The Council should review its assessment of sites. I referred in my response to Q2 to the apparent inconsistencies in the assessment of several sites. In particular, many of the small sites were not included in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal and some appear to perform reasonably well but are placed in the red category. Examples in KDBH include those referred to in Q2 but also small sites such as 207, 210, 344 and 135. Some of these perform well on a number of criteria and may be able to overcome concerns such as defensible GB boundaries. Consideration of some smaller sites could also enable more 'rounding off' or infill of the built area in some places as well as spreading the impacts across a wider area. A mix of large and smaller sites in a more dispersed pattern would have less impact on the GB, be more consistent with government guidance and potentially being less damaging to village character and infrastructure.