This policy is unsound and not consistent with National Policy on sustainable development and potentially in conflict with the Spatial Vision above in Para 3.3. Specifically, in Para 4.13, the classification of Category A villages is based on a false premise rather than on proportionate evidence.

This policy effectively permits district planners to expand the boundaries of remote rural villages at will, at the expense of precious countryside and without regard to the best interest of the community, simply in order to meet the District's overall housing totals.

This goes beyond the vision in Para 3.3 above, which makes it clear that this should be only where needed for villages to thrive. The background documents relating to this policy make the argument in terms of preventing social and economic harm. This is a false premise. Just because a village has a primary school, which may be (as is the case in Whitwell) already full and thriving, it does not follow that the village needs to expand to become a town, at the expense of valuable countryside. Smaller village have a special character and community spirit that should be fostered and protected.

Furthermore, where the nearest secondary schools, supermarkets, train stations, shopping and employment, are all many miles away by private car through narrow country lanes (as is also the case in Whitwell), this is clearly contrary to the NPPF on sustainability.

Before designating a village as in need of expansion (Category A), specific local evidence should be gathered on a case by case basis, with regard to housing need and demand, views of the community, and sustainability, including daily travel patterns and carbon impact