Page 106 - Ickford NP Consultation Report

106 VISION FOR ICKFORD : ICKFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION REPORT

Table Three continued

Responder Comment INP Reference Comment Response Change
Number Number Page Policy Para Required
11 28 31 10.5 National Policy is clear that major development Do not agree to removing Add in
sites should demonstrate that there is no the wording, but the wording comment
increased flood risk off-site, as such ‘and any large can be changed to reflect the regarding
increase in housing in the village.’ Should be potential for additional national
removed. flooding arising unless new policy
development is designed to
minimise that risk.
11 29 32 TT1 Traffic calming infrastructure and new pavements can Agreed Change
only be required where necessary as per the tests for wording
planning obligations, as such ‘and necessary’ should
follow ‘where appropriate’. The standards of parking
provision should be in line with the adopted standards in
the BCC Guidance 2015 until they are superseded by
specifications brought forward as part of VALP, unless
local evidence is available justifying a differing standard.
A definition of ‘small garage’ should be defined if it is to
be included and the stipulations for permeable surfacing
should be ‘where appropriate’ as per comments
regarding bespoke SuDS above.
11 30 33 11.3 It is expected this should read ‘The village is Agreed Change
served by broadband internet, as well as..’ wording

11 31 33 E1 This policy should specify, or reference a list of, There is no need to identify No
what constitutes ‘economic development’ i.e individual businesses in the change
those identified in para 11.1? ‘unacceptable’ policy itself. The Np timespan
should be added before ‘negative impact’ in order is 15 years and there should be
for the requirements to be flexible enough for enough flexibility in the policy
use. Similarly, ‘Future developments shall provide to support business
potential for internet connection where possible’. development in general and
The policy should specify if it relates to the whole not just the specific businesses
plan area (parish) or only to development within that happen to be in the Parish
the settlement boundary. at present.
11 32 34 12.1 & This paragraph should be amended to identify the Agreed Wording
12.2 facility as contributing to the community, not the changed
leaseholder: i.e ‘as a business, contributing much to
the community feel of Ickford.’ Similarly ‘by a local
builder’ should be removed as is superfluous.

11 33 35 CF1 The policy should refer to the facilities identified Agreed Policy
as being “valued facilities and services” as per wording
NPPF para 92 c. The 4 facilities mentioned should amended
be identified on the policies map in the annexes if
not adjacent to the policy. Again ‘negative impact’
should be ‘unacceptably negative impact’ to be
workable. And ‘be strongly resisted’ should be
‘not be supported, unless it is clearly…’
11 34 36 13.4 & Known infrastructure projects or priorities that A list of community Change
13.5 CIL income might be applied towards could be aspirations has been plan
highlighted here. added

11 35 3 Annex 1 Map should have greater contrast to show field This may not be possible Change
boundaries more clearly. depending on the OS base
used.
11 36 38 Annex 2 The local green spaces should be clearly Agreed Change
distinguished from other designations and labelled to plan
correspond with their listing in the policy. It doesn’t
appear necessary to have the conservation areas on
this map as they are within Annex 3 which relates
primarily to heritage matters.

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