acceptable. It would be unfortunate if such developments were prevented for this reason alone provided that, for examples, they enclose a courtyard and/or enjoy rooflights or otherwise provide good environmental quality. What local infrastructure, services and facilities would you The policy reflects consultation responses informing the development of the Neighbourhood Plan indicating concern about the growing expect to be assessed by an applicant, under the terms of pressure on local infrastructure and community facilities. Road, Policy CF1? drainage, sewerage and water supply capacity are basic infrastructure considerations. Health, particularly GP services, availability of school and nursery places, public transport (bus) capacity are key service provisions for assessment, along with community care for the young, elderly and disabled. The availability and affordability of community facilities for sport, social and cultural activities and for local groups to meet should also be taken into account. In Policy R1, if I were to recommend a marketing period before Appendix 5 of the Local Plan Publication Version sets out the requirements for marketing and specifies a period of two years. We a change of use were to be granted do you think 12 months – understand that although the Local Plan Inspector has recommended would be appropriate? that reference to 2 years should be removed from LP 26 & 27 it has not been removed from Appendix 5. We would suggest that if a minimum marketing period is to be included it should be 24 months rather than 12 months. In Policy R2 should reference to Para 8.1 actually be to Para Yes 8.6 of the Publication version of the emerging local plan? I see that under Policy G1 Para 7.3.2 identifies the open The King George V and Riverside Playing Fields should be added to the text in para 7.3.2, and their key numbers 5 and 10 inserted on the spaces to be covered by the policy, which ties in with the public Figure 7.1 map. The Avenues are public open spaces outside the rather than private open spaces shown on Figure 7.1 but the Ham House Grounds, but were originally created as part of the text does not refer to King George V Playing Fields but includes formal setting for Ham House. The Avenues, which I presume are part of the Ham House While the open spaces are already protected from development upon grounds, which is one of the private open spaces which I them, the policy seeks to maintain and enhance their value by
acceptable. It would be unfortunate if such developments were prevented for this reason alone provided that, for examples, they enclose a courtyard and/or enjoy rooflights or otherwise provide good environmental quality. What local infrastructure, services and facilities would you expect to be assessed by an applicant, under the terms of Policy CF1? The policy reflects consultation responses informing the development of the Neighbourhood Plan indicating concern about the growing pressure on local infrastructure and community facilities. Road, drainage, sewerage and water supply capacity are basic infrastructure considerations. Health, particularly GP services, availability of school and nursery places, public transport (bus) capacity are key service provisions for assessment, along with community care for the young, elderly and disabled. The availability and affordability of community facilities for sport, social and cultural activities and for local groups to meet should also be taken into account. In Policy R1, if I were to recommend a marketing period before a change of use were to be granted – do you think 12 months would be appropriate? Appendix 5 of the Local Plan Publication Version sets out the requirements for marketing and specifies a period of two years. We understand that although the Local Plan Inspector has recommended that reference to 2 years should be removed from LP 26 & 27 it has not been removed from Appendix 5. We would suggest that if a minimum marketing period is to be included it should be 24 months rather than 12 months. In Policy R2 should reference to Para 8.1 actually be to Para 8.6 of the Publication version of the emerging local plan? Yes I see that under Policy G1 Para 7.3.2 identifies the open spaces to be covered by the policy, which ties in with the public rather than private open spaces shown on Figure 7.1 but the text does not refer to King George V Playing Fields but includes The Avenues, which I presume are part of the Ham House grounds, which is one of the private open spaces which I The King George V and Riverside Playing Fields should be added to the text in para 7.3.2, and their key numbers 5 and 10 inserted on the Figure 7.1 map. The Avenues are public open spaces outside the Ham House Grounds, but were originally created as part of the formal setting for Ham House. While the open spaces are already protected from development upon them, the policy seeks to maintain and enhance their value by