This is reflected in the text of the brief
and through the illustration and subtext.
No further change to the brief.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
31.
Barton
Willmore
32.
Barton
Willmore
33.
Barton
Willmore
for refuse vehicles and other service
vehicles to turn safely within the site.
Pg 22 – acknowledged that it is
desirable to achieve pedestrian and
cycle links between West Street and
Malthouse Way. However there are
land ownership and deliverability issues
associated with achieving this objective.
Such links are already available along
Portlands Alley.
Pg 23 – The first proposed amendment
to the legend should reflect the land
ownership issues relating to the
deliverability of achieving such
pedestrian permeability
Pg 25 – (point 2) object to the removal
of the references to the potential for 4
storey development on the site. It is our
view that this conflicts both with the
feedback received during the public
consultation exercises, and with the
advice contained in PPG 3. In relation
to the feedback received during the
public consultations, the potential for 4
storeys is acknowledged on pg 14 of
the Amended Draft Brief ((iii) at the
bottom of the right-hand column). In
addition the point is acknowledged in
your document entitled “Statutory
Documents to accompany the Draft
Brief” at page 6 and at page 14 (5) and
(6) in relation to the surrounding site
The landownership and deliverability
are issues acknowledged in the brief
already. No change to brief.
Accepted, amendment to be made to
brief
PPG 15 states that the Conservation
Area designation is an interest of
acknowledged importance that will have
due weight attributed in the
consideration of any applications for
development, with the key test being
that the proposals preserve or enhance
the character and appearance of the
conservation area.
PPG 3 however, is guidance on
residential development but recognises
at paragraph 39.3 that ‘the need for
economic growth has to be reconciled
with social and environmental
considerations, particularly those of
conserving and enhancing the quality of
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
context.
our environment in both town and
country.’ This is further acknowledged
by PPS 1, paragraph 17, where a
strong emphasis is placed on protecting
and enhancing the quality of the natural
and historic environment, in both rural
and urban areas. This is also reflected
in the objectives at paragraph 36 where
development should ‘respond to their
local context and create or reinforce
local distinctiveness.’
The guidance at paragraphs 56 and 57
of PPG 3 is clear in relation to both the
design and layout of new development,
and its density. Paragraph 56
emphasises the fact that new housing
development should not just be viewed
in isolation when considering its design,
but should be informed by the
immediate and wider townscape and
landscape context. Paragraph 57 goes
on to say, in relation to the need to
make best use of land, that: “Policies
which place unduly restrictive ceilings
on the amount of housing that can be
accommodated on a site, irrespective of
its location and the type of housing
envisaged or the types of housesholds
likely to occupy the housing, should be
avoided.”
34.
35.
Barton
Willmore
Barton
Willmore
We acknowledge that there is a need to
preserve and enhance the conservation
area, but that this should be balanced
against our comments above.
Pg 25 – (Point 4)
Suggest text amended to:
Pg 25 – (point 5) acknowledge the
provisions of policy G24 of the Adopted
Local Plan, which refers to the Council’s
support for development proposals
Paragraph 38 of PPS 1 also states that
design policies should concentrate on
guiding the overall scale, density,
massing, height, landscape, layout and
access of new development in relation
to neighbouring buildings and the local
area more generally, as in this case.
As such, the amendment is not
considered to be unduly restrictive. No
further amendment on this issue.
Refer directly to the provisions of policy
M2 and M5 (h) of the adopted local plan
Reference is made to the Adopted Local
Plan policy, and it is made clear that any
target is purely aspirational.
Agreed, change to the brief will be
made.
The 10% target is the level of provision
that Thames Valley Energy advocate.
Given that they would be a consultee on
any application, it is appropriate to
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
outline the level of provision that they
would seek, to provide a developer with
some clarity on this matter. Brief will
clarify that this is the preferred provision
level by Thames Valley Energy, as well
as that supported by the recently
published government guidance
Planning Policy Statement 22.
Local surveys identified high levels of
need for affordable housing in Marlow.
This coupled with limited housing land
supply in the town provides clear
justification for the increase in provision
on the site.
which would provide energy
conservation and/or the generation of
energy from renewable sources, we
note that the Adopted Local Plan does
not refer to the need to achieve the 10%
target referred to in the proposed
amendment. Therefore suggest: 36.
37.
Barton
Willmore
Barton
Pg 25 – (Point 6) note reference to the
consultation draft South East Plan and
the proposed level of 40% of homes
being affordable. However, this is an
emerging plan which has been though
only the first stage of consultation and
has not been ratified by the Secretary of
State. It is also noted that the Adopted
Local Plan refers to a target of 30% of
bedspaces being affordable. In the
absence of an adopted South East Plan
and in light of the Adopted Local Plan
policy, we believe that the Brief should
reflect the development plan position.
In relation to the need to provide a
balance of accommodation,
accommodation will be provided in
accordance with the identified needs in
the up-to-date Housing Needs Survey in
respect of affordable housing, and in
accordance with the identified market
demands in respect of market housing;
Pg 25 (point 7)
Although the South East Plan is
emerging it also supports an increase in
affordable housing provision where
justified as in this case.
The local plan states that ‘at least 30%’
of bedsapces will be affordable. The
Affordable Housing SPG also states
that each development brief will specify
the % of bedspaces to be provided on
each site. It is not therefore
unreasonable or inconsistent to
increase the level of provision where a
specific level of need is identified.
The development should have a clear
No change to the amended draft brief.
Best architectural design will be judged
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Willmore
The reference to the fact that the site
‘deserves the best architectural design’
is a subjective view which is not
appropriate within this document. We
would suggest that the text remains as
per the original draft Brief
38.
Barton
Willmore
39.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 25 (point 9)
Important to emphasise the
development constraints highlighted
within this paragraph [trees], including
the proposed amendments, should be
balanced against the context of the
need to deliver housing on this site in
accordance with the targets set out in
PPG 3 and in the LP.
Pg 25 (point 11)
Important to acknowledge that the
provision of rear servicing is subject to
land ownership, demand and
practicality. As many of the properties
are relatively old, they are not designed
to be services from the rear and the
division of many of these properties
may make such rear servicing
impractical and unachievable in land
ownership terms.
Pg 25 (Point 12) amend further
40.
Barton
Willmore
contemporary architectural style, which
uses quality building materials of the
local vernacular and interprets
traditional architectural forms and
details in a simple modern way.
by the existing local plan policies and
the conservation area character survey
and within the context of the
surrounding environment. It is
considered that the amended brief text
is not so subjective as to warrant its
removal or reversion to the suggested
text. No change to the brief.
The brief is clear on these issues. No
change to the brief.
This is acknowledged in the amended
text, such that the rear servicing must
be reasonably designed without
compromising the quality of the
development.
No change to text.
Make clear that it is the historic site
boundaries, and not the boundaries of
existing properties within the site, which
should be preserved
Clarification agreed. Amendment will be
made to the text.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
41.
Barton
Willmore
42.
Barton
Willmore
43.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 28
Object to the reference to the weighting
being given to the conservation area
objective versus the delivery of PPG 3
housing densities. One should not
override the other in terms of
importance. The brief should be seeking
to create a balanced development
which both seeks to preserve and
enhance the conservation area and
delivers the required housing numbers
in accordance with Government and
Local Plan guidance.
Pg 29
Object to the removal of the ‘high corner
features’ referred to.
Pg 30
Object to the first proposed addition, on
the basis that such an approach is not
The Council has a duty to preserve and
enhance the character and appearance
of the conservation area but no such
duty – only guidance – on achieving the
densities set out in PPG 3. The brief is
considered to provide a good balance
between the objectives of PPG 3 and
PPG 15. Particularly in light of the focus
of objectives in PPS 1, which places a
strong emphasis on protecting and
enhancing the quality of the natural and
historic environment, in both rural and
urban areas? This is also reflected in
the objectives at paragraph 36 where
development should ‘respond to their
local context and create or reinforce
local distinctiveness.
As such, where higher densities are
proposed in line with PPG 3 they will be
required to demonstrate amongst other
tests that they preserve and enhance
the character and appearance of the
conservation area. The amended brief
will not be further amended on this
issue.
Comment is acknowledged but not
agreed. No change to the brief.
This will be revised to ‘low eves lines’
which does correspond with the
character of Marlow roofs.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
reflective of the immediate and wider
character of rooflines in Marlow, and
also on the basis of the previous
comments made in relation to 4 storey
development.
Pg 30
Suggest that the word ‘links’ should be
retained in the 2nd paragraph
Pg 30
Biodiversity and Ecology text
suggestion
44.
Barton
Willmore
45.
Barton
Willmore
46.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 32
First proposed text addition
47.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 32 5th proposed addition
Rather subjective views about the use
of integral garages. It is our view that
the first 2 sentences of this proposed
addition should be removed and
reference is made to the acceptability of
semi-private courtyards, as seen within
Agreed, amendment made.
Reference needs to be made to the
need to undertake further bat survey
work at the time of any development
proposal coming forward. If there is not
evidence of bat roosting on site, then
there may be no demonstrable need to
provide compensatory roosting sites in
the form of bat boxes.
The buildings and layout should be
designed so as to meet Secured by
Design standards from the outset, rather
than referring to the need to retro-fit.
Amendment agreed
Partial amendment to the text will be
made to reflect the need to achieve
Secured by Design standards from the
outset. The fitting of gates in the
development is a last resort option if
problems arise when the development
is occupied. Every effort should be
made to design the environment to
avoid the need for the gates.
The concern raised in the brief relating
to the use of integral garages is
acknowledged at Appendix 1 of the
local plan. It is not therefore considered
to be a subjective view.
Developers will be encouraged to
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
consider a range of methods of
accommodating parking dependant on
the design approach proposed on the
site. It is therefore considered that
whilst at a detailed stage reference can
be made to the parking at the Brewery
site, this will not be included in the brief
at this stage to avoid being too
prescriptive.
The text does not preclude the option to
accommodate public parking on site,
the text just identifies that it will be
extremely challenging to achieve a
good quality solution, and that perhaps
the balance of public parking should
remain on West Street car park for the
time being, unless an alternative
solution can be found. No change to
brief.
As set out above, no change to the
amended draft brief.
the Brewery development adjoining the
site. Such an approach recognises the
urban nature of the scheme, the
precedents set by the Brewery site and
others within Marlow, and the need to
avoid being too prescriptive at this
stage.
48.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 32 final proposed addition
should simply refer to the Adopted
Local Plan at M2 and M5 (h) without
making assumptions about future site
layouts. The reference to an existing
mature tree should be clarified i.e. the
species and it’s location.
49.
Barton
Willmore
50.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 34-35
Object to the removal of this cross
section from the Brief on the basis of
the comments already made above in
relation to 4 storey development
Pg 38 – first proposed addition
does not reflect the views expressed by
the public at the consultation events
held. Text should be amended to reflect
the actual views expressed by the
public:
51.
Barton
Pg 39
i.e. that there is no need for a through
link now, but that flexibility to create a
link should be retained should demand
arise in the future. We would suggest
that the last sentence of the proposed
additional text should be removed, as it
does not appear relevant.
Do not agree, the text reflects the public
view that it should not be a through
traffic link, the County Council view that
it is required for buses, and the local
plan policy objective. No change to the
amended draft text.
Agree, amendment made to text in the
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Willmore
Refer to land ownership
52.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 40
Propose additional text
53.
Barton
Willmore
54.
Barton
Willmore
Pg 42
Add to end of the proposed additional
text
Pg 46
Replace 2nd sentence of first proposed
additional text with
55.
Barton
Willmore
56.
Barton
Willmore
Stat Doc
Appendix 1
The reference to the ODPM document
“Good Practice in Managing the
Evening Late Night Economy” should
be removed. Whilst we accept it is
relevant in relation to the wider
management of Marlow town centre, we
do not believe that this is relevant in
relation to a residential development
Pg 5 (1)
Reference should be made to the fact
that the document was prepared in
The removal of trees will require
justification and will be expected to be
replaced by planting of equal landscape
contribution in and around which can
make an equivalent contribution to
landscape character in the long-term
within the site to maintain the site’s
verdant character within the
conservation area.
All development contributions should be
in accordance with the provisions of
Circular 1/97.
The Design Statement should
demonstrate how any development
proposals reflect the requirements of
this Brief, and the Adopted Local Plan.
key relating to ‘Potential future
permeability should design,
development and land ownership
opportunities provide.’
Accept, amendment made to text with
slight revision removing text ‘the longterm’ as this would allow for small
cheap trees to be brought in rather than
semi-mature trees which will be
important to the quality of the scheme.
This goes without saying. No change to
text.
Agree, suggested amendment made to
text.
It is relevant in relation to integrating the
new development into an existing area
where there is an acknowledged
evening late night economy. This
reference will remain.
Additional text added to clarify position
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
57.
Barton
Willmore
Stat Doc
consultation with WDC Officers, and
agreed with those Officers in its final
form
Pg 15 (2)
Add to the end of the 3rd sentence of
first paragraph.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs should
reflect pg 14 of the Brief, as agreed with
WDC and the community consultation
“and to suggest how these issues could
be resolved within any future
development on the site.”
Suggested text agreed. Change made
to brief.
Paragraph added: ‘Following the event
a meeting of the Marlow Town Council,
Marlow Chamber,, Marlow Society with
Wycombe District Council and Barton
Willmore/ Waitrose summarised the
concerns as –
• Acceptance of the need for
additional parking but a wish for its
impact to be minimised, including
the use of underground parking so
long as security issues can be
overcome;
• Need to protect the character and
heritage of Marlow;
• Concern about the need for a
continuous link road and its effects
if built;
• Need to achieve pedestrian links to
West Street, High Street and
Portlands Alley;
• Concern about the appropriateness
of the provision of rear servicing to
premises on West Street and High
Street;
• Need to retain trees on the site; and
• Need for a mix of housing sizes and
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
tenures.’
58.
Barton
Willmore
Stat Doc
Pg 15 (6) Traffic Generation Any potential limit would be subject to
detailed assessment and discussions
with BCC
59.
Barton
Willmore
Stat Doc
Pg 14 (4)
In relation to the trees target, it should
be made clear that all grade B and C
trees should be retained subject to their
condition
60.
Barton
Willmore
Stat Doc
61.
Barton
Willmore
Stat Doc
Pg 16 (c )
It is unclear which ‘us’ this will be
costing unreasonable amounts, but we
would highlight the fact that such a
decision will have an impact upon the
land value and the value of future h.
Pg 19, 6.3 (1)
Refer to earlier comments regarding
need for bat boxes.
62.
English
Nature
English Nature requests further
information relating to the presence of
bats on the site, including, but not
limited to, any and all reports,
correspondence or data in the council’s
possession or otherwise available to it,
so we may properly comment on the
amended draft.
Email sent to English Nature
Agree that BCC will review traffic
assessment and provide WDC with
advice on the findings. This is standard
practice so no change to the
Sustainability statement.
A tree survey has already been
undertaken which identified the A, B
and C trees on the site, which are
worthy of retention. The target provides
10% flexibility on this matter. No change
to the brief.
The comment has been amended as
follows: ‘The provision of future
flexibility as an integral part of the
development would not cost
unreasonable amounts either financially
or in terms of sustainability.’
Text amended:
Need to include for bat bowes in the
buildings ‘if need is identified by further
bat survey work.’
Confirmation received from English
Nature that further information on bats
at the site will not be necessary at
production of the brief stage. Agreed
text amendment as follows:
English Nature will require any future
developers to contact them directly and
to provide an assessment in relation to
bat population and habitation which
must be submitted to and mitigation
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
63.
English
Heritage
64.
Marlow
Town
Council
65.
Marlow
Town
Council
66.
Marlow
Town
Council
I note your responses to our
representations on the previous draft.
English Heritage does not wish to make
any specific representations on the
revised Development Brief.
Generally, the SPD should be
comprehensible to the public at large,
and avoid, wherever possible, specialist
terms and jargon.
Pg 14. A reference to Marlow Town
Council’s response would be
appreciated
Pg 14. This site lends itself ideally to a
common underground car park for both
residents and visitors, which the Brief
should stipulate as a requirement. This
would allow all roads and above-ground
areas to be free of parked vehicles, as
well as enabling a much higher level of
measures agreed with English Nature
prior to Council’s grant of planning
permission for the site.’
Response noted, no change to brief
proposed.
Comment acknowledged. Where
possible jargon and specialist terms will
be removed/clarified.
All public responses are available to
view including the Marlow Town
Council’s view, and the brief refers
readers to these comments. As all
Marlow groups responded it would be
inappropriate to list just one respondent
without listing the others. In order to
keep the brief as succinct as possible,
reference is made to the web page
where all comments can be viewed.
The Sustainability Appraisal does make
particular reference to Marlow Town
Council’s involvement.
Page 14 is recording the views
expressed during the public
consultation event. Underground
parking was not raised , so this page of
the brief will be unchanged. However,
the suggestion of underground parking
will be put forward as a potential
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
design and landscaping.
67.
Marlow
Town
Council
Pg 22 We are concerned that the blocks
shown on the sketch built form strategy,
and the sketch landscape strategy, are
too detailed and will be taken as
prescriptive. Prospective developers
should be strongly encouraged to
produce their own solutions and not
follow the chain of reasoning of
Waitrose’s consultants.
68.
Marlow
Town
Council
Pg 22, 23, 39. We note and welcome
the requirement for a movement route
along Town Lane, and the deletion of
the movement route which follows the
line of that proposed in the Waitrose
applications.
69.
Marlow
Pg 22 and 38. We disagree with County
solution to parking within the brief.
It should be noted that semi-basement
parking is already suggested as a
possible solution to accommodating
parking in the brief on page 29.
Do not agree. Developers rarely take
illustrations in development briefs as
‘blue prints’. Developers are
encouraged to work up their own
layouts. However, those layouts must
address the principles set out in the
brief. The diagrams illustrate one way
that this can be satisfactorily achieved.
The implication in the comment that the
layout is somehow biased by being
prepared by Waitrose consultants is
refuted. The layout principles were
worked up during the public weekend,
and subsequently in close working with
WDC officers, who have agreed to the
indicative layout shown.
The route along Town Lane will be
illustrated as an existing route but not
one that the development will rely upon.
The amendment to streets outside the
Portlands site boundary may be
amended by existing or future
applications separate to the Portlands
Development brief, and these areas are
outside the control of this development
brief.
The requirement for a link road to
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Town
Council
70.
Marlow
Town
Council
71.
Marlow
Town
Council
72.
Marlow
Town
Highways and can see no reason
whatever to provide for bus movement
between West Street and Malthouse
Way. The ensuing highway design
would be totally contrary to the
appropriate scale and environment to
be created on this site, and use of the
link road by buses would be intrusive in
the essentially residential enclave. All
north-south bus movements should for
obvious reasons be along the High
Street.
Pg 25. 1. There seems to be no
justification for the word
“predominantly.” The word is redundant;
any other acceptable use would
presumably be ancillary.
Pg 25.4. & Pg 29 We welcome the
retention of the West Street car park.
Here and elsewhere in the documents,
however, it appears this could be
waived if other transport means were
made available. We take this to refer to
an edge-of-town park-and-ride facility,
which we consider totally lacking in
feasibility in this context; we do,
however, support the principle, but point
out that its provision will not take place
for several years at least, until which
time the car park must be maintained.
Pg 25.6. & Pg 42. In view of the acute
shortage of affordable accommodation
accommodate buses and all traffic is set
down in the sub text of policy M5.
Although a bus operator may not wish
to operate buses along the link road at
present, providing the route is designed
to accommodate buses, the flexibility is
there for a future date. It is not accepted
that buses are intrusive in residential
areas, nor that the highway cannot be
designed in a way appropriate to the
conservation area.
Predominantly, is the exact terminology
used in the local plan and is therefore
appropriate in the brief. No change to
the brief.
Comment noted. No change proposed
to the brief.
Agreed. Amendment to text to include
‘at least’
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Council
73.
Marlow
Town
Council
74.
Marlow
Town
Council
75.
Marlow
Town
Council
76.
Marlow
Town
Council
in both the District and town, we would
wish for at least 40% affordable
accommodation
Pg 25 and 42. We are concerned about
tree retention, but not at the expense of
a high-quality design and living
environment, which can be achieved by
further planting of semi-mature
specimens as a condition of a detailed
planning permission.
Pg 25. 12 While respecting the historic
urban boundary pattern of Marlow, we
would not wish slavishly to preserve the
whole of the burgage boundary if that
would prejudice a better development
solution overall.
Pg 28 We fully support the statement
“The statutory duty to preserve the
character and appearance of the
conservation area is the overriding
objective, not the delivery of a certain
number of dwellings per hectare”.
Pg 28 We query the requirement for a
large proportion of houses. We cannot
recall this being a factor in the public’s
response, nor does it appear in the
relevant policy or its preamble. To
obtain maximum advantage from the
site’s potential and central location, and
contribute to the town’s housing
Comment acknowledged. This view is
expressed in the brief. No change
proposed to the brief.
Comment noted. The burden of proof
falls to the future developer to
demonstrate that the scheme is of such
outstanding quality that it balances the
loss of the historic site boundaries. The
brief also clarifies that it will ‘seek to
preserve’, not must preserve thus
flexibility is available.
Comment noted.
Comment accepted. Reference to large
proportion of houses to be removed
from text, and replaced with ‘a mix of
houses and flats will be encouraged’
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
77.
Marlow
Town
Council
78.
Marlow
Town
Council
79.
Marlow
Town
Council
requirements, the larger proportion
would surely be flats.
Pg 32. It is totally unrealistic to assume
that a residents’ car pool club will have
any relevance to the occupants of the
developed site, particularly if the
developer takes the local demographics
into his considerations. Planners,
central and local, should accept that car
ownership will continue to increase, and
make suitable provision for their
accommodation at the developer’s cost,
or the vehicles will simply be parked
elsewhere. Car usage can be
constrained by other measures.
Pg 38 We welcome the proposed
provision of an east-west pedestrian link
between Portlands and Portlands Alley,
and feel that a sensitively-conceived
break in the listed boundary wall is
acceptable. This will be a useful facility
for those living in Wethered Park as well
as the occupants of the proposed
development, and add to the security of
the public using this ancient footpath.
Pg 38. We welcome the suggestion of a
north-south link to the north-east of the
site, but feel that this should be
strengthened to a requirement, with
C.P.O. powers in support if necessary.
The additional footfall will enhance the
shopping in this area.
A parking management plan can
achieve and enforce a car pool scheme,
particularly where resident’s are
engaged at an early stage of habitation,
or even through marketing of properties.
It is not accepted that it is unrealistic to
expect measures to reduce the need for
car ownership to be effective.
A break in the wall already exists
between Portlands Gardens and the
Portlands Alley, although it is currently
gated and locked. This break may need
to be enlarged to accommodate better
pedestrian use. It should be noted that
this side of the Portlands Alley wall is
not listed.
No change to brief.
This is an interesting point of view. A
general reference to the role of CPO will
be included in the brief. When
development proposals come forward if
it is believed at the time that failure to
deliver this route is seriously
compromising the quality of the
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
80.
81.
Marlow
Town
Council
Marlow
Town
Council
Pg 38. In view of the acknowledged
difficulties of creating a safe and
workable junction solution at West
Street, we consider the site should be
accessed from Malthouse Way, i.e. as a
logical and natural extension of that
residential area. This would, of course,
allow the link road to be built through to
West Street at some future date, and if
necessary as an interim measure, an
emergency route could be created at
this point. This addresses the concerns
of Bucks County Council Highways in
item nos 168-170/180-1 of the
Summary of Public Consultation
Responses, and allows the decision on
the design of the junction with West
Street to be deferred until the need for
the through Link Road has been proved
at some time in the future.
Pg 40. The first sentence of the third
paragraph of the section headed Rear
Servicing is unclear, and we suggest it
should be rewritten as follows:
scheme, the option for CPO could be
considered at the time. It would be
inappropriate at this stage to commit the
Council to specific CPO aspirations.
WDC has not acknowledged difficulties
of creating a safe and workable junction
at West Street, that is compatible with
the character of the conservation area.
The need for the link road was
demonstrated in representations to the
local plan and this established the
objective of completing the link road
between West Street and Malthouse
Way in the local plan policy for the site.
The design of the West St junction will
need to respond to it’s location within
the Conservation Area appropriately.
No change to brief.
“Any future rear servicing will need to be
the subject of an agreement between
the developer or the future management
company and the owner/s or occupier/s
requesting the access.”
It should also be stipulated that the
grantor will act reasonably and be
Agreed. Text in brief to be amended
including the point about
reasonableness.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
entitled to no more than its reasonable
administration and legal costs.
82.
83.
84.
Marlow
Town
Council
Marlow
Town
Council
Pg 40. As well as the public realm, the
private areas should also benefit from
additional tree planting.
Pg 40. The current applications by
Waitrose would appear to be premature
until the Supplementary Planning
Document is formally adopted, which
we note is scheduled for December this
year, three months after the
applications are due to be considered
by the Development Control Committee.
As there are several major points of
principle to be agreed before the SPD is
adopted, it should not be assumed than
an accepted revised draft will be ready
for submission to Cabinet before 12th
September.
Marlow
Town
Council
Pg 42. We query why the street
furniture should be in a modern
contemporary style, and how that can
be in keeping with the “sensitive historic
context into which it will fit.”
Agreed. Further text will be added to
clarify this.
Members will be aware of the content of
the brief and will be able to consider the
Waitrose proposals for Portlands within
the context and objectives of the
amended draft brief. The status of the
brief at the time of the application
committee should not have an impact
on the consideration of the applications.
The December date is a deadline for
adoption, and, if the amendments can
be made sooner, there is no reason
why the brief cannot be adopted in
advance or following the determination
of the present Waitrose application for
Portlands.
Contemporary street furniture can and
does fit exceedingly well into historic
environments. Windsor & Eton, the
historic core in Leeds, Kensington High
Street, Kings Road London are all
examples where contemporary street
furniture has been successfully
integrated into historic environments.
However, text will be amended
removing reference to either
contemporary, modern or historic but
will stipulate that it should be of high
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
quality and not ‘over fussy’.
85.
Marlow
Town
Council
86.
Marlow
Town
Council
Pg 42. The ‘sketch drawing on the
opposite page’ appears to have been
omitted. We approve of the proposal to
create a pedestrian link to West Street
through the alley next to Lakes, and
suggest (see 11 above) that steps be
taken to acquire rights over the land so
that it is in place when the development
is complete.
Errata. Please amend the following
See comment 77 above.
Pg 6 …. Ways by which the
Pg 12. soakaways
Pg 12. Low/medium/intermediatepressure gas
Pg 25.3 .. creating development blocks
Pg 25 ..car-reduced environment
Pg 25 …local demographics
Pg 28 .. Marlow’s conservation area
Pg 30. low-line
Pg 30 What replaces links?
Pg 30 … include for bat boxes
Pg 30 .. An incorporation of that
Pg 30. Reinstate links (which has been
struck through)
Pg 32 .. a naturally-ventilated semibasement
Pg 32 .. be car-reduced or car-free
Pg 32 .. e.g. residents’ pool car club
Pg 38 .. few properties which
Pg 38 .. cycle routes, but
Pg 40 ..views in and out, and
Pg 40 … be identified, the
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree, but amended to low eves line
Reinstated
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Pg 40 .. integrated into a well
Pg 42 .. detailing, but
Pg 42 ...requirements, and
87.
Marlow
Town
Council
Stat Docs
88.
Marlow
Town
Council
Stat Docs
Marlow
Town
Council
Stat Docs
89.
90.
Marlow
Town
Council
Stat Docs
Pg 5. Item 3. It should be stated in the
text at this stage Marlow Town Council
had withdrawn its support to the
consultation process. This balances the
statement in Item 2.
Pg 14. In the second paragraph, it is
noted that the developer should fund a
survey of residents, but this is nowhere
to be found in the Brief.
Pg 20. 7.2. Proposals for monitoring.
The first part of the second sentence
indicates a very pessimistic expectation
of the ultimate development; surely the
purpose of the exhaustive brief and
planning process is to avoid mistakes?
Pg 21. 6.86. If the suggestion in A 13
above is adopted, the stipulation to
replace the facility elsewhere on the site
will not be necessary. However,
surprisingly, this stipulation is not to be
found in the draft brief, nor can it be
imagined how it could be incorporated
into an appropriate development
proposal. In view of the need to
maintain at least the same level of
provision of car parking (Policy M2),
and the very slow implementation of the
Marlow Parking and Transportation
Strategy, it will not be acceptable to
Agree
Agree
Agree
Reference will be made to the Town
Council withdrawing its support to the
consultation process.
Accepted, amendment to brief to be
made.
This is not necessarily making
reference to ‘mistakes’. It is standard
practice within the planning system that
monitoring involves checking that
approved plans have been properly
implemented.
This is a direct copy of the subtext to
local plan policy M5 for the Portlands
Brief no change to text.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
91.
Marlow
Town
Council
Stat Docs
demand a financial contribution to “a
wider package of accessibility
measures” which may not be provided
for many years hence.
Errata. Please amend the following:
92.
Cllr
Collingwood
The site should be solely for housing as
this is one of the few large sites to come
forward
93.
Cllr
Collingwood
Affordable housing should be set at
50% as this is a town centre site and
able to cope with that number easily
94.
Cllr
Clear the trees to maximise the site and
1.1 ..are that the development brief
1.2 ..traffic generation, and
4.2. First paragraph .. housing in Marlow
that
4.2 Second paragraph …..designrelated
4.2 Third paragraph, 2 … Marlow High
Street, which
4.2 Third paragraph, 5 …high-density
4.2 Third paragraph, 6 .. 3-storey and
limited 4-storey
Pg 14, second paragraph … costeffective
Pg 16. Link Road, c … generations’
Pg 20. 7.2 … when implemented, the
Pg 21. 6.81 … solutions, and
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
Disagree to change – this is text direct
from the local plan policy.
Policy does not preclude some small
additional uses appropriate to town
centre location, but the predominant
use will be for residential.
The level of affordable housing
provision has already been raised over
and above the local plan requirement of
at least 30%. There is limited
justification for raising the level to 50%.
No amendment to the brief.
Trees characterise the site and set it in
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Collingwood
replant semi mature in the right places.
95.
Cllr
Collingwood
Have the town house backing on to the
shops
96.
Cllr
Collingwood
Keep West Street as car park
97.
Marlow
Society
98.
Marlow
Society
Pg 6. Para 3. states “the purpose of the
Development Brief is to add further
detail to the Local Plan.” The brief
actually ignores or changes the Local
Plan
Pg 6 Para 4 delete:
As it is acknowledged that previous
consultation was ‘eclipsed’ by the new
Waitrose store and local residents were
not consulted.
99.
Marlow
Society
Pg 9. PPG15 – add
a mature context which will be important
to the quality of the development. Semimature trees will not establish as well
as maintaining as many of the existing
trees as possible. No amendment to the
brief.
There does not seem to be any
particular justification for backing the
town houses on to the shops. It may be
as appropriate to back flats on to the
shops. No change to the brief.
The brief requires that parking is to be
maintained on West Street, unless
alternative provision under the transport
strategy or in line with local plan policies
M2 or M5 are made.
Do not agree. The brief provides clarity
to the objectives of the local plan policy.
‘extensive’
‘materials should be in keeping with or
complementary to the local and
conservation areas’.
Do not agree. The brief has undergone
‘extensive’ consultation both before the
circulation of the draft brief and now
with the circulation of the draft and the
amended draft brief. No change to the
brief.
Local plan policy and Conservation
Area Character Survey mediates PPG
15, and controls the use of materials
appropriate to the conservation area.
PPG 15 does not specifically state that
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
100.
Marlow
Society
Pg 22 Community Consultation Output
C) is contrary to Local Plan. Leaving
Harwood Road as the ‘link’ road is
unacceptable. Volume of traffic into
West St conflicting with Oxford Road
and new Waitrose traffic.
D) is contrary to the Local Plan
101.
Marlow
Society
Pg 23. Comment – diagrams are so
small they are not readable. All
buildings and roads except the Link
road and rear servicing must be
removed.
102.
Marlow
Society
Landscape Strategy
Amend 1 – add ‘allowing for all service
vehicles access.’
Delete ‘retain tight traffic calming form’.
Amend 2 – add ‘and to Malthouse Way’.
Add ‘and include rear servicing’.
Amend 3 – Delete whole amendment.
Add ‘full access for all vehicles,
pedestrian and cycle movement
between West St and Malthouse Way.’
Add ‘vehicle turning to accommodate all
types of vehicles to be provided at all
dead end points in the site.’
Delete diagram. Add – TPO trees to be
retained. Sympathetic design of
landscape and open spaces for
community use must be provided on the
site. Other B&C trees to be retained if
not inhibiting the layout and design of
materials should be in keeping with or
complementary to the local and
conservation area. The suggested
addition will not be included in the brief
under PPG 15 on page 9.
Option C and D were comments
received from the first community
consultations. The comments in some
cases were contrary to the local plan
policies, but they do need to be
acknowledged.
However, the brief is considered to
achieve the objectives of the local plan
policy for the site.
This page will not include all of the text
included in the amended brief. This text
has been included to describe how the
drawings are to be amended and will
not be included in the finalised brief
unless needed to clarify the drawings.
As such the amendments suggested
are noted but will not be added to the
text in the brief.
Diagram to be retained. Suggested text
is included elsewhere in the brief, and is
not therefore required on page 23.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
103.
Marlow
Society
Pg 24 Comment – remove diagram
104.
Marlow
Society
Pg 26
the site. Where trees are removed full
justification has to be provided and
replacement trees incorporated in the
overall site plan.’
Amend 1 –see page 23 amend 1.
Add requirement for rear servicing as in
Local Plan.
Add close entrance to High St except for
emergency vehicles.
Remove pedestrian route from Brewery
site to Pound Lane.
Point 3 remove ‘blocks’.
Add 4 – remove ‘or replaced by other
transport means’
105.
Marlow
Society
Pg 28 Comment – remove diagram
Point 11 – amend to ‘Rear Servicing
must be provided in accordance with the
Local Plan.’
Amend 2 – see page 23 amend 1.
Delete ‘integrate existing trees into
pocket park or garden.’ This ignores
Local Plan requirement for rear
servicing.
As WDC comment 99 above.
Development block is an appropriate
description of built form and will not be
amended.
If a development proposes other
transport means, the burden will fall to
the developer to demonstrate that their
proposals satisfy policy M2 and M5 of
the local plan.
The text in the amended brief is
acceptable to policy and will remain
unchanged
As previous comment 99. No
amendment
The objective of integrating the trees
into gardens or a pocket park does not
preclude the formation of rear servicing.
In addition, Policy G11 of the local plan
requires the retention of trees in certain
circumstances. The brief provides a
good balance between the need for
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
both tree retention and rear servicing.
106.
Marlow
Society
Pg 30 Comment Add 2 needs arrow
107.
Marlow
Society
Marlow
Society
Pg 31 Comment – delete whole page as
it adds no value
Pg 32 Car Parking Principles
108.
Delete ‘Develop lanes as shared
surfaces for vehicular access and
pedestrian linkage.’ This is not a design
in Marlow and conflicts with the local
area and is considered unsafe.
It is not considered that shared surface
lanes are by definition contrary to the
character of the conservation area, nor
are they considered unsafe.
Add ‘Accommodate bus stop in West St
into the layout and design.’
Add ‘Junction at West St with Link road
to meet BCC standard.’
If the link road is to be used as a bus
route, a bus stop will be designed into
the scheme.
This suggested text is already included
in the text of the amended brief. No
change
Agreed, but the text will be incorporated
into the main text, so no need for an
arrow.
Disagree. Drawing will be retained
4 – delete sentence starting ‘Developers
…’ as it is not in their capability
5 – delete sentence starting ‘Provided
…’ as the developer cannot control the
use of integral garages.
5 – delete ‘replace by alternative travel
provision measures.’ It is difficult to
envisage how relocation within the main
Portlands site can be achieved without
compromising the quality and form of
the development.
Amend ‘unless acceptable alternative
parking provision is found, in line with
4 - A parking management plan can
achieve a car pool scheme, particularly
where resident’s are engaged at an
early stage of habitation, or even
through marketing of properties and
incentives, eg. 2 years free membership
to the car pool etc.
5 – The design of the proposals can go
some way towards minimising the
propensity of use of integral garages for
storage.
5 – The text is in accordance with the
local plan - no change.
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
the Local Plan – Transportation
Strategy.
Delete ‘existing mature tree and’ this
can only be to satisfy Waitrose
requirements to enhance the re-siting of
Sawyers.
Last sentence amend to read ‘Naturally
ventilated semi basements or podiums
solution should be considered.
109.
Marlow
Society
Pg 34-35 Remove both pages
110.
Marlow
Society
Pg 36-37 These are missing from Brief.
111.
Marlow
Society
Pg 38 Pedestrian and cyclist
movements
Amend ‘limited east-west linkages exist
through the Brewery site for pedestrians
only, cycling is not permissible’ (see 106
Agreement)
Amend ‘vehicle access should only be
provided for emergency vehicles (see
Local Plan).
Amend ‘This tight access lane should in
future will be used by pedestrians,
cyclists and by emergency vehicles (see
Local Plan)
Delete paragraph starting ‘a further
north-south linkage … ‘ because it is
fully recognised it has ownership
This is not the case. Any proposals will
be required to protect the existing
mature tree.
The text of the brief suggests semibasements but will be amended to also
make reference to podium solutions.
The plans will be removed as they do
not provide any additional information to
that already included in other plans and
through the text of the brief.
Pg 36 was a blank filling page. Page 37
was included.No amendments were
proposed to either of these pages.
Agree amendment will be made to the
text.
Existing rights of access preclude the
complete stopping up of this access. As
stated in the amended brief this access
will provide limited access to the rear of
High Street units. Text will clarify that
this can change if rights can be
extinguished.
It is acknowledged that this is an
aspirational link for the future should the
opportunity arise. No change to the
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
problems that a developer would not
want to or be capable to overcome.
Add 1 – Delete sentence ‘The road
should be …’
Delete sentence ‘Feedback from the
public …’ (see Local Plan)
Delete sentence ‘The site has the …’
(see Local Plan)
Delete sentence ‘The extent to which …
‘ (see Local Plan)
Add 2 Delete sentence ‘However,
vehicle access … ‘ (see Local Plan)
Add 3 Delete ‘in the event of the link
road not being connected at the time of
development.’
Add – All dead end roads must have
turning capability for all vehicle.
Add – a view of how disabled access is
to be provided
Add – a view of how boundaries of the
site will be enhanced.
112.
113.
Marlow
Society
Marlow
Society
Pg 40 Remove as duplicate
Pg 40 Rear servicing
2nd sentence – replace ‘might’ with
‘must’ (see Local Plan)
brief.
Disagree. No change
This was an expressed view from the
early public consultation. The brief does
go on to clarify the local plan policy
objectives.
Disagree, no change
Disagree, no change
Disagree, no change
Disagree. It may be appropriate to
phase the final form of the link road.
Agreed addition, with some
amendment, as not all road will carry all
vehicle types.
Disabled access will have to be
provided in accordance with Part M of
the Building Regulations.
The ecology section of the brief covers
this matter in some detail. No change to
brief proposed.
Disagree
The achievement of rear servicing to
frontage units will require a close
partnership between the future
developer and West Street/ High Street
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Pg 40 Retention of existing trees
Replace – Delete ;’where it can …. Of
the development’
Delete para – ‘Areas for possible …’
Delete ‘For a small number of existing
properties’
Delete last paragraph, as it does not
make sense. The rear servicing is a
benefit for the road users and the
pedestrians of the High St and West St.
The shops etc. would not care either
way.
Add ‘Rear Servicing will avoid
congestion, as refuse would also be
collected from the rear of the premises.’
Delete heading and replace with
‘Maintain verdant Nature of the Site.’
After ‘Grade C trees may be considered
…’ add ‘to produce the rear servicing as
required in the Local Plan.’
Delete in last sentence ‘must’ and
replace with ‘should where possible.’
Delete diagram, as it adds no value
114.
Marlow
Pg 42 Open Space Allocation
Para 2 delete ‘The retention of existing
proprietors, and for owners to take all
reasonable steps with the developer to
achieve rear servicing to their
properties. It is not possible for the
developer alone to secure rear
servicing.
Disagree, no change
Agreed
Agreed
There is a need to ensure that the
quality of any rear access made needs
to be high, so as not to negatively
impact the new development. It is to
secure this aim that this agreement is
needed.
This goes without saying. No
amendment.
Agreed
Disagree, with addition here. The
provision of rear servicing is adequately
covered by the Rear Servicing
paragraphs.
Disagree, these are important trees
within the site and must be retained.
Disagree, it provides an indication of the
potential to achieve rear servicing.
Disagree, the retention of the trees will
Summary of Public Responses
Second Round Public Consultation June - July 2005
Draft Amended Portlands Development Brief
Society
115.
Marlow
Society
Pg 46 Checklist
trees’ … ‘ replace with ‘Public areas
should be treated as ‘pocket gardens’ or
‘garden’ with a formal but low key
landscape design’.
Delete point stating ‘A transport
assessment …’ This must be part of the
design brief as it will determine the
design of the Link road, its junction with
West St, its build standard, its traffic
calming requirement etc., as this brief
will be used when deciding the current
Waitrose applications and if granted the
layout of the early development of the
site. E.g. West St. junction, route of link
road, build standard and traffic calming,
position of temporary store and
associated car parking.
naturally create these public areas. No
amendment to brief.
The local plan subtext states that a
Traffic Assessment will form part of an
application not part of the planning brief.
As such, no amendment will be made to
the brief.