Response from Mr Roderick Meiklejohn (Individual)
1. Mr Roderick Meiklejohn (Individual) : 30 May 2008 11:07:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
3.163 - 3.178 Policy Context and Justification
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
The proposal to block all developments that may prevent the restoration of the canal seems to be an excessively rigid prescription, given that (a) it is by no means certain that funding will be found even to reconstruct the small section of the canal to Natland Road, (b) water supply to the canal is not yet assured and (c) the full costs and benefits of the canal project need to be rigorously evaluated.
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
The prohibition of developments that could interfere with the restoration of the canal should be an interim measure only, say for one year. During this time a thorough and independent cost-benefit analysis should be carried out and the environmental (particularly hydrological) impact of restoring the canal should be carefully assessed. If the results of these appraisals are satisfactory - and provided that financing can be secured for the canal project - the policy would be continued.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination
Adopted by the District Council