Page 105 - Ickford NP Consultation Report

ICKFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION REPORT : VISION FOR ICKFORD 105

Table Three continued

Responder Comment INP Reference Comment Response Change
Number Number Page Policy Para Required

11 22 24 F1 The Policy should refer to the sequential test, Agree, these issues will Change
likely effects of climate change & highlight that, mentioned in the text,
where a flood risk assessment is needed, the but not necessary for the
suitability of conventional SuDS will need to be policy to be altered
explored at site-level given the hydrogeological significantly
characteristics of the parish.

11 23 25 ND1 This Policy should be amended to refer to Agree to the first part of Change
‘development’ or ‘dwellings’ rather than ‘new these comments, first
buildings’ and ‘do not cause unacceptable harm’ however, there may be sentence
rather than ‘are not harmful’ in order to provide proposals for buildings of policy
an appropriate scope and balance towards outside the settlement
achieving sustainable development within the boundary which are not
settlement boundary. For development outside houses and do not respect
the settlement boundary the policy should refer the character of the
directly to housing to reflect the default countryside, e.g.
avoidance of isolated homes in the countryside in commercial buildings or
the NPPF para 79, as there will be a range of tourism facilities.
countryside related development (including Therefore ‘development’
buildings) which will remain acceptable in should be retained in the
planning terms. second sentence.

11 24 26 ND2 The final bullet point is considered overly Agreed. Change
restrictive and should be amended to read ‘cause policy
unacceptable harm’ rather than ‘adversely affect’

11 25 27 ND3 The final two bullet points should be combined Agreed in principle, but if the No
and refer to proportional contributions to meet developer offers over and change
the tests for planning obligations associated with above the s106 tests, the
the standards and policies in VALP. i.e policy wording should not be
“contributes proportionally towards any preventing that from
necessary improvements to green infrastructure happening. The wording is
including allotments, recreational facilities and flexible enough for either
community facilities in Ickford”. situation, it is the planning
application process that will
determine the appropriate
level of contributions.
11 26 30 ND4 This Policy is currently ambiguous and should Agreed, there is no Change
identify specific preferences or requirements on specific evidence policy
the basis of local evidence. I.e what proportion of supporting the need for a
affordable should be sought? Same as HEDNA & particular size, type or
VALP or different? What constitutes a “smaller tenure of new home, so
home” in this policy – is it 2-3 beds as the replacement wording is
explanation in para 9.19? Definition of terms and welcomed. Also replacing
clarity are needed to make the policy effective. In ‘ more affordable’ with
the absence of local evidence the policy could be ‘less expensive’
better worded “In new residential developments
there should be a variety of dwelling types and
sizes. In particular, schemes containing smaller
more affordable market homes suitable for young
families and affordable housing for rent and home
ownership, will be supported.”
11 27 30 10.1 Is there evidence to support the statement “These There is some anecdotal Change
large vehicles have a serious impact on safety”? If evidence of minor wording
not this should be weakened to ‘perceived safety’. damage to cars. And
concerns expressed
through consultation.

VISION FOR ICKFORD – NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
www.visionforickford.co.uk