Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

We object to this policy in its current form as it is too restrictive and in direct conflict with accepted government policy.

It is accepted within PPS7 that the governments policy is to support the re-use of appropriate and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside. This policy does not set out this position. It is important that a positive approach is reflected in the policy. Currently the first sentence sets out the opposite with the negative wording of 'a restrictive approach'.

It is acknowledged that the Districts rural area is all Green Belt and this must be balanced with development. However diversification can occur in well designed locations wihout a detrimental impact on the principles of the Green Belt and this should be acknowledged in policy GB2. Most if not all diversification proposals are on previously developed land and as such do not have any impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Reference within the policy to acceptance in 'appropriate cirumstances in the Green Belt' is ambiguous and has potential to add more restrictive criteria. The further limit of employment use to only 'small-scale' employment use is restrictive and unrealistic in the rural area. Many farm buildings have significant floor areas and can offer ideal employment sites without alteration or significant impact. Whilst no definition of small-scale is given to curb further the type of employment use that is appropriate is damaging to the rural economy.

It is positive that the council acknowledge that allowances for the fact public transport is limited in the rural areas will be made. Rural area are by their nature dependent on car use and diversification within this area will not necessarily exacerbate this. Many drive to school or work so to shorten the distance travelled by offering employment opportunities closer to home is a positive step.

It is important that 'wider sustainability issues' do not focus solely on car movements and public transport. Other sustainability issues such as the recycling of existing buildings reducing the impact of additional construction and loss of green sites should be an important factor in the sustainability of diversification proposals. Further more the revival of employment in rural areas supports other local services and can bring more sustainable work patterns back to rural areas.

Many rural buildings are of a traditional design and offer historic character within the landscape. To be unable to re-use these buildings results in empty, run down and poorly maintained buildings scattered throughout the landscape. The refusal to consider residential development is short sighted and unreasonably negative. Government guidance in PPS7 acknowledges that "residential conversion may be more appropriate in some locations and for some types of buildings". To preclude any residential development is contrary to government policy and will result in some buildings with historic charater being lost to the rural landscape.

Policy GB2 should acknowledge the emphasis in PPS7 that the replacement of buildings in the countryside for economic development purposes is acceptable and set out criteria for this.

In summary the policy GB2 as set out in this document is in conflict with government guidacne and will do nothing to encourage the rural economy. The council should consider carefully its rural area and without the opportunityf or diversification many land managers will struggle to maintain the rural landsacpe. It is felt that the balance as set out in this policy is still weighed against the rural economy.