Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6?
Local Plan Q31b)
| Responder id | Responder name | Content name | Question | Answer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 456 | felicity_wood | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | Again, no mention of the 6 museum sites that PCC owns and operates! These should also be considered as part of a Heritage Strategy for the city. |
| 538 | markbartonrn | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | Your planning policy contradicts this with where some of your areas are for high density |
| 784 | trevor_mose | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | good to see this as a proactive policy |
| 812 | anna.koor | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | There is an over emphasis on assets that are landmarks, buildings and structures while not enough that values whole historic streetscapes, outlooks, settings, etc. |
| 844 | hyeomans | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | No |
| 846 | morrism | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | The Conservation Areas may exist but they aren't being managed. Just take a walk around Old Portsmouth or Craneswater. The List of Locally Listed Buildings is out of date and contains various errors (although it was supposedly updated in May 2021!). The (draft) Heritage Strategy (not given as a link here) is poor and leaves so much not said. It's poor quality and poor content. It seems to have been written as a cut/paste tick box document. There have been various comments raised and sent to the author. Heritage and Conservation is not being taken seriously or being managed. For big assets perhaps - The Dockyard although it has very bad press - it's £120 for a family visit - which is completely unaffordable, though I think the Mary Rose ticketing has changed again) or something like Southsea Castle which is listed. The small things are completely ignored, it is these things that are important to residents. There isn't even a COMPLETE list of heritage assets. There is no respect for heritage or place being demonstrated e.g. the council wants to put flats on the NAAFI site and compromise the Museum. The University doesn't seem to be engaged with Heritage - consider how the new Sports Hall was built and (I believe) there are plans to demolish Angelsea Building. |
| 849 | pohara | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | There have been recent instances of exciting archaeological discoveries that could have helped underpin the cultural offer of the city. Old Portsmouth defences and the Mill Dam Fort at the Gunwharf. Better now coming from the Sea Defences project. |
| Reg18_53 | edward.winter | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | We welcome this policy. This helps to demonstrate the plan’s positive strategy for the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment |
| Reg18_56 | celiadeane.clark | Feedback (Q26-31) | Question 31b: Do you have any further comments or suggestions about the suggested approach to Policy D6? | Question 31b As above: what is missing here is any positive reference to help from the council offering any help, advice or grant aid to owners of heritage assets in need of repair, or prosecution of owners who damage or demolish them. |
9 rows found
Page 1 of 1