Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft

Document Section Sites and Policies Plan Consultation Draft Living within Environmental Limits DM13 [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 927393//2
Respondent Deleted User [View all comments by this respondent]
Response Date 27 Mar 2013
Current Status Accepted
Comment

Green Belt

I believe this policy to be incomplete and incorrect for the following reasons.

The NPPF pages 20 and 21 section 89 defines that infilling in villages is appropriate development within the Green Belt, I hold confirmation from the D.C & L.G, that infilling in villages can also apply to land falling outside of village fences, envelopes etc. The stated reason for this is that neither village, limited, nor envelope is a legally defined term in this context, that is why envelopes is not added after villages within para 5, as I have been informed Ministers wished it worded that way.

I note, apart from five stated settlements, all the villages fences, envelopes etc have been removed, and the LPA now claim, no development is allowed because all of these other villages and adjoining lands are in open countryside.

I can find no reference to this policy within the NPPF only a reference to new isolated homes in the countryside. How can the stated aim of National Government, in relation to thriving communities be met, without future development, as they state sustainable development is about positive growth.

Redevelopment and infilling on previously developed sites in the Green Belt, outside settlement boundaries.

As previously developed land is defined by National Government, as land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, where is the logic in excluding land and buildings, that may just fall outside of the height required by building regulations too be redeveloped. Furthermore I can find no reference within National Planning Policy Framework, that excludes (was occupied), from being developed within the Green Belt. Common sense dictates the previous restrictions on height were not intended to limit the height to below what can be developed.

New extensions are appropriate up to the size of the original building, where is the logic in allowing a virtual new building, where none existed before, when existing buildings for conversion are restricted to their existing height.

To a layman trying to understand planning policy and the reasoning used to justify same, it is very difficult to accept and comprehend, for example, I raise Barrow Hospital below.

This hospital fell within policy RD/4 (Green Belt) of the 2007 North Somerset Local Plan, all the stated policy stipulations (at that time), were in my opinion to all intent and purpose disregarded and ignored, when over twice the original footprint was granted planning permission 11,000 sq metres to 24,000 sq metres. It is clear height restrictions on the 13,000 sq metres undeveloped part of the site, where not applied here.

The only reason stated within the public domain, to my knowledge, was that if refused, the applicant may appeal and probably win.

In my opinion the above tell us two things. (1) Policy was either incorrectly presented, or (2) Deep pockets win appeals and might becomes right. Would you kindly inform me which of my viewpoints is correct. Even if the site was in a private position the open-ness of the Green Belt would be impaired for the many occupiers on the very large original footprint, the fact that this footprint had not been developed before the grant of the additional development, does not alter the logical application of Green Belt open-ness restrictions. Nor the fact in my opinion that two of the five purposes of the Green Belt were breached.

Extensions alterations or replacement of existing buildings (Green Belt).

Within the NPPF National Government specifies the above and limits any extension to no more than a 100% extension of its present size, not 50% as the Draft Plan proposed furthermore, no provision is made to increase this limit on well screened plots, as you proposed at Cadbury Camp Lane.

Preserving the open-ness of the Green Belt is not stated as part of the criteria for meeting National Governments extension limits. To do so, would limit or halt the majority of sites put forward for development, granting rights for some, and not for others. Bearing in mind in Tickenham, within the previous village envelope the majority of extensions and new houses were built in full view, from are only thorough-fare (Clevedon Road).

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments