Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 9516

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10011
No


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9517

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10012
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9518

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10013
Yes – but given its status and scale it ought to only accommodate a scale of new growth that is commensurate with its population share of the Borough and not exceed this.


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9519

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10014
No – retaining and not amending DM19 is a mistake for the following reasons: • Few sites in the rural area meet the Brownfield Register threshold • Many sites may not have access to public transport (see NPPF 110) • The bar is set too high by Criterion 7 in DM19 not to lead to a high degree of subjectivity creeping in • NPPF provides overarching guidance and any policy must reflect Grey Belt guidance in this and the PPG


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9520

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10015
It may be beneficial – although there is no reason why the countryside policy cannot be combined and duplicate the GB elements in that sites in the countryside are provided with the same exceptions provided for Green Belt through the NPPF – for example, there is no rational reason why GB sites can be redeveloped/converted and open countryside ones are unable to benefit from such provision


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9521

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10016
Employment, tourism, recreation and residential uses are (and can be) appropriate alternative uses in the countryside


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9522

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10017
No


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9523

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10018
Through a sensibly worded policy that seeks to protect heritage assets and recognise that structural tests may be relevant and design solutions are sympathetic as opposed to being obstructive


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9524

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10019
No – the section on “rail lines and station” considers that the premise is to re-open and extend such facilities – yet it is quite possible that such consideration is simply nether viable or sustainable – for instance a small rural station being expanded is likely to benefit only a handful of residents whose ambition is simply to commute to Manchester or Liverpool as opposed to using the network internally and it pre-supposes that if it were to become a node for housing growth that there exists sufficient other community and enviro-engineering infrastructure capable of supporting and sustaining new development


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.

Comment

Representation ID: 9525

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

I&O_10020
It’s a fair approach but needs to reflect NPPF110 in recognising that not all sites are accessible urban-centric ones


Extension was agreed. Original email was received in time but had errors in question numbers so updated information was requested.