North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Search Representations

Results for A & D Architecture Ltd. search

New search New search

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Policy LC5: Residential Extensions

Representation ID: 7929

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: A & D Architecture Ltd.

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Representation refers to policies LC5, SS8, SS9 & SS10.

Rules governing house extensions to carers / dependent relatives and / or to accommodate extended "multi-generational" family life should be consistent inside and outside settlement development limits and inside and outside the Green Belt and are not.LC5 treats residential extensions in the countryside and Level 4 villages unfairly.

Green Belt designation is a functional designation and it is reasonable therefore to relate the test of proportion in Paragraph 89 bullet point 3 to the reasonable interior functional planning of a dwelling extension in the Green belt and elsewhere and make this the benchmark of a fair policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy regarding dwelling extensions must be consistent with each other and National Policy and human rights legislation.

Full text:

Representation refers to policies LC5, SS2, SS8, SS9 & SS10.

Rules governing house extensions to carers / dependent relatives and / or to accommodate extended "multi-generational" family life should be consistent inside and outside settlement development limits and inside and outside the Green Belt and are not. The Local Plan must not treat people unequally depending upon where they live. The wording of policy must not leave development controllers in doubt that planning decisions must be consistent and respect human rights of people to an "extended family" life.

LC5 treats residential extensions in the countryside and Level 4 villages unfairly.

SS8 p.56 unfairly requires all development in small villages to be allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan contrary to national policy (NPPF 21).

Green Belt designation is a functional designation and it is reasonable therefore to relate the test of proportion in Paragraph 89 bullet point 3 to the reasonable interior functional planning of a dwelling extension in the Green belt and elsewhere and make this the benchmark of a fair policy.

If Policy in respect of residential development is not in practice sympathetic to people's needs (Para. 5.90 p.83) the physical appearance of the District will increasingly be determined by permitted development rights.

Policy SS8 restricts development in Level 4 settlements to limited infilling allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. Type 4 settlements have "very limited sustainability" (paragraph 4.35 p.39 and Table 4.2 p.40) but are presumably more sustainable than the open countryside (4.60 p.57) where policy SS9 (e) allows limited infilling (without restriction to brownfield land) without land being allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. Where settlement development limits are proposed to be removed these two polices must be consistent and are not. Policy SS10(f) allows "limited infilling" to accommodate other development in the Green Belt but not "limited infilling in villages" to accommodate market housing which is allowed by National Policy in other Green Belts (NPPF Paragraph 89.6 - NB this policy is more liberal than SS8). Consequently, the Local Plan is internally inconsistent, over-burdens developers in Level 4 settlements without justification, subsequently drives relatively compact and sustainable development inside small villages towards less sustainable countryside sites contrary to National Policy and restricts Green belt developers to a greater degree than national policy does. The Local Plan is consequently unsound for lack of coherence, lack of justification and lack of consistency with national policy.

The Local Plan recognises District-wide requirements for economic growth (4.9 p.34) and District-wide housing needs (2.13 p.16, 5.86 p.83). National policy requires the Council to promote sustainable development everywhere including development patterns that will reinforce local bus services and by reducing reliance on the private car cut green-house gas emissions (NPPF 17.11, 30 and 95.1) and to significantly boost housing supply and widen housing choice for all groups in the community including people living and wishing to work in villages (NPPF 47 and 50). Attached A&D 3 provides evidence that the Local Plan treats village communities in Level 3 and 4 settlements unfairly and is correspondingly unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Policy SS8: Development in Small Vilages & Hamlets

Representation ID: 7930

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: A & D Architecture Ltd.

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Representation refers to policies SS8, SS9 & SS10.

Policy SS8 is too restrictive in respect of limited infilling in small villages and hamlets as defined as Level 4 settlements. This policy approach is also inconsistent with other policies of plan, namely SS9 and SS10 which allow for limited infilling in the countryside and Green Belt.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policies allowing infilling within villages need to be redrafted to avoid inconsistency, to avoid overburdening developers to type 4 settlements and to remove unjustifiable restrictions on market housing growth by infilling Green Belt villages.

Full text:

Representation refers to policies LC5, SS2, SS8, SS9 & SS10.

Rules governing house extensions to carers / dependent relatives and / or to accommodate extended "multi-generational" family life should be consistent inside and outside settlement development limits and inside and outside the Green Belt and are not. The Local Plan must not treat people unequally depending upon where they live. The wording of policy must not leave development controllers in doubt that planning decisions must be consistent and respect human rights of people to an "extended family" life.

LC5 treats residential extensions in the countryside and Level 4 villages unfairly.

SS8 p.56 unfairly requires all development in small villages to be allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan contrary to national policy (NPPF 21).

Green Belt designation is a functional designation and it is reasonable therefore to relate the test of proportion in Paragraph 89 bullet point 3 to the reasonable interior functional planning of a dwelling extension in the Green belt and elsewhere and make this the benchmark of a fair policy.

If Policy in respect of residential development is not in practice sympathetic to people's needs (Para. 5.90 p.83) the physical appearance of the District will increasingly be determined by permitted development rights.

Policy SS8 restricts development in Level 4 settlements to limited infilling allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. Type 4 settlements have "very limited sustainability" (paragraph 4.35 p.39 and Table 4.2 p.40) but are presumably more sustainable than the open countryside (4.60 p.57) where policy SS9 (e) allows limited infilling (without restriction to brownfield land) without land being allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. Where settlement development limits are proposed to be removed these two polices must be consistent and are not. Policy SS10(f) allows "limited infilling" to accommodate other development in the Green Belt but not "limited infilling in villages" to accommodate market housing which is allowed by National Policy in other Green Belts (NPPF Paragraph 89.6 - NB this policy is more liberal than SS8). Consequently, the Local Plan is internally inconsistent, over-burdens developers in Level 4 settlements without justification, subsequently drives relatively compact and sustainable development inside small villages towards less sustainable countryside sites contrary to National Policy and restricts Green belt developers to a greater degree than national policy does. The Local Plan is consequently unsound for lack of coherence, lack of justification and lack of consistency with national policy.

The Local Plan recognises District-wide requirements for economic growth (4.9 p.34) and District-wide housing needs (2.13 p.16, 5.86 p.83). National policy requires the Council to promote sustainable development everywhere including development patterns that will reinforce local bus services and by reducing reliance on the private car cut green-house gas emissions (NPPF 17.11, 30 and 95.1) and to significantly boost housing supply and widen housing choice for all groups in the community including people living and wishing to work in villages (NPPF 47 and 50). Attached A&D 3 provides evidence that the Local Plan treats village communities in Level 3 and 4 settlements unfairly and is correspondingly unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Policy SS2: Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development

Representation ID: 7931

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: A & D Architecture Ltd.

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Representation refers to policies SS2 & SS8.

The Local Plan recognises District-wide requirements for economic growth (4.9 p.34) and District-wide housing needs (2.13 p.16, 5.86 p.83). Attached A&D 3 provides evidence that the Local Plan treats village communities in Level 3 and 4 settlements unfairly and is correspondingly unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Local Plan should provide for proportionate growth across the District to support sustainable patterns of development that improve housing and employment opportunities and service provision where communities live. The Council should allocate development sites in small villages where landowners are willing to make land available. Cited policies and text should be amended accordingly.

Full text:

Representation refers to policies LC5, SS2, SS8, SS9 & SS10.

Rules governing house extensions to carers / dependent relatives and / or to accommodate extended "multi-generational" family life should be consistent inside and outside settlement development limits and inside and outside the Green Belt and are not. The Local Plan must not treat people unequally depending upon where they live. The wording of policy must not leave development controllers in doubt that planning decisions must be consistent and respect human rights of people to an "extended family" life.

LC5 treats residential extensions in the countryside and Level 4 villages unfairly.
SS8 p.56 unfairly requires all development in small villages to be allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan contrary to national policy (NPPF 21).

Green Belt designation is a functional designation and it is reasonable therefore to relate the test of proportion in Paragraph 89 bullet point 3 to the reasonable interior functional planning of a dwelling extension in the Green belt and elsewhere and make this the benchmark of a fair policy.

If Policy in respect of residential development is not in practice sympathetic to people's needs (Para. 5.90 p.83) the physical appearance of the District will increasingly be determined by permitted development rights.

Policy SS8 restricts development in Level 4 settlements to limited infilling allocated by a Neighbourhood Plan. Type 4 settlements have "very limited sustainability" (paragraph 4.35 p.39 and Table 4.2 p.40) but are presumably more sustainable than the open countryside (4.60 p.57) where policy SS9 (e) allows limited infilling (without restriction to brownfield land) without land being allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. Where settlement development limits are proposed to be removed these two polices must be consistent and are not. Policy SS10(f) allows "limited infilling" to accommodate other development in the Green Belt but not "limited infilling in villages" to accommodate market housing which is allowed by National Policy in other Green Belts (NPPF Paragraph 89.6 - NB this policy is more liberal than SS8). Consequently, the Local Plan is internally inconsistent, over-burdens developers in Level 4 settlements without justification, subsequently drives relatively compact and sustainable development inside small villages towards less sustainable countryside sites contrary to National Policy and restricts Green belt developers to a greater degree than national policy does. The Local Plan is consequently unsound for lack of coherence, lack of justification and lack of consistency with national policy.

The Local Plan recognises District-wide requirements for economic growth (4.9 p.34) and District-wide housing needs (2.13 p.16, 5.86 p.83). National policy requires the Council to promote sustainable development everywhere including development patterns that will reinforce local bus services and by reducing reliance on the private car cut green-house gas emissions (NPPF 17.11, 30 and 95.1) and to significantly boost housing supply and widen housing choice for all groups in the community including people living and wishing to work in villages (NPPf 47 and 50). Attached A&D 3 provides evidence that the Local Plan treats village communities in Level 3 and 4 settlements unfairly and is correspondingly unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.

Attachments:

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.