Norton St Philip Parish Council LPP2 Hearing Statement August 2020
Matter 4- Consideration of the 6 sites suggested in the Main Modifications
Please also refer to the “joint submission” made on behalf of Beckington, Rode and NSP PCs by DLA Piper
4.1 No comment
4.2 Sites at Primary Villages
(i) Are these sites sustainable as sites for new homes, and are there ownership or other delivery constraints?
1. There is little or no local employment in NSP. Further development is likely to lead to an increase in the already prevalent ‘out commuting’.
2. Development of NSP01 would result in an unacceptable extension into the open countryside and have a severe negative impact on the views from the south, including the setting of the Westbury White Horse.
3. Concerns have been raised by Historic England about the impact of development on the Conservation Area1 . They consider that this, inter alia, results in the Draft Plan being unsound. These concerns have not been addressed in the Council’s Statement of Consultation(SoC).
4. Concerns have also been expressed by CPRE who object to the allocation on grounds of harm to Heritage assets and the potential for over dominant and incongruous development2 . These concerns are also not addressed in the SoC.
5. In commenting on the recent Planning Application for this site3 (and others around the existing FF development) the Local Lead Flood Authority expressed concern that the SuDS was not operating effectively and that the proposal for the southern part of NSP01 was “not considered to be a sustainable means of drainage”.
1 MM Consultation Response 012
2 MM Consultation Response 075 3 Planning Application 2019/2976 NSP PC Page 134 of (ii) How much weight should be given to the recent planning appeal decisionsin relation to sites NSP1 and BK1, and in particular, have any material considerations changed since these appeals were dismissed?
6. NSP1 has been the subject of two Appeals in recent years following refusal by the Council. The decisions are attached as Appendices.
7. The Inspectors on both occasions refused permission on the basis of principle of development.
8. No material considerations considered at these Appeals have changed other than the loss of 5 year housing supply.
9. The other issues remain: harm to heritage assets, landscape and character of the area.
10. A planning application including site NSP01 was withdrawn in June 2020, following over 180 objections from village residents.
11. The Council’s Conservation Officer also objected, stating that “The proposed development of this triangle site would negatively impact upon the rural landscape setting of the Conservation Area including the historic approach through that setting, thereby causing harm”.
12. Since the 2001 & 2015 Appeal Decisions NSP has prepared a Draft Neighbourhood Plan.
13. The referendum planned for October 2019 was halted by an Injunction obtained by Lochailort Investments Ltd.
14. The subsequent High Court JR Hearing dismissed the claim on all counts, but the Injunction remains pending completion of legal proceedings.
15. The judgement of the Court of Appeal is currently awaited. Nevertheless, the NP carries significant weight when considering planning proposals.
16. The NP was referred to by the Council’s Planning Policy Officer in her objection comment on the recent planning application submitted for this site (and others).
NSP PC Page 234 of (iii) What other sustainability issues should the Plan have regard to in relation to these sites?
17. Although NSP01 is not designated LGS in the NP there are design and biodiversity criteria set in the NP for any new development.
18. Policy 5 (Promoting Locally-Responsive Good Design) specifies that the ‘Green Corridors” should be maintained as a key definition of the village form.
19. Although this is maintained on the Triangle site, with the retention of the Tree Belt, there is no attempt to provide a green corridor on the southern part of the site.
20. Providing this corridor is vital to protect and maintain the habitat and existence of the many forms of wildlife that can be seen in the area.
21. The impact on Mackley Lane will be severe. It is a single track country lane bordered by high hedges. There is no footway.
22. Widening Mackley Lane would mean removing the ancient and well established hedgerow bordering the site.
23. The junction with Frome Road would not meet Highways standards without significant works resulting in substantial harm to the appearance of this part of the village. This has not been considered by the Council.
24. The Council’s Conservation Officer, in considering the recent (withdrawn) planning application noted that “If approved, the resultant scale of both developments would not be commensurate with the size of the existing village, and would increase the estate's prominence, especially in long distance views from the south. This would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Conservation Area and would dilute the historic significance of the village.”
25. Further objections were lodged by the Lead Local Flood Authority, CPRE and over 180 village residents.
26. The lack of local employment has not been addressed.
NSP PC Page 334 of 4.3 Other sites within the NE of the District
In the light of the consideration of the sites identified in sections 4.1 and 4.2 above, are there any other sites, either on the edge of Midsomer Norton/ Radstock, or within the three Primary Villages identified above, or in any other settlements in the north-east of the District, which are considered to be more sustainable for the allocation of new development to meet the additional 505 dwellings total? If so, what is the evidence?
27. The PC continue to question, and can not understand, why Frome was excluded from the ‘area of search’ as it is the major town in the District.
28. It is a sustainable location able to take additional homes and employment land.
29. It has excellent road connections and an expanding rail service.
30. It has not yet provided its LPP1 allocation.
31. A sustainable urban extension, such as those proposed at Selwood Garden Village or Rodden Farm would be appropriate development.
32. In NSP, the PC has had a ’pre-app’ presentation for a site outside of the southern end of the development limit.
33. This is a large site (14acres) and the landowner has suggested at a Meeting of the PC that substantial public benefits would be offered as part of the planning proposal.
34. To date no planning application has been made and as such the PC has not formulated any view. It would only do so having consulted with the community.
For these reasons, together with further detail given in our Consultation Response, we submit that Main Modifications MM09 and MM 114 are unsound.
Over : (a) Appendix 1. 2001 Appeal Decision p 5-16 (b) Appendix 2. 2015 Appeal Decision p 17-34
NSP PC Page 434 of Appendix 1
Appeal ref APP/Q3305/A/01/1060390 dated 21/08/2001
Paragraphs of particular relevance to LPP2 Hearings:
Paras 29-31. Sustainability
Paras 40-42; 48; 53. Setting. Character and appearance. Conservation Area
(Appendix 2 starts at p17)
NSP PC Page 534 of
Appendix 2
Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2221776 dated 28/04/2015
Paragraphs of particular relevance:
Paras 33-34. Character of village/ Conservation Area
Paras 35-41; 44-45. Character of Triangle
Paras 57-58. Drainage
Para 80. MDC Spatial Strategy
Para 83. Conclusion on harm to character and appearance of village, Conservation Area
NSP PC Page 1734 of
Appeal Decisions Hearing held on 3 and 4 March 2015 Site visit carried out on the afternoon of 3 March 2015
by Mrs J A Vyse DipTP DipPBM MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 28 April 2015
Appeal A: APP/Q3305/A/14/2221776 East site, Laverton Triangle, Norton St Philip BA2 7PE The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Lochailort Investments Limited against the decision of Mendip District Council. The application No 2013/2052, dated 25 September 2013, was refused by a notice dated 9 June 2014. The proposal, as described on the application form, comprises residential development of up to 20 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.
Appeal B: APP/Q3305/A/14/2224073 West land adjacent to Fortescue Street, Norton St Philip BA2 7PE The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Lochailort Investments Limited against the decision of Mendip District Council. The application No 2013/2033, dated 25 September 2013, was refused by a notice dated 11 June 2014. The development proposed, as described on the application form, comprises residential development of up to 49 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.
Decisions
1. For the reasons that follow, Appeal A is dismissed.
2. For the reasons that follow, Appeal B is dismissed.
Application for Costs
3. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by the Council against Lochailort Investments Limited. That application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matters
4. Both appeals relate to outline applications with all matters reserved for future consideration. Notwithstanding the descriptions of development as set out above, which are taken from the application forms, the proposal the subject of Appeal B was amended prior to the application being determined by the Council, to include a community hall and associated parking, and an area of parking for existing village residents.
5. At the start of the Hearing, it was also requested that the scheme the subject of Appeal A should be considered as being for up to 18 dwellings, with the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
NSP PC Page 1834 of
Appeal Decisions APP/Q3305/A/14/2221776 and APP/Q3305/A/14/2224073
Appeal B scheme being for up to 39 dwellings (reflecting the space required to accommodate the site of the proposed community hall and parking). The quantum and nature of the respective developments were clearly shown on the indicative layout plans submitted to the Council for its consideration and the Council confirmed that it had dealt with the applications on the basis of those plans, including consultation. There was no suggestion at the Hearing that I should proceed other than on the basis of those plans, and I have no reason to believe that those with an interest in the outcome of this appeal would be unduly prejudiced were I to determine the proposals on the same basis. That is what I shall do.
6. In December 2014, subsequent to the Council’s determination of the applications and the lodging of the appeals, the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 Part 1: Strategies and Policies was adopted. Although the Plan is currently the subject of a legal challenge (insofar as it relates to the amount of new housing required) it provides, for the time being, the starting point for planning decisions.
7. The reasons for refusal in relation to both applications include reference to the absence of a mechanism to secure the provision of affordable housing, recreation space, and the management and maintenance of surface water drainage facilities. However, Unilateral Undertakings were submitted with the appeals.1 In response to queries of mine, revised Undertakings were submitted during the Inquiry and the related discussion was based on those amended documents.2 I return later to the obligations secured.
Planning History/Background
8. In February 2011, planning permission was granted, subject to a Section 106 Agreement, for the erection of 51 dwellings, a shop and three commercial units on a former chicken processing factory within the village (the Faccenda site).3 That development, now known as Fortescue Fields, was nearing completion at the time of the Hearing. Prior to that approval, two applications for development of the site had previously been refused and were subsequently dismissed at appeal.4 The larger of the two schemes included what was described in the linked appeal decisions as a small triangular shaped field to the south-east of the industrial Faccenda site. It is that land, known locally as the Laverton Triangle, which is the subject of Appeal A. Neither of the previous appeals included the land the subject of Appeal B, which lies immediately to the west/south-west of the Fortescue Fields development.
Main Issues
9. The development limits for the village of Norton St Philip are defined by the Mendip District Local Plan 2002. It was confirmed at the Hearing that those limits remain extant unless and until they are revised by the eventual Part 2 Plan. Since both appeal schemes lie outside the development boundary, the proposals would conflict with policies CP1 and CP2 of the Part 1 Plan, which
1 Docs 7 and 8 2 Docs 23 and 24 3 Doc 5 (Application No 2010/0493) 4 Doc 6 (APP/Q3305/A/01/1060390 comprising 48 residential units, 600 square metres of employment units and a village hall, and 1060970 comprising 42 res dential un ts and 250 square metres of employment units. Both were dismissed on 21 August 2001)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
NSP PC Page 1934 of
Appeal Decisions APP/Q3305/A/14/2221776 and APP/Q3305/A/14/2224073
seek to restrict development at Primary Villages, including Norton St Philip,5 to allocated sites or sites within the development limits.
10. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes it clear that, in circumstances where Councils are unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, relevant development policies for the supply of housing should be considered as out of date.6 Against that background, I consider that the main issues common to both appeals relate to: