FA10

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Support

Focused Amendments to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21245

Received: 19/06/2012

Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Representation:

This amendment is in response to objections received and evidence that affordable housing providers are unlikely to take on such properties. It seems sensible as conversions of this type may be technically complex and/or costly, making them less viable for affordable housing, and the location may be less suitable in terms of access to services etc than other sites (eg rural exceptions). The cross-reference to the general affordable housing policy ensures that some provision for affordable housing is retained.

Full text:

This amendment is in response to objections received and evidence that affordable housing providers are unlikely to take on such properties. It seems sensible as conversions of this type may be technically complex and/or costly, making them less viable for affordable housing, and the location may be less suitable in terms of access to services etc than other sites (eg rural exceptions). The cross-reference to the general affordable housing policy ensures that some provision for affordable housing is retained.

Support

Focused Amendments to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21263

Received: 31/07/2012

Respondent: Ticehurst Parish Council

Representation:

Ticehurst Parish Council has been concerned in the past that employment or tourism sites have been altered to residential due to the owners' claims that they are not able to sell them on - e.g. Forge Yard Stonegate, when commercial offer was received and dismissed by the owner.

Full text:

Ticehurst Parish Council has been concerned in the past that employment or tourism sites have been altered to residential due to the owners' claims that they are not able to sell them on - e.g. Forge Yard Stonegate, when commercial offer was received and dismissed by the owner.

Object

Focused Amendments to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21279

Received: 31/07/2012

Respondent: Town and Country Planning Solutions

Representation:

The NPPF does not require a 'sequential' test for the re-use of rural buildings for residential use. Para 55 states the new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as; "where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting" ... There is no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate viabllity or first make every attempt to secure alternative uses.

There is no special justification for Rother District Council to adopt a local planning policy that has much more stringent conversion requirements than the NPPF.

Full text:

The NPPF does not require a 'sequential' test for the re-use of rural buildings for residential use. Para 55 states the new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as; "where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting" ... There is no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that employment or tourism uses are not viable or first make every attempt to secure such alternative use. Nor is there any requirement to provide or contribute to affordable housing in order to secure permission for residential re-use.
There is no special justification for Rother District Council to adopt a local planning policy that has much more stringent conversion requirements than the National Policy that applies in the rest of the country.