H1.6 Main Street, Empingham

Object

Representation ID: 4909

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The Table no.4 on page 82 states 153 houses are needed as a minimum after allowing for commitments & competitions yet this section on the contribution required from Larger Villages confusingly states 184 houses. This is a discrepancy of 31. This means that the Section 18 Consultation is invalid as the public are being asked to agree to inaccurate and contradictory information. What are we being asked to agree to 153 or 184?

Object

Representation ID: 5116

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Empingham Parish Council

The reg 18 document should clarify that the preferred site at Main Street Empingham relates only to the farmyard rather than the farm and the listed barns.

Support

Representation ID: 6335

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support in principle this development on a brownfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 7603

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Please see our previous comments. Grade II Listed
Buildings on site. Heritage assessment required

Object

Representation ID: 7715

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

This site scores highly due to being, in the Council’s opinion, a “brownfield site”. However, in the comments and conclusion section, there's a contradictory statement indicating that the site is "currently a brownfield site in agricultural use."

This demonstrates a clear factual error. Annex 2 of the NPPF clearly identifies that “Previously Developed Land”, or “Brownfield” land is defined as follows:

“Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings”.

Conclusion: The land must be reassessed on the basis it doesn’t constitute a brownfield site.