<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>Retaining Core Strategy allocations alongside or within a new Local Plan</title>
  <link rel="self" href="https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=407819497" />
  <subtitle>Retaining Core Strategy allocations alongside or within a new Local Plan</subtitle>
  <id>https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=407819497</id>
  <updated>2026-08-12T16:49:19Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-08-12T16:49:19Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>Retaining Core Strategy allocations alongside or within a new Local Plan</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=407819496" />
    <author>
      <name>Former Member</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/cy/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=407819496</id>
    <updated>2021-01-11T09:38:28Z</updated>
    <published>2021-01-10T16:30:45Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;We have a number of strategic allocations in our Core Strategy
  (2015), three urban extensions all with planning permission and one
  strategic employment allocation without permission.  These sites form
  part of our new Local Plan strategy as none of them have started on
  site yet and we continue to need the policies to inform their
  implementation.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My first question is whether it is possible to say the new Local
  Plan supersedes all but these strategic allocation policies and in
  effect keep them as part of the development plan once the local plan
  is adopted (the regs require the superseded policies to be identified
  in the new plan but we can't find any guidance on what that means for
  policies not identified as superseded).  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My second question is whether keeping the Core Strategy policies is
  the best approach? Or should we carry forward the policies with new
  cross references into the new local plan? The latter is neater and in
  the long run easy for users of the local plan but it is also
  potentially risky reopening the examination of these sites. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Welcome any views, thoughts or experiences on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-01-10T16:30:45Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>
