5.40 Should a Neighbourhood Plan policy that will last for the foreseeable future be based on an intention? "The owner intends to complete the renovation to bring the mill back to a full operating condition, with the ability to mill grain."

5.44 The Windmill is not in The Crescent. It is located on Cambridge Road. The covenant is not a material planning consideration that can be taken into account. The covenant has in fact been lifted twice in the last 20 years - for both 3 The Crescent and 20 The Crescent. The covenant, the indenture of 27 May 1921, makes no reference to the Windmill, only to the "Purchaser" (property owner) not being "entitled to any right of light or air which would restrict or interfere with the free use of any adjoining or neighbouring land of the Company (Chivers) for building or other purpose"; and as such the covenant is not "designed to prevent further wind loss to the Windmill and to maintain the views of it" as stated in 5.44.

5.45 "Operation of the Windmill is dependent on wind from the west" - in 1909 a gas engine was installed to ensure the mill remained financially viable, ie. before the houses in The Crescent were built (in the 1920s). Wind power on its own is, therefore, insufficient to power the mill. As such a policy limiting further development to the west of the Windmill because it could result in "further loss of wind" seems entirely unreasonable.

The only other UK windmill that has adopted the Molen Biotoop method as a policy is the Cranbrook Union Windmill, a community-owned windmill high on a hill at the edge of the village. The policy has no real effect on neighbouring properties in Cranbrook. Why should the H&I Neighbourhood Plan include a policy for a privately-owned Windmill that curtails the rights of over 600 property owners?

HIM04 Property owners will be required to pay for wind assessments based on the Molen Biotoop method - how many experts are there in the UK who could carry out this work and how much would they charge?