We support the re-use of rural buildings for employment, tourism, leisure or community-related uses. However, we consider the policy in its current form to conflict with policy EMP1 which supports new build employment development on greenfield sites 'within or adjoining the built up confines of Ashford, Tenterden and the rural settlements'. Where existing rural buildings are proposed to be re-used (for example on a redundant agricultural complex) and these are located 'within or adjoining the bu

Add the following so that the bullet point d. reads: 'any impact upon the local road network can be mitigated. In the rural settlements, it must be demonstrated that the development will not generate a type or amount of traffic that would be inappropriate to the rural road network that it serves it. Mitigation should not adversely alter the character of the rural road network.' Add new bullet on parking access to read: 'sensitiveprovision can be made for parking and access;' There is no guid

As currently worded, this proposal does not offer adequate protection to AONBs from inappropriate development; the legislative and national policy requirement for development within AONBs is for proposals to conserve landscape and scenic beauty as set out in the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act and para 115 of the NPPF. The policy as worded is for a lesser general requirement for proposals to not result in any significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, para 113 o

As currently worded, this proposal does not offer adequate protection to AONBs from inappropriate development; the legislative and national policy requirement for development within AONBs is for proposals to conserve landscape and scenic beauty as set out in the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act and para 115 of the NPPF. The policy as worded is for a lesser general requirement for proposals to not result in any significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, para 113 o