Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 66189

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This policy is inconsistent with many of the principles set out in the NPPF. In seeking to protect unlisted buildings in a Conservation Area, the draft policy blurs the statutory distinction between listed and unlisted structures. In respect of this matter, the policy exceeds the Framework advice in para.138 and gives rise to major inconsistencies.

Other parts of the policy operate a draconian presumption against many forms of development, leaving no room for the reasonable and flexible application of policy to deal with a range of circumstances.

The policy in our client's view requires extensive redrafting and simplification.

The final part of the policy is not clear since it appears as a statement of intent by the Council. Whereas the rest of the policy sets out measures to control development.

In our client's view the policy, in its current wording is neither justified nor complient with the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 66190

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This policy lists a range of attributes for consideration, these can only ever be partial and so this will lead to uncertainty in the application of the policy.

Ultimately the policy seeks to conserve 'significance' which may or may nit be expressed in any of the physical characteristics or associations of a site.

The NPPF makes clear and is supported in the National Planning Practice Guidance, that setting is not an asset.

The policy also exceeds the intention of both statute and paragraph 133 of the Framework in offering a blanket ban on development causing substantial harm. As worded the policy introduces potential conflict and uncertainty in its practical application.

Finally, it is considered that the use of the verb 'should' in the second part of the policy is unclear.

The policy as worded does not accord with the advice in the NPPF and is therefore unsound. It should be reworded.

Object

Representation ID: 66191

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Hallam Land Managment and William Davis Limited consider that the wording of this policy is inconsistent with the principles set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF.

In seeking to protect unlisted buildings, the policy blurs the statutory distinction between listed and unlisted structures. The policy therefore exceeds the advice in paragraph 135 of the NPPF and results in major inconsistencies with it.

Other parts of the policy operate a draconian presumption against the demolition or loss of significnace of a non-designated heritage asset.

Object

Representation ID: 66192

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In its present form there are a number of concerns about this policy, it is considered inconsistent with the advice in para. 50 of the NPPF and on that basis is unsound.

If market conditions for the development of land for new homes were to fall back from those currently experienced, securing the provision of at leat 40% of the new homes as affordable on any one site, may render a development proposal unviable.The policy as presently drafted is insufficeintly flexible to allow for such future circumstances.

It is considered that by including in Policy H2 the expression that on all qualifying sites, a minimum of 40% of the new housing must be affordable, then there will be flexibility in the application of the policy over time.