150408 Persimmon Homes Severn Valley comment St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation On Wednesday, 8 April 2015, 16:54, "Davis, Paul" <paul.davis@persimmonhomes.com> wrote: See below and attached Paul Davis Strategic Land Director Please note our new address and contact details as of the 11th August will be: Persimmon Homes Severn Valley Davidson House Newfoundland Way Portishead Bristol BS20 7QE Switchboard: 01275 396000 Mobile: 07836528318 paul.davis@persimmonhomes.com www.persimmonhomes.com From: Davis, Paul Sent: 08 April 2015 16:46 To: 'clerkssco@yahoo.com' Subject: St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation. I attach comments on behalf of persimmon Homes Severn Valley on the St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt. Regards Paul Davis Strategic Land Director Persimmon Homes Severn Valley, Davidson House, 106 Newfoundland Way. Portishead, Bristol, BS20 7QE paul.davis@persimmonhomes.com 01275 396000
Our Ref. PD/CP 8 April 2015 Simon Davies Parish Clerk St Cuthbert (Out) Parish Council Email: clerks@yahoo.com Dear Mr Davies Re: St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan 2015 2029, Pre-submission Consultation I set out below comments on behalf Persimmon Homes Severn Valley (PHSV) on the Presubmission Consultation Draft on the St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan. Legal Requirements The Neighbourhood Plan has to meet the Basic Conditions set out in Paragraph 8 (2) of Schedule 48 to the Town and Country Plan Act 1990 and in relation to Neighbourhood Plans by Section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Basic Conditions are as follows: 8 (2) a Draft Order meets the Basic Conditions if: - (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Having regard to National Policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the Order, Having special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, it is appropriate to make the Order. Having special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area, it is appropriate to make the Order, The making of the Order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development, The making of the Order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan for the area of the Authority (or any part of that area), The making of the order does not breach, any is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations, and Prescribed conditions are met in relation to the Order and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the Order.
In relation to the Basic Conditions, firstly the requirement to produce a Basic Conditions Statement to accompany the Neighbourhood Plan does not appear to have been met and we have been unable to find a Basic Conditions Statement on the Neighbourhood Plan website. It is a legal requirement to produce a Basic Conditions Statement and therefore the Plan fails to meet this requirement. Secondly we consider the Plan fails to meet Basic Condition 8 (2) (f) because it does not contain an adequate assessment of the need for SEA contrary to this condition. There is no SEA document to support the Neighbourhood Plan and neither is there a Screening Opinion from Mendip District Council to conclude whether there is any significant environmental affects arising from the Neighbourhood Plan. NPPG on Strategic and Environmental Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal in Paragraph 028 says: Where the Local Planning Authority determines that the Plan is unlikely to have significant environmental effects (and, accordingly, does not require environmental assessment), it should prepare a Statement of its reasons for its determination. Where a Statement of Reasons is provided in respect of a Neighbourhood Plan a copy of the Statement should be provided to the Qualifying Body in order that the Statement can be made available to the Independent Examiner, for example by including it in the Basic condition Statement As the St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan contains no Environmental Statement, no Statement of Reasons and no Basic Conditions Statement it comprehensively fails the Basic Conditions. Thirdly a number of the individual Policies also fail Basic Conditions and these are outlined in comments which follow. Where the Neighbourhood Plan fails to meet the Basic Conditions it follows that it also fails to meet the guidance in the NPPF. In particular Paragraph 184 says Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with Strategic Policies of the Local Plan, and that Neighbourhood Plans should reflect these Policies and a Neighbourhood should plan positively to support them. We commend the research and evidence used in the preparation of the Plan. However some evidence is included within individual chapters of the Neighbourhood Plan itself and some is set out in the Bibliography. It would help if all the evidence was identified comprehensively in one place in order to demonstrate that it meets guidance on neighbourhood planning in NPPG Paragraph 041 that policies in a Neighbourhood Plan should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence. It should be distinct to reflect and respond to the unique characteristics and planning context of the specific neighbourhood area for which it has been prepared. General Comments on Housing Persimmon Homes Severn Valley (PHSV) has interests in land West of Wells within St Cuthbert Out Parish and has commented separately on the City of Wells Neighbourhood Plan. However, there is a close relationship between development of the land West of Wells to meet housing needs in Wells and the City of Wells Neighbourhood Plan. We note in the introduction to the City of Wells NP that Wells has the most diverse local economy of any of the Mendip towns with more jobs spread over a wider range of business sectors. However equally there is a high level of in-commuting and we acknowledge that it tends to be lower skilled workers who commute in and professionals who commute out to better paid jobs in
Bristol and Bath. This is a clear indication that there needs to be a better balance between jobs and homes. However we recognise this is not just an issue of providing more homes generally but more homes of the right size, price and type in order to provide potential to enable those currently commuting in to live in Wells. The conclusion on Page 4 Of the City of Wells Neighbourhood Plan is that there is an urgent requirement therefore to plan for appropriately sized and affordable housing units. This confirms that the need for more appropriate housing in Wells is urgent. There is a need for that housing now. This is indeed confirmed by the Inspector in his report on the Mendip Local Plan Part 1. He notes in his Paragraph 124 that there is a cumulative shortfall in housing provision since 2006 on a District wide basis (8,765 dwellings compared with a target of 9,635). Also that there is a shortfall in certain settlements (for example it is anticipated that in Wells 832 will be provided from 2013 onwards which when added to the 206 completions over the period 2006 2013 giving a total of 1,038 dwellings, which is 412 dwellings short of the target for Wells of 1,450). In the context of the St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan a proportion of that housing has to be provided in the Parish. However, the issue then needs to be considered is whether those numbers are deliverable. For Wells the expected housing delivery rate is an annual target provision of 65 dwellings per annum as set out in Local Plan Policy CP2 (i.e. 1,450 dwellings). From the latest housing trajectory for Mendip (December 2014), in the period 2006 2014 only 237 dwellings were built, averaging 30 dwellings per annum and therefore more than 50% below the required build rate. This results in a shortfall of 283 dwellings (65 DPA x 8 years = 420 requirement 237 completions). If, in accordance with Government Policy to significantly boost the supply of housing, this shortfall was addressed in a shorter period of time, i.e. the next 5 years, the required build rate would increase to a figure of about 122 dwellings per annum (65 DPA x 5 years = 325 requirement + 283 shortfall = 608 dwellings). The proposed delivery for the next 5 years at Wells taken from the Councils housing trajectory is as follows: 2014/2015 125 2015/2016 166 2016/2017 102 2017/2018 140 2018/2019 108 The committed and approved figures for Wells are also strongly dependent on the implementation of a small number of large sites where development has not commenced or where it is unclear when it will do so. These are as follows: The former Nutricia site at Glastonbury Road was granted full planning permission, subject to conditions, in April 2013 for 143 dwellings. Outline planning permission was granted for 173 dwellings on the former Thales site at Wookey Hole Road in April 2013 (2012/0700). A reserved matters application was submitted in August 2014 (2014/1763).
In terms of the northern development area for 160 dwellings and a Primary School, no applications for the approval of reserved matters have yet been made and there are a number of pre-commencement conditions. An outline planning application was submitted on land South West of Glastonbury Road in November 2013 for 150 dwellings which was approved with conditions in October 2014 (2013/2306). Therefore in conclusion there are doubts about the sufficiency of the overall numbers for both the District generally and Wells specifically and also about the deliverability of a number of the existing development sites in and adjoining the City. Land controlled by PHSV and Taylor Wimpey West of Wells is in hands of developers who want to develop the site as soon as possible and would begin development as soon as planning permission is granted. Aims, Vision Statements and Objectives We are concerned that the Aims, Vision Statements and Objectives are centred almost entirely on St Cuthert (Out) Parish and do not take enough account of the relationship of the Parish with Wells. There is a close relationship between the two Plans in respect of meeting development needs. Indeed in commenting on the boundary definition for the Plans we suggested that it would be preferable if there was a single Neighbourhood Plan for the twoareas. This was rejected on the basis there would be close co-operation and joint working on the two Plans. Therefore we are disappointed that there is little evidence of this in the Neighbourhood Plan. We consider there should be a section in the Plan relating to the development needs for Wells outside the City boundary within St Cuthbert Out Parish. The Aims, Vision and Objectives are also largely constructed on the basis that St Cuthbert (Out) is a single community, whereas in reality it consists of a number of communities. So, for example the first aim should be to achieve balanced and sustainable communities. Similar changes should be made to other aims, visions and objectives. Then again the relationship with Wells also needs to be addressed, in particular in relation to the first 2 objectives concerning sustainability and where improving the sustainability of St Cuthbert (Out) generally will be heavily dependent on provision of facilities and services in Wells. That is a wholly different objective to improving the sustainability of individual settlements within the Parish. All of this suggests there should be 2 separate objectives dealing with the sustainability relationship with Wells and improving the sustainability of villages in the Parish. A number of policies use the generic term developers of sites. As different policies relate to different sizes of sites, it would be more helpful if all policies, rather than referring to developers of sites, referred to precisely what size sites that policy relates to, by including the applicability guidance as part of the policy. Building We have set out some general comments in relation to housing provision above. Specifically in relation to the Building section in the Neighbourhood Plan, we welcome the fact that the Plan proposes no specific alterations to Mendip District Local Plan Policies relating to Wells and recognises that a significant proportion of this growth will in fact be in SCOP. We also
note these policies are currently subject to a legal challenge which result in subsequent changes. Building Policy 1 to be absolutely clear firstly the text should ensure say that the need to consult and test in the policy does not apply to sites allocated in the Mendip Local Plan. Secondly, contrary to the assertion on page 14, the policy does not comply with both the NPPF and Mendip Local Plan which do not contain a sequential test in dealing with previously developed land. The test in NPPF paragraph 14 is to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value and Core Policy 1 of the Adopted Local Plan where the emphasis is on maximising the reuse of appropriately previously developed sites and other land within existing settlement limits. Therefore we consider this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) to have regard to the NPPF and Basic Condition 8 (2) (e) because it is not in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan for the area. Building Policy 2 as the notes indicate this is a requirement to be taken into account in submitting planning applications and a specific policy is unnecessary. Building Policy 3 The policy largely repeats Mendip Local Plan Policy DP14, but includes additional requirements which are not appropriate. Firstly it is not appropriate to have a policy requirement to target first time buyers and military personne l. This is a sales and marketing issue not land use planning issue. Even if it were appropriate we can find no evidence in the Plan to justify targeting these groups. Mobility housing is addressed in the National Housing Standards Review and is properly dealt with in the Building Regulations and does not need to be duplicated in planning policy. There is no evidence to support the provision of self-build homes. NPPG says Plan makers should, therefore, consider surveying local residents, possibly as part of any wider surveys, to assess local housing need for this type of housing, and compile a local list of people who want ot build their own homes. Such a survey would have been appropriate for a Neighbourhood Plan and should be a prerequisite for any policy requirement. Even so self build housing is not necessarily appropriate on all housing sites where it would affect design and layout, phasing (ie different build programmes), Section 106 contributions and viability. Therefore we consider this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) to have regard to the NPPF and Basic Condition 8 92) (e) because it goes beyond the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan for the area. Building Policy 5 Housing Design. PHSV consider the second part of this policy should be deleted because it relates to matters covered in the National Housing Standards Review and is a matter for the Building Regulations. Therefore this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) because it is not in conformity with National Guidance. Building Policy 6 Renewable Energy Generation. PHSV consider the requirement to provide for on-site significant renewable energy is unclear and contrary to NPPF paragraph 97 where new development should identify opportunities for renewable energy supply systems.
Therefore this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) because it is not in conformity with National Guidance. Building Policy 7 Provision for disabilities, is now covered by the new 2015 Building Regulations. NPPG Housing Optional Technical Standards (56-005-20150327) provides new guidance on the evidence requirements for providing the new standards. Therefore this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) because it is not in conformity with National Guidance. Community Community Policy 1 Employment opportunities - there is no policy justification either in National or Local policy for requiring developers to provide information on where occupiers will work. The problem identified in the Neighbourhood plan is overstated. The Local Plan identifies at paragraph 5.37 that there is in fact a shortfall of around 1500 workers compared to jobs and so there is also an in-commuting issue which provision of more housing will address. Hence the allocation of land West of Wells, in accordance with the Local Plan Strategy to address this issue. Therefore we consider this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) to have regard to National Guidance and Basic Condition 8 92) (e) because it goes beyond the strategic policies contained in the Development Plan for the area. Community Policy 3 New facilities for the community - the policy justification refers to a shortfall in facilities as a result of development in the last 20 years. In is not appropriate in accordance with the CIL Regulations for policies to seek to address existing shortfalls and issues. Therefore this policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) because it is not in conformity with National Guidance. Community Policy 4 it is not clear how developers can be expected to submit an agreed plan in advance of their planning application which is the mechanism through conditions for agreeing such a plan. Communications Communications Policy 1 Improved telecommunications connectivity. Telecommunications are delivered by private utility providers and it is not the responsibility of developers to fund improvements to the existing network. Communications Policy 2 Reducing road disruption near developments it is a requirement on larger developments to provide a Construction Management Plan. If it is intended this policy should apply to smaller developments it should say so. Responsibility for works to the highway lies with the Highway Authority, in this case Somerset County Council, not developers.
Communications Policy 3 Consultation on Cycle Routes and Footpaths the policy cannot demand a general contribution to the improvement of footpath and cycle routes which would be contrary to the CIL regulations. Any contributions have to be related to the application and viability. Therefore the policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) to have regard to National Policies. Communications Policy 4 Development should not be required to provide access to specific venues. As above, contributions to new cycle and footpath routes have to be related to the development. Therefore the policy specifically fails Basic Condition 8 (2) (a) to have regard to National Policies. Natural Environment Natural Environment Policy 1 Minimise the impact on the countryside we accept consultation with the community is important but it would be more appropriate to say concerns should be addressed by the planning application not modifications to it. Natural Environment Policy 3- Restoration or creation of habitats we suggest the policy should say they have been involved with rather than consulted with. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of these comments and take them into account in progressing the St Cuthbert (Out) Neighbourhood Plan. I further confirm that as the comments contain a number of formal objections to the Plan setting out that the Plan fails to meet the Basic Conditions, that when an Examiner is appointed PHSV formally request that the Examiner undertake a Hearing into the Neighbourhood Plan where PHSV can be properly represented so that the above objections can be fully examined. Yours sincerely Paul Davis Strategic Land Director