Map 1: District

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7228

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: D Bullers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The maps are practically unusable when printed out due to size when several inserts fitted on 1 A4 sheet. The originals are A0+ size so unwieldy for general public to view. Online versions are zoomable so work reasonable on tablets but you are in effect looking through a keyhole at it. This restricts the overview yo get with a paper copy at a sensible size.

These maps contain a lot of fine detail and were boundaries are can only be seen up close. The dat contained is multi layered with overlapping highlighting.

Change suggested by respondent:

Re publish in a format printable over several sheets for each map on a tablet type device or PC from. A PDF file.

Note: landscape docs tend to come out small om portrait formatted paper when printed out from handheld devices as you cannot set the format manually I'm my experience.

Add the main maps in A3 format as used on some of the displays at public events.

Full text:

The maps are practically unusable when printed out due to size when several inserts fitted on 1 A4 sheet. The originals are A0+ size so unwieldy for general public to view. Online versions are zoomable so work reasonable on tablets but you are in effect looking through a keyhole at it. This restricts the overview yo get with a paper copy at a sensible size.

These maps contain a lot of fine detail and were boundaries are can only be seen up close. The dat contained is multi layered with overlapping highlighting.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7549

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J McLaren Hargan

Agent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation available.
At Hillside, Apperknowle the relevant boundary of the Green Belt follows, for the most part, the boundary between the rear gardens of properties fronting Barrack Road and the agricultural land to their west.
However, as regards "Hillside", the boundary of the Green Belt crosses the open garden of the property in an arbitrary manner without reference to any recognisable physical features. This is not considered justified and these representations seek a minor adjustment to the Green Belt boundary.
This should also be accompanied by a minor revision to the Settlement Development Limit boundary for Apperknowle which should be adjusted to follow he principle established in respect of the rear gardens of properties immediately to the north.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amendments to the Green Belt boundary at "Hillside". Proposed boundary should continue the edge of the domestic curtilage. In the case of "Hillside", it would then follow its boundary with the open agricultural land to the west. This should also be accompanied by a minor revision to the Settlement Development Limit boundary for Apperknowle which should be adjusted to follow the principle established in respect of the rear gardens of properties immediately to the north where, irrespective of their depth, residential curtilages are included within the Settlement Development Limit boundary.
This objection would be overcome if the Council accepts that the requested minor amendment to the Policies Map is appropriate.

Full text:

This objection is submitted on behalf of Mr&Mrs J MacLaren-Hargan, the owners of Hillside, Barrack Lane, Apperknowle.
It is accepted that Green Belt boundaries should have a considerable degree if permanence. Nevertheless, it has long been recognised that such boundaries should not be arbitrary. Because they will then be the subject of greater public acceptance and understanding, it is important that they relate, for example, to distinct physical features. In this case, the relevant boundary of the Green Belt follows, for the most part, the boundary between the rear gardens of properties fronting Barrack Road and the agricultural land to their west. This is entirely plausible.
However, as regards "Hillside", the boundary of the Green Belt crosses the open garden of the property in an arbitrary manner without reference to any recognisable physical features. This is not considered justified and these representations, which have previously been submitted, seek merely a minor adjustment to the Green Belt boundary which would, it is considered, be immaterial in its impact on the openness of the Green Belt as a whole.
The proposed revised boundary would continue, as it does now to the north, the edge of the domestic cartilage. In he case of "Hillside", it would then follow its boundary with the open agricultural land to the west. This should also be accompanied by a minor revision to the Settlement Development Limit boundary for Apperknowle which should be adjusted to follow he principle established in respect of the rear gardens of properties immediately to the north where, irrespective of their depth, residential cartilages are included within the Settlement Development Limit boundary.
This objection would be overcome if the Council accepts that the requested minor amendment to the Policies Map is appropriate.

Attachments: