Draft Local Plan Review
Search representations
Results for SMBC - Managed Growth & Communities Directorate search
New searchYes
Draft Local Plan Review
Q17. Do you agree with Policy P6? If not why not, and what alternative would you suggest?
Representation ID: 131
Received: 06/12/2016
Respondent: SMBC - Managed Growth & Communities Directorate
Policy needs to refer to assessment of applications, not just allocations.
Suggest removing or amending words to cross-refer to Green Belt policy and need for vsc's. The reference to 'other locations' is ambiguous and could raise equality issues if it imposes a requirement on travellers which is not expressly imposed on others.
Supporting text:
Remove specific reference to 38 pitches to allow opportunity for review of need as and when necessary. Suggest more general wording to clarify that the Council will assess need through robust local evidence and meet it through allocations.
Supporting text should also refer to planning applications.
Further to my emails and our brief conversation yesterday, I would offer the following comments re draft Policy P6 :
* Para 231 - suggest remove specific reference to 38 pitches to allow opportunity for review of need as and when necessary. Suggest more general words to the effect that the Council will assess need through robust local evidence and endeavour to meet that need through allocations.
* Para 232 - only refers to allocations - needs to also refer to the assessment of sites which are the subject of a planning application ?
* Policy P6 - first sentence as above - needs to refer to assessment of applications also ?
* Policy P6 - final sentence - suggest remove or amend to simply cross-refer to Green Belt policy and need for vsc's. The reference to consideration of 'other locations' is ambiguous and could potentially raise equality issues if it imposes a requirement on travellers which is not expressly imposed on others.
I hope this is some help.
