Following on from the above part of SHLAA site 4/BH/01a is proposed to be designated as Local Green Space as part of LGS01. The balance is proposed to be designated as Protected Open Space as part of POS02. In turn the whole of 4/BH/01b is proposed to be designated as Local Green Space as part of LGS01. As set out above NPPF para 106 states that designating land as Local Green Space should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. This policy requirement is not met, there not being any planning permissions for housing development in Brancepeth, the village envelop having been drawn tightly, site 4/BH/01a being proposed to be partly Local Green Space and partly Protected Open Space, site 4/BH/01b being proposed to be wholly Local Green Space and other sites being discounted. This is not consistent with the local planning of sustainable development or complement investment in anything. In this respect the possibility of a mixed housing / open space development has been raised with the LPA previously which could amongst other things deliver some housing and open space as part of a comprehensive development of 4/BH/01a and / or 4/BH/01b. NPPF para 106 goes on to state that Local Green Spaces should be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period. The BNP as drafted does not plan for any housing development in this plan period let alone the next. Amongst other things this is not sustainable, is in breach of the basic conditions, the NPPF and Section 99 of the LURA. For these reasons the Respondent objects to proposed designation LGS01 The Cricket Field. The Respondent has an interest in other land proposed to be designated as Local Green Space, including LGS05 : Brancepeth Allotments. The Respondent however notes the rationale behind the proposed designation and is content not to make any comment. Policy 3 The Respondent owns site POS02, the horse field. Amongst other things this land is not accessible by the public and is not used as open space, it is just open in visual terms. The Respondent objects to the proposed allocation of site POS02 as protected open space for reasons similar to their other objections to the BNP, namely that the approach is not sustainable, is not a Plan, is likely to perpetuate the aging and declining population being experienced. Additionally it does not deliver wider benefits beyond restraint. The possibility of a comprehensive approach to development in the area has been raised with the LPA previously which could amongst other things