Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 5533

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

This policy is supported, as the importance of local retail facilities to villages and rural communities is well established. However, we would also consider this requirement from the opposite end of the telescope, making the point that, if such facilities are to be not only maintained, but also to expand their services and thrive, the planning policy for the area must make clear that proportionate levels of development growth are necessary in these settlements to support the retail amenity.

Support noted. Also addressed in Policy SC6

Support

Representation ID: 5534

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

This policy is supported, as it is at the heart of sustainable communities, of whatever scale. It is heartening to see a specific provision that supports proposals for new community facilities.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 5535

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

The policy as drafted is supported, as it sets out a clear contextual approach to the way that heritage assets should be approached and managed in policy terms.

However, we consider that it could go further in recognising that the long-term management of many heritage assets is problematic in practice, particularly where there original purpose or function is no longer part of the landscape or is not economically viable.

Support of the policy noted.

Policy EN12 sets out how National Policy will be implemented and as such does not need to repeat National Policy.
Paragraphs 207 - 209 set out the requirements for where harm to or loss of a designated/non-designated heritage asset may be acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 5536

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

Overall, the principle of a policy such as this is supported, as it strikes a balance between protection and the criteria against which development in conservation areas is to be considered. But the operation of it must be questioned, and especially in the context of the NPPF. Section 5 seems to be unnecessarily prescriptive, the next favoured uses seems a limited list of uses, especially in the context that the renovation and rescue of degraded heritage assets is likely to be very costly.

Support of the principle of the policy is noted.
The use hierarchy is to ensure that the heritage asset is protected. It does not restrict the change to other uses where it can be demonstrated that the preferable use(s) are not viable.
No change required.