MM30.

Amongst other things the character of an area is associated with the proporttion of built on land. Even if sufficient amenity space is retained within each plot the overall effect of several plot proposals may have an aggregate detrimental effect on the overall area. A policy should be developed to maintain a balance between built-on and non-built-on areas. I recognise that this will be a difficult balance betwee individual rights and community rights.

Whilst I agree with the policy I object that it does not go far enough to prevent unitended consequences. It only considers each proposal in isolation and principally its effects within the plot. As a result many such individual proposals can result in a significant change in the character of an area by significantly increasing the built area.

p83 LP03 We question why protection against ecological and heritage harm has been taken out of this policy since it is precisely this kind of development that can cause irreversible heritage harm.

1a) 'High Standard of design' should be clarified to ensure the the (removed) requirements of size, mass, design and materials will be considered.

1e) The environmental requirements of this clause should be re-instated.

1f) Reference to parking standards, or clarification of the types or parking preffered / discouraged should be made.

1g) Heritage assest clause should be re-instated

Whilst acknowledging the need for positivley worded requirements, it is also essential to ensure that clarity is maintained.
Point 1a) 'High Standard of design' should be clarified to ensure the the (removed) requirements of size, mass, design and materials will be considered.

Point 1e) The environmental requirments of this clause are very important, specifically in a period where a climate emergency has been declared. If these requirements are not re-stated elsewhere this clause should be re-instated.

Point 1f) Tandem parking should be discouraged.

Point 1g) Should be re-instated as the impact on heritage assest is important to communities.

We would perhaps encourage these policies to be split into two separate policies, as the conversion of buildings and extending of residential properties are two very different undertakings.

On behalf of our clients, George Durrant & Sons welcomes this policy. With regard to the Conversion element, the flexibility offered by this wording is sensible and appears to recognise the role that Class Q plays in delivering agricultural conversions. This should encourage applicants to apply for full planning permission rather than starting with Class Q, delivering improved design from the beginning. We would perhaps encourage these policies to be split into two separate policies, as the conversion of buildings and extending of residential properties are two very different undertakings.