We object to this policy since it is overly restrictive. It places tight controls on rural development, which conflicts with paragraph 28 of the NPPF. It is more akin to Green Belt policy, than paragraph 28.
This policy specifies which types of development will be permitted, however, paragraph 28 explicitly supports "the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both the through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings."
Whilst we do not object to the support for these types of development, the policy is presented as a 'closed list', implying other types of uses will not be appropriate. This conflicts with the NPPF requirement for plans to support new and converted buildings for all types of business and enterprise.
Furthermore, some of the development types within the list have additional provisions which limits the support given, in conflict with the NPPF.
The inclusion of the words "permanent and substantial" in criterion g) is taken from Green Belt policy and is contrary to the provisions for re-use set out in NPPF paragraph 55, which contains no such restriction.
Criterion h) is also taken from Green Belt policy and conflicts with the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order.
Criterion l) could allow other uses beyond those listed, however, it places the onus on the applicant to justify the proposal and demonstrate that it is compatible with a countryside location. The NPPF, in contrast, requires planning policies to "support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development."
We disagree with supporting paragraph 4.5.1 which claims the policy strikes a suitable balance between encouraging a thriving rural economy and protecting the countryside.
The reference to paragraph 17 (bullet point 5) in paragraph 4.5.3 and its recognition of the "intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside..." neglects the second half of this sentence which continues "...and supporting thriving rural communities within it."
This inherent conflict with national policy frustrates the delivery of sustainable development and as such fails the tests of soundness as set out in NPPF paragraph 182.