MM55.

p137 LP21 b (old#) We do not agree with the removal of this section as the future food needs of the nation are under pressure and it is not acceptable that the best and most versatile land should be sold off for residential gardens if in doing so that cannot be reversed in the future if that land is required for the nations self sufficiency.
p137 LP21 d (old#) We do not agree with the removal of this section. Farming is important and any such change of use should not compromise its efficiency. Any threat to recognised habitat sites, and we would add any green infrastructure linking them, should not be threatened by any such change in a nation now recognised as being one of the worst in the world for species depletion. Such use for the gratification of individuals to have a bigger garden is disproportionate to a national interest.
p137 LP21 c We do not agree with the change of text which still sets standards against residential amenity impact but deletes any standard to prevent same to the countryside setting
p137 LP21 f (old#) We do not agree with the removal of this section as PRoW are an important health and recreational asset that need protection and if designated farmland is changed in use to garden around a settlement edge beside countryside then urbanising a garden that was farmland outside the settlement is undermining the agreed settlement limits.
p137 LP21 2&3 (old#) We do not agree with the removal of these section in common with reasons already described above for other sections in LP21

The absence of such a schedule is a serious omission and without such, prepared and approved by the LPA, this policy and its interpretation will remain as woolly as the term itself. It is simply insufficient for officers to look at an unlisted building and say “let’s treat that as a non designated heritage asset” when required. An official and maintained list is a pre-requisite for an effective policy.

The importance of the Historic Environment is not lost on those living in East Bergholt. In assessing the impact of new development on Designated and Non Designated Heritage Assets LP19/21 however, the policy lacks an accompanying schedule (list) of all the Non Designated Assets across the District, to which the policy applies. The absence of such a schedule is a serious omission and without such, prepared and approved by the LPA, this policy and its interpretation will remain as woolly as the term itself. It is simply insufficient for officers to look at an unlisted building and say “let’s treat that as a non designated heritage asset” when required. An official and maintained list is a pre-requisite for an effective policy.

Retain protection of public rights of way unless covered elsewhere in the plan or nationally.

Why has “no significant adverse impacts on public rights of way” been removed? Section c) mentions unacceptable amenity impact but only for nearby residential occupiers; public footpaths are used by the wider community.

On behalf of our clients, George Durrant & Sons generally welcomes this policy, although would argue that it seems unnecessarily prescriptive given that gardens are generally more biodiverse than agricultural land.