Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 60
Received: 04/01/2019
Respondent: Mr Stephen Jupp
Since there is no specific policy on extensions to houses in the countryside I assume this policy would apply in such cases. If it does then i suggest criterion 5 could be repeated in a separate para pertaining to residential alterations.
Criterion 2 is over restrictive. Economic and community uses should be discounted if they are EITHER inappropriate or unviable. It is nonsensical to require a viable but inappropriate use!
Change wording of penultimate para on isolated homes to better reflect NPPF para 79. A conversion is development' so dont need both words. NPPF does not use the word 'special'
Since there is no specific policy on extensions to houses in the countryside I assume this policy would apply in such cases. If it does then i suggest criterion 5 could be repeated in a separate para pertaining to residential alterations.
Criterion 2 is over restrictive. Economic and community uses should be discounted if they are EITHER inappropriate or unviable. It is nonsensical to require a viable but inappropriate use!
Change wording of penultimate para on isolated homes to better reflect NPPF para 79. A conversion is development' so dont need both words. NPPF does not use the word 'special'