Yes

Yes

No, but the plan should give equal weight to the interests of the existing population as well as dealing with new development and growth.

No

We are concerned that the plan as currently envisaged will leave many unanswered questions and could rely too heavily on the production of Site Allocation Plans or Neighbourhood Development Plans. The comments we have made above suggest some ways in which the level of uncertainty could be reduced and would urge them to be taken up. The Call for Sites is an important part of the plan making process but would appear destined to leave many site promoters uncertain of their position, potentially for a considerable length of time. This could be addressed, at least in part, by providing greater certainty on the scale and distribution of growth across the plan area and by providing for a strategic level of growth on small sites (i.e. with a capacity of less than 50 dwellings for housing and say less than 10 hectares for employment).

No

The emerging plan appears to have an urban focus whereas half of the plan area’s populations live in rural areas. This potential for growth to be used to improve services and facilities across the rural area does not appear to be recognized or deployed to the extent that it reasonably could and should be used. Urban areas are already relatively congested whereas smaller a scale of growth can be accommodated in rural areas and this could, as an example, help support or enhance limited public transport services across many areas.

Yes

It could be argued that in consideration of equality and inclusivity the interests of people who live in rural areas are not sufficiently recognized by the plan through its apparent urban focus. In other words, there could be a form spatial discrimination. It might be that the focus of the plan on the scale and provision of new housing and strategic employment opportunities is a reason behind this.