The forthcoming JR of the Tattenhall NP will establish one hopes to what extent allocations in them are covered by the SEA directive.
But what an appallingly worded policy that is causing all the fuss.
“large scale, inappropriate development along existing village boundaries will not be supported by the community”.
Did not the examiner (not a planner) or Chester West and Cheshire’s planners not think this wording is a pile of doggy do do.
-‘Innappropriate development’ not defined is a technical term that applies only to Green Belt.
-‘Along existing village boundaries’ you would meet the policy by leaving the narrowest of gaps.
-‘will not be supported by the community’ – not an issue for a plan but another material consideration. An agreed NP is part of the development plan, so all it needs to say is whether it would or would not be approved. This says neither and is ambiguous.