C.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46411
Received: 06/07/2012
Respondent: mr william tansey
These are positive steps which will help revitalise some communities which are losing their character.
These are positive steps which will help revitalise some communities which are losing their character.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46565
Received: 18/07/2012
Respondent: Dr Kate Holtby
I agree with Mr Tansey - these are positive changes with positive benefits.
I agree with Mr Tansey - these are positive changes with positive benefits.
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 46575
Received: 18/07/2012
Respondent: Roger Mills
I fully support limited development under the circumstances described, but would point out that this paragraph is totally inconsistent with the previous two paragraphs (PO16, Items 1 & 2) - both of which advocate developments which I consider to be "inappropriate"!
I fully support limited development under the circumstances described, but would point out that this paragraph is totally inconsistent with the previous two paragraphs (PO16, Items 1 & 2) - both of which advocate developments which I consider to be "inappropriate"!
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47210
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: The National Trust
The policy is not consistent with the NPPF, which allows for limited infilling of previously developed sites in Green Belt and for the provision of facilities for outdoor recreation.
Policy PO16 may not provide sufficient flexibility for the National Trust to accommodate limited extensions to our properties in the Green Belt that do not conflict with the main purposes of the Green Belt and its openness, in accordance with the NPPF. For example, the NPPF allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. It also allows for the re-use of buildings, provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, which could apply to many Trust properties (Para 89).
Support
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47257
Received: 27/07/2012
Respondent: Dr GUy Barker
this seems a reasonable response to increased demand for local housing without allowing massive developments
this seems a reasonable response to increased demand for local housing without allowing massive developments
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 47348
Received: 31/07/2012
Respondent: Mr Alan Cockburn
Agent: Mrs Deborah Prince
Para16.9 needs further clarification and expansion.Other forms of
diversification need considering and extensions to existing schemes
included.
-Guidance and advice to farmers on appropriate types of diversification is
essential.
"My comments refer to para 16.9
which discusses Farm Diversification schemes within the Green Belt.
Whilst I commend the Council for identifying the urgent need to support the
Rural Economy I consider that this paragraph needs further
expansion and clarification. It only refers to buildings and there are
many other important types of Farm Diversification that should be
considered. Reasonable extensions to existing schemes also need to be
included as these can be crucial to their continued viabilty.
Moreover, to ensure that the Rural Economy is fully supported I also
endorse the comments of the Federation of Small Businesses in their
latest report entitled " The Missing links - Revitalising our Rural
Economy",which states - "Local authorities should provide tailored guidance
on appropriate types of farm diversification suitable for their localities
and what farmers need to do, to give them the best chance of submitting a
successful planning application"."
Object
Preferred Options
Representation ID: 50081
Received: 20/07/2012
Respondent: RPS Planning & Development
The wording of the last bullet of policy PO16 (C) is considered to be particularly poorly worded at present, as it is not clear whether Part C applies to all previously-developed land, or only previously-developed land in Category 3 villages. If the latter, this is much more restrictive than the NPPF. We suggest that the final bullet point of Policy PO16 is reworded as detailed below.
See Attachments