C.

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Support

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 46411

Received: 06/07/2012

Respondent: mr william tansey

Representation Summary:

These are positive steps which will help revitalise some communities which are losing their character.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

I agree with Mr Tansey - these are positive changes with positive benefits.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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"!

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

this seems a reasonable response to increased demand for local housing without allowing massive developments

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

"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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See Attachments