UPSVLP 2289
It is considered that the land referred to within our supporting statement should be removed from the Green Belt and designated instead within the Inset Settlement boundary for Croft. This land would then comprise part of the land referred to under section 3 part f of Policy GB1 and section 4 part c.
On this matter there would not appear to be any conflict between legal compliance and the duty to co-operate.
The land identified within the supporting statement should be removed from the Green Belt on the Policy Map and included within the Inset Settlement boundary of Croft.
GB1 section 3 and 4
It is considered that the Local Plan is unsound as it fails to take into consideration all appropriate sites for new Residential development which could accommodate new housing within the lifetime of the Plan.
On this matter there would not appear to be any conflict between legal compliance and the duty to co-operate.
The site referred to within our supporting statement should be allocated for Residential development.
Part 4
It is considered that Policy GB1 sub-section 3 is not sound as it does not include the removal of necessary land from the Green Belt in reference to Glazebury. It is considered that the inclusion of the land referred to in our supplementary statement within the Green Belt is an anomaly which should be rectified. The land referred to should be included within the adjacent Inset Settlement boundary of Glazebury to which its location and use relates.
On this matter there would not appear to be any conflict between legal compliance and the duty to co-operate.
The land referred to within our supporting statement should be removed from the Green Belt and designated within the adjacent Inset Settlement boundary. The land removed should then be referenced under sub-section 3 of Policy GB1 alongside the other areas of land removed from the Green Belt.
Part 3