Comment

Representation ID: 15426

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Whilst the provision of additional employment space is supported, the Council need to justify the allocation of the former M25 Works Site. It is understood that the M25 works site was created as a temporary facility under the General Permitted Development Order and the Highways Act 1980 and has a requirement to be returned to its original state at the completion of the works, which ceased several years ago and the land should now be in agricultural use. As a result, the site should not be noted within the Draft Local Plan as previously developed land, or brownfield land.

Comment

Representation ID: 15427

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Changes set out within Schedule 2, Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 has resulted in the permitted change of use from A1 to either A2, A3 or mixed use without requiring planning permission. Whilst it is accepted that there is no guarantee that permitted development rights will remain throughout the course of the plan period, it is at least expected that the Policy acknowledges the existing rights.
The plan also fails to comply with the criteria within the NPPF and appears to be based upon the existing Replacement Local Plan policy, which is overly restrictive.

Comment

Representation ID: 15428

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Repetition of the bullet point e, whilst 'm.' appears under bullet point l.

Object

Representation ID: 15431

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Policy at odds with Para 89 of the NPPF. The Draft Policy takes the presumption that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate, whereas the NPPF states that there are exceptions. In accordance with the NPPF, both the extension or re-use or replacement of existing buildings should be stated as appropriate development.

Object

Representation ID: 15432

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

No requirement within the NPPF to provide justification for the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport & recreation, only that it "preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it". Such a provision is considered as appropriate development in the context of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 15433

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

It is not clear what is meant through the Policy wording; "expansion or intensification (including extensions) of existing inappropriate development within the Green Belt will not be permitted". The NPPF allows for the "extension or alteration of a building providing that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building" and "the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction". It is not understood how a building can be an "existing inappropriate development" unless it itself is unlawful and requires planning permission. In which case, unless it met the exceptions of Paragraph 89 or the other forms of development in Paragraph 90, it would need to demonstrate 'very special circumstances'. An existing lawful building should be able to be extended or re-used, in accordance with Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF and would not be considered as inappropriate development.

Object

Representation ID: 15434

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

In regard to the 30% of the habitable floor space referred to throughout the Policy, there is no justification either within the Policy or the subtext as to how this figure has been calculated, or why this is considered an acceptable figure in the definition of disproportionate, as set out within the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 15435

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Policy refers to the removal of permitted developments rights through the use of conditions to prevent the habitable floorspace limitation from being exceed. However It has been made clear through an appeal decision (Ref: APP/Q5300/A/14/2217664) that in light of the Government's growth agenda and in the absence of Government advice to restrict PD rights within the Green Belt it may be the case no exceptional circumstances justify the continued prohibition of PD.

Object

Representation ID: 15436

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Bullet point k. refers to visual mass "no greater than that of the existing dwelling", but the Policy states that the replacement dwelling can be "no larger than 30% above the original habitable floor space". There is a conflict between the wording of these notations - a 30% increase in habitable floor space will result in an increase in mass of the replacement/existing dwelling.
The same argument for the removal of permitted development applies to bullet n. as stated above.

Comment

Representation ID: 15439

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

The policy effectively removes those frontages from Green Belt designation, in which case there should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.