2 responses from Mr Christopher Bisco (Individual)
1. Mr Christopher Bisco (Individual) : 14 Dec 2015 15:43:00
Discussion Paper section
3. Evidence Base
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q1 Major development limits. The NPPF limit of .5ha and 10 units seems OK and should be adopted. If it’s done case by case then there is a risk that it could be challenged for a large development. It also fits with the principle of distributing the small number of affordable, local occupancy only, housing requirement around small sites to ensure minimal impact on the special character of the area. Large sites would have a significant adverse impact. The NPPF would normally take precedence over the guidance in NPPG, and in any case the NPPG seems to be suggesting that major development sites in AONB could be less than the 0.5 ha or 10 units
Exceptions might be that there should be an assumption that brownfield sites will be remediated/developed regardless of size? The old Travis Perkins site for example. There may be a very few sites larger than 0.5ha or 10 units which are genuinely brownfield or currently detract from the AONB that could be brought forward for development.
Are there any topics or issues that you think we have missed or that you wish to raise?
Q2 Housing requirements over the Plan Period. Yes they should be indentified. This should be done in stages only after the initial demand is fully taken up. Allowance should be made for the likelihood that the initial figure includes a significant backlog so this backlog should be factored out of future projections. A new housing survey should be done every 5 years.
The document points out in para 3.3 there is only a proven need for affordable local housing and that in a protected area it is this that should be used as the target - wider housing needs can be met in the wider areas of both authorities. However, where there are opportunities within the AONB to provide general housing on genuine brown field sites then these should be developed as a priority.
2. Mr Christopher Bisco (Individual) : 14 Dec 2015 15:42:00
Discussion Paper section
7. Delivery of Development
Please make your comments below on the section you have selected. Where appropriate, make reference to the paragraph number you are referring to, your preferred option, the question number asked in the Discussion Paper and the reference number of the site you are commenting on.
Q 27 Site A15 (the Common) is currently designated as Important Open Space. It is way over the site maximum size proposed and was regarded by the Inspector as having amenity value in helping preserve the open character of the village and the AONB. It has been the subject of many community attempts to protect this site from development. It should not be developed in any part and should continue to be designated as "Open Space.
