269 is a ceiling figure and not a baseline figure, in view of the site constraints and as demonstrated by a current (undetermined) planning application

At least 269 is misleading and infers a 'bottom line' requirement whilst 315 has been mooted by the site's promoter. To deliver the necessary green infrastructure and biodiversity promotion and creation on this land, together with the necessary SUDS that will be required, then 269 is a ceiling figure and not a baseline figure.

As the examination process will have to take a fairly broad brush approach to density, this site is constrained by the GI + biodiversity aspirations above + SUDS engineering but is also constrained by the setting of a Grade II building, a conservation area, the settlement boundary with a wychert wall and the need to promote development nested within its landscape setting. For these reasons and looking at the evidence put before the Inspector a more appropriate allocation should be lower but no higher than 269

AVDC officer note: changed to MM085 as this representation concerns only changes to policy D-HAD007.