Review of Housing and Employment Requirements for Wiltshire As a Whole

APPENDIX 1

PAPER A - WILTSHIRE HOUSING REQUIREMENT

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This paper sets out the proposed methodology to determine Wiltshire’s future housing requirements over the plan period 2006-2026. It also identifies the requirement to be used in the review of South Wiltshire Core Strategy. These figures have been generated in response to the announcement on 27 May by the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) confirming the Coalition Government’s intention to “rapidly abolish Regional Strategies (RS)”.

1.2 This intention to revoke Regional Strategies (RS) will mean that “ Local Planning Authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long-term supply of housing land without the burden of regional targets.”

1.3 Guidance issued by DCLG requires Local Authorities to justify future housing requirements and to ensure that such requirements can be defended during the LDF examination process.

1.4 In developing a housing requirement for Wiltshire it is critical that the process is transparent and that local people are able to understand the process.

1.5 Striking the balance between meeting the Wiltshire-wide housing requirement to enable Wiltshire’s communities to be more sustainable and enabling communities to understand and be more involved in the development of a local housing requirement will be central to arriving at an appropriate level of supply for Wiltshire and its community areas. While the strategic needs of Wiltshire should be met it must be recognised that the community appetite for growth might not always align with this, both in numbers and locations where growth is supported.

1.6 In order to meet this challenge, targeted consultation with representatives of local communities will need to be undertaken to help develop our understanding of the appetite for growth. This information, together with other evidence, will help inform appropriate distributions of housing for each community area that can then be balanced against an initial Wiltshire wide range. In the case of South Wiltshire, extensive consultation has already been undertaken and the results considered in the development of an appropriate requirement for that part of the area. The relationship between the South Wiltshire Core Strategy and Wiltshire Core Strategy is outlined below.

Wiltshire 2026 Consultation

1.7 In Wiltshire, two separate Core Strategies are being progressed; one for South Wiltshire and another for the whole of Wiltshire. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy is well advanced and its completion will enable new housing sites to be identified before the Wiltshire Core Strategy is in place and a 5 year housing land supply to be maintained. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy will be subsumed into the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

1.8 It is important to recognise that we are not starting from a blank sheet. Significant consultation has already been undertaken, and evidence collated, by the former district councils and Wiltshire Council to determine how future housing growth could be accommodated in Wiltshire. This should be used as a basis to develop Wiltshire’s

CM09252 App1 1 Page 117 housing requirements with the aim to achieve greater consensus with local communities.

1.9 Wiltshire Council undertook a public consultation from October until December 2009 on the document Wiltshire 2026: Planning for Wiltshire’s Future. This document, although based on housing targets identified in the draft RSS Proposed Changes version (see Appendix 1 ), proposed a distribution of development for the county (excluding South Wiltshire 1) at both town and community area level.

1.10 Analysis of the consultation responses demonstrate clear dividing lines in terms of the support, or otherwise, for growth proposals by local communities. These can be categorised into three types. The first being ‘generally opposed’ to the proposals presented. The second, ‘supportive with concerns’ and the third, ‘generally supportive’ of the proposals presented. The detailed comments received provide a useful indication as to the aspirations of residents throughout the county. A broad summary is provided in the box below.

Wiltshire 2026 Consultation - Summary of Responses

• The housing targets contained within the RSS were criticised by some and in some cases led to demands for the Council to ‘stand up’ for Wiltshire and recognise the unique rural character and dispersed settlement pattern of the county. • There was criticism that no justification for the scale of growth proposed was provided. Residents did not understand why housing was needed. • General support for an approach based on a settlement hierarchy when planning at the strategic level. • General support for directing most development towards strategic centres and market towns, although there was criticism that the method of allocation (or distribution) was too rigid and prevented natural, incremental growth of settlements, particularly in rural areas. • Development generally regarded as acceptable where it helps to improve the self-containment of a settlement. • Considered the lack of flexibility will exacerbate affordability issues, especially in rural areas.

1.11 Wiltshire Council submitted the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Development Plan Document to the Secretary of State for independent examination in November 2009. This document set out the strategy for the delivery of growth for the next 20 years to 2026. The Issues and Options South Wiltshire Core Strategy was subject to statutory consultation in July 2007, as well as prior to submission.

South Wiltshire Core Strategy

Summary of Responses

• Support for the concentration of development at Salisbury; • No evidence to justify the need to provide the scale of housing proposed; • Significant concerns regarding the ability of South Wiltshire to deliver the scale of housing proposed; • Salisbury has significant environmental constraints which restrict the scale and distribution of development; • Significant concern that the existing infrastructure will not be able to support

1 A Core Strategy has been prepared for South Wiltshire, which included a separate consultation with communities. CM09252 App1 2 Page 118 proposed development levels; and, • The proposed scale of employment land is unrealistic.

1.12 In light of the Government’s announcement to abolish RSS, the Inspector agreed to suspend the Examination in order for Wiltshire Council to review the housing and employment figures within the submitted Core Strategy. This has been undertaken as part of this comprehensive review of housing and employment requirements for Wiltshire as a whole. Given the difference between the level of housing required and considered appropriate through this paper and that in the previously emerging RSS, it is considered that some focused changes to the draft Core Strategy will be appropriate.

2.0 Identifying Wiltshire’s Strategic Housing Requirement

2.1 Existing housing requirements for Wiltshire are set down by the adopted Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 and the draft south west RSS, both are intended to be revoked through the Localism Bill. These are set out in Appendix 1 for information.

2.2 There are a number of drivers and constraints that need to be understood and used to determine the new strategic housing requirement and distribution for Wiltshire. These are described below.

Drivers: (i) Population growth - Population growth and smaller household sizes place increasing pressures and demand for additional housing.

(ii) Economy - Delivering higher levels of housing will support the economy in three ways. Firstly, additional housing will provide for a working age population that will attract employers to the area (or result in business start-ups). Secondly, the construction industry is a key employment sector that will be supported by the delivery of housing. Finally, additional housing will provide for a greater population with a corresponding increase in the disposable income of the area, which will support the local economy and vitality of town centres.

(iii) Housing need - Affordability is more acute within Wiltshire than the national average. The primary solution to tackling the affordability problem is to ensure an appropriate supply of housing as well as the provision of affordable housing, most of which is expected to be delivered through private sector housing developments with nil/lower levels of public subsidy.

(iv) Vacant and second homes - The ability to bring empty homes back into circulation will help to reduce pressures for new additional housing. While an element of empty properties is required to provide for natural turnover, long-term vacancy should be addressed. An allowance for second homes will need to be factored into future housing projections by providing additional homes to cater for this demand.

(v) Military changes – The development of the Salisbury Plain super garrison will impact upon dwelling requirements within Wiltshire, especially as military personnel will increase and will be stationed in one place for a longer period. This will result in military personnel being more inclined to access the civilian housing stock, creating additional demand for housing.

CM09252 App1 3 Page 119

Constraints: (i) Market Factors - As the local planning authority, Wiltshire Council can encourage and enable sustainable development. However, development is driven by market factors which are based on judgements of their financial viability. Therefore it is unlikely that housing delivery will exceed certain thresholds. The Council must therefore plan for realistic rates of delivery taking into account historic trends, economic circumstances and the ability of developers to bring sites forward (particularly given the reduced access to lending). It is considered appropriate to use historic rates of delivery during the buoyant market from 2001 to 2008 as providing a reasonable parameter for delivery across Wiltshire.

(ii) Infrastructure - In order to accommodate additional housing, current infrastructure needs, as well as those likely to arise through the delivery of additional housing, will need to be identified. This constraint will be considered when developing the distributions of the strategic growth requirement, at which point it will be possible to assess the local impact on infrastructure. This will need to be considered and addressed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Core Strategy to ensure the deliverability of policy.

2.3 A balance needs to be struck between these constraints and drivers while taking into consideration the need to promote sustainable development in line with the Community Plan and objectives of the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy (broadly supported through the Wiltshire 2026 consultation), which is both a driver and constraint. Future housing growth should therefore contribute to: supporting the self containment of settlements; helping address housing needs across Wiltshire; creating an economy that is flexible, adaptive and competitive; and safeguarding the natural and historic environment where possible by ensuring the impacts of development are capable of mitigation.

Development of Initial Range

2.4 Using some of the drivers, a number of projections have been undertaken to identify an initial range for consideration, as follows:

(a) A natural change projection : This assumes that no migration will occur from 2009 onwards over the plan period. It provides a baseline projection demonstrating the needs of Wiltshire’s current population alone, with an allowance for births. It is unrealistic, as we live in a free market and so there will inevitably be migration flows to areas with a high quality of life or economic prospects. However, it is used to demonstrate the resident need alone.

(b) Population-led projection : This assumes that recent trends in migration, fertility and mortality will persist for the remainder of the period. It provides the most realistic forecast of growth subject to external factors (such as dwelling delivery and economic factors). It assumes the status quo and does not necessarily take into account the effects that policy will determine (as indicated in paragraph 2.3 above).

(c) An employment-led projection : This assumes that the projected employment growth in Wiltshire will be delivered, and that the working population will grow to meet this, with the current propensity to out-commute being maintained. The projected employment growth is based on Local Economy Forecasting Model generated by Cambridge Econometrics. CM09252 App1 4 Page 120

(d) A job-alignment projection : This assumes that the projected employment growth in Wiltshire will be delivered, and that the working population will grow to meet this, but that current out-commuters will change jobs (or at least relocate) to fulfil one of the newly arising job opportunities in Wiltshire. In effect, it results in a zero net-commuting scenario.

The outputs from these projections are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Projection Results Difference 2006 - 2026 Population Households 1 Dwellings 2 (a) Natural Change 32,800 19,600 19,200 from 2009 (b) Population led 65,500 42,700 43,200

(d) Job alignment led 44,600 35,800 35,900

1A household is defined to be either a person living alone or a group of people living together with common housekeeping. 2A dwelling is defined to be a self-contained unit of accommodation other than in a communal establishment. Dwellings can be vacant or occupied for only part of the year. These are calculated as the remainder of the dwelling growth from 2001 to 2026, once completions from 2001 to 2006 are discounted.

2.5 In an open market economy a natural change projection is unrealistic as migration will occur. This is presented for illustrative purposes to indicate the need arising from the existing population and should be discounted as a policy aspiration. This leaves a range of 35,900 to 57,800 for consideration. This base range does not represent the housing requirement for Wiltshire rather it identifies a range for further refinement.

Refining the Range

2.6 In refining the range, we need to consider the constraints as well as drivers. In particular there are two fundamental influences in Wiltshire that enable a more realistic range of housing requirements to be developed: (i) Economy - the development of an economy that is fit for the future (as emphasised in the Community Plan); and (ii) Deliverability - ensuring that what is planned for is actually deliverable.

Economy

2.7 A healthy economy requires the provision of a sufficient number of economically active people to encourage economic investment in Wiltshire. If too small there won’t be available employees for new employers and employment growth, if too large employment needs will have to be met by further out commuting. Wiltshire requires enough of a workforce buffer to ensure the availability of a workforce to attract future employment investment but not so much to drive up levels of out commuting and unemployment.

CM09252 App1 5 Page 121

2.8 Delivery towards the bottom end of the projections (35,900, projection (d)) assumes that the number of employed residents will match the proposed number of jobs, with an allowance for double-jobbing (5%). This also allows for a workforce buffer, consisting of the unemployed, based on the relatively low levels of unemployment in 2001 (8,800 unemployed). It should be recognised that the buffer will increase through the reduction in public sector employment (both within Wiltshire and Wiltshire residents that out commute) for which no specific allowance is provided for in the projections.

2.9 Conversely delivery towards the top end (57,800, projection (c)) would mean an additional 26,200 residential workers who could support new employment delivery. However, this would require the timely delivery of significant new employment opportunities 2 within Wiltshire in order not to exacerbate levels of out commuting.

2.10 It is therefore a matter of aspiring to reducing the commuting flows whilst providing for future investment in employment. As such, it is recommended to plan for housing within but not at either end of the range.

Deliverability

2.11 Delivery rates achieved through the recent buoyant market (2001 to 2008), at an average of around 2,106 net additional dwellings per annum, provide an indication of what level of housing can be achieved within Wiltshire. Over a 20 year period, this equates to around 42,100, over 20% in excess of existing Structure Plan requirements and as such represents a challenging target. By comparison, since the downturn (2008 to 2010) this has fallen to an average of 1,750 net additional dwellings (which would equate to 35,000 dwellings over 20 years).

2.12 Given the current market conditions and need to identify a deliverable target, while taking into account economic considerations, it is appropriate to set the upper level of the housing requirement to be consistent with historic rates (42,100). However, it is recognised that the population-led (b) projection identifies a need for some 43,200 dwellings over the plan period 2006-2026, broadly consistent with historic rates. As such, the range for consideration should be increased to 43,200, with the lower end remaining at 35,900. This increase, also allows for the impact of the military on the civilian stock.

Testing the Range

2.13 Three delivery scenarios have been used to further test the implications of taking a different point across the range:

• Scenario 1 : Limited delivery of 35,900 dwellings. • Scenario 2 : A mid-range scenario of 39,000 dwellings. • Scenario 3 : Challenging delivery of 43,200 dwellings.

2 Employment projections involve the extrapolation of short term (rather than longer term trends) that can be optimistic and should therefore not be solely relied on to determine housing requirements. CM09252 App1 6 Page 122

Table 2: Scenario Testing

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Limited delivery Mid-range Challenging scenario scenario delivery scenario Dwelling increase 35,800 39,000 43,200 which equates to :

(i) Population increase 46,600 52,900 61,300

(ii) Household increase 34,500 37,500 41,600

(ii) Workforce increase -1,600 2,500 7,900

(iii) Jobs increase* -1,900 to 23,400 1,800 to 27,500 6,700 to 33,000

*Lower end of ‘job increase’ range based on assumption that commuting levels continue. The levels of job increase above the lower end will depend on how many economically active are able to meet their workplace requirements in Wiltshire, for example, existing out commuters changing their workplace to Wiltshire.

2.14 The following key considerations can be drawn from the table:

• The limited delivery scenario would not provide the workforce increase to support the current number of jobs in the county, if existing commuting flows are maintained; • Increasing delivery towards the upper end (provided that delivery is in appropriate locations) will have a more positive effect on improving the attractiveness of Wiltshire to employment investors, who are looking for an available workforce, supporting the economy of Wiltshire. This in turn may help provide alternative local job opportunities for those out-commuting; • Delivery towards the top end of the range will have a more positive effect on affordability of housing within Wiltshire by increasing overall supply, as well as creating greater opportunity to secure affordable housing developments.

2.15 While the lower end of the range may limit the available workforce to support employment delivery, as mentioned in paragraph 2.8, public sector job losses will increase the workforce buffer as would empty homes if they are brought back into use. Furthermore, housing delivery at this level would be within the ratio of new dwellings to new jobs used within the development of the RSS 3. It is therefore reasonable to keep this at the lower end of the range.

Sustainability Appraisal

2.16 The overall range has also been tested through Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The purpose of SA and key findings are provided at Appendix 2 . The conclusion of the SA states:

3 In the development of the RSS a ratio was generated that sought to align the number of jobs that could be delivered to the number of dwellings. In the two areas that covered Wiltshire, ratio of 1.25 and 1.5 were calculated. In order to deliver the proposed 27,690 jobs using this method would generate a requirement of 34,600 to 41,500 dwellings. CM09252 App1 7 Page 123

“Housing provision towards the lower end of the range may not achieve community and economic benefits, particularly in terms of affordable housing, attracting inward investment and infrastructure provision. Consequently, housing provision towards the higher end of the range may lead to environmental impacts that are difficult to mitigate and that may also adversely affect the achievement of other social and economic goals.

It is likely that in order to best achieve a balance between protecting and enhancing the environment and pursuing housing growth that will lead to significant social and economic benefits, a mid range housing scenario should be pursued, provided there are strong links to Core Strategy policies that will ensure housing growth is sustainable ”.

Deriving the requirement for South Wiltshire

2.17 A consistent method has been used to develop the housing requirement for South Wiltshire. Initially, the same projections as were generated for Wiltshire were generated for South Wiltshire. This identified a disparity between the employment and population based projections, whereby the population growth of the area is unlikely to be able to support the employment growth realistically. Further analysis of the Cambridge Econometric employment projection was undertaken, and it is considered that the level of growth identified is so ambitious as to be unrealistic. Nevertheless, in order to maximise the potential for employment delivery, the level of housing delivery should be as ambitious as possible, within the constraints identified, to provide for potential for employment delivery.

2.18 Deliverability was considered to be the major constraint for South Wiltshire. Unlike the remainder of Wiltshire, the area has seen delivery increase since 2005, with an average of 445 dwellings per annum. Assuming that delivery of this order could continue, South Wiltshire could deliver in the order of 8,900 dwellings across the plan period. Indeed, it may be that the level of delivery may be able to be increased in this area as the current economic downturn does not seem to have affected the deliverability of housing as it has elsewhere within Wiltshire, and as such some further analysis was undertaken.

2.19 The greatest increase in housing delivery nationally was from the 1950’s to the 1960’s reflecting a fundamental change in demand and the economy. If this scale of change were to occur in South Wiltshire (which would be ambitious), then this would result in a maximum deliverable figure of 10,600 dwellings over the plan period. However, it would require a very substantial change in local economic performance to deliver towards the top end of this range. This presents an initial range of 8,900 to 10,600, which is minimally amended in the light of the following consideration.

2.20 The demand created by the additional military population (arriving as part of the development of the Salisbury Plain super garrison) is likely to support the housing market in the area and so further housing should be able to be delivered to meet this specific need. An indicative estimate of 300 dwellings is assumed to be supported in this way (assuming the same level of housing is likely to be required per military employee as that estimated in Tidworth). This minor amendment is applied to the bottom of the range, but not to the top as this is already considered so ambitious. Therefore, the range for South Wiltshire is 9,200 to 10,600. It is considered appropriate to consider a housing requirement in the mid-point of this range at 9,900 dwellings.

CM09252 App1 8 Page 124

Proposal and next steps

2.21 Targeted consultation (see paragraph 2.22) will be used to determine the appetite for growth outside of south Wiltshire, which together with other evidence will help inform appropriate distributions of growth at community area and town level. This will help identify where in the range the housing requirement for Wiltshire should be. The proposed housing range for Wiltshire over the period 2006 to 2026 has been identified as 35,900 to 43,200 net additional dwellings. This is intended to strike a balance between realistic delivery and encouraging economic growth within Wiltshire, while ensuring sustainable patterns of development within environmental limits. The upper limit is a reduction on the scale of housing proposed through the Proposed Changes version of the RSS (44,400 net additional dwellings), while the lower limit is a small increase from the levels in the adopted Structure Plan, assuming that the development to the West of Swindon was included within the Wiltshire target (35,000 net additional dwellings).

2.22 It is proposed that an overall requirement and distribution of housing should be included within the draft Core Strategy, which will be widely consulted on in Spring 2011. The targeted consultation will be with Representatives of local communities at meetings focused on towns to take place late February/March. This is only applicable to the Community Areas outside of South Wiltshire due to the ongoing South Wiltshire Core Strategy examination process, which is expected to determine the requirement for South Wiltshire.

2.23 The meetings with local community representatives should build upon previous consultations, particularly Wiltshire 2026, to verify (in the majority of areas) or to re-assess the aspirations for development within each community area, using up-to-date evidence to assist the community to explore the likely impacts of various levels of housing delivery.

CM09252 App1 9 Page 125

Annex 1: Wiltshire Housing Requirements

1. Existing housing targets for Wiltshire are set down by the adopted Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 and the draft south west RSS, both are intended to be revoked through the Localism Bill.

2. The draft RSS targets were based on initial evidence provided by Wiltshire County Council through the submission of Section 4(4) advice. These were subsequently revised during the Examination in Public (EiP) of the RSS. The Proposed Changes version of the RSS identified the most recent regional strategic housing requirements for Wiltshire. Table 1 shows the evolution of Wiltshire’s housing requirements.

Table 1 Wiltshire & Section Draft RSS RSS Swindon 4(4) Advice 2006-2026 Proposed Area Structure Plan (approved (published Changes 2016 (adopted by Cabinet June 2006) (published April 2006) September July 2008) 2005) 1996 - 2016 2006 – 2026 East 5,250 5,000 5,000 6,000 North 10,000 1 11,000 2 10,000 3 13,700 4 South 8,000 9,000 9,200 12,400 West 11,750 10,500 10,500 12,300 Wiltshire 35,000 35,500 34,700 44,400 Total 1 Includes 1,000 dwellings at the western edge of Swindon within Wiltshire and/or Swindon Borough. 2 Includes 2,000 dwellings at the western edge of Swindon within Wiltshire and or Swindon Borough. 3 Includes a requirement to provide 1,000 dwellings at the western edge of Swindon within Wiltshire 4 Includes a requirement to provide 3,000 dwellings at the western edge of Swindon within Wiltshire

CM09252 App1 10 Page 126

Annex 2: Sustainability Appraisal

1. A sustainability appraisal (SA) has been undertaken on the proposed range of net additional dwellings to be provided in Wiltshire over the plan period (2006 to 2026) to ensure that sustainability considerations have been taken into account. SA forms a key part of the development plan process helping ensure that sustainable development is pursued in an integrated manner to reflect environmental, social and economic objectives. Key findings from the SA include:

(i) Housing provision is likely to lead to significant benefits in terms of economic development and social inclusion, but also significant negative impacts on the environment, particularly at the higher end of the range, if appropriate mitigation measures are not fully incorporated;

(ii) Housing provision can support the local economy by providing a working age population that may attract employers to the area (or result in business start ups).

(iii) Corresponding disposable income in Wiltshire, from an increased population, would help support local economy and viability of town centres.

(iv) Vital that housing development is supported by significant increase in employment provision to help reduce already significant levels of out-commuting, by allowing people the choice to work more locally.

(v) Any housing provision in the range is likely to have adverse impacts on natural environment (loss of greenfield and high value agricultural land; pressures on water resources; increased greenhouse gas emissions; effects of housing development and consequent increased population on need to travel) but many are capable of mitigation through careful consideration of location and incorporating sustainability principles into new developments.

(Wiltshire’s Housing Requirements - Sustainability Appraisal, January 2011’)

CM09252 App1 11 Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 128 APPENDIX 2

PROPOSED CHANGES TO SOUTH WILTSHIRE CORE STRATEGY

The proposed focused changes arising from the review of the housing and employment requirements of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Draft are set out below. All other changes are consequential to these and are not shown here.

All changes including consequential changes are available to view on http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=944&Ver=4

Underlined text represents new text within the South Wiltshire Core Strategy, strike through text represents deletions. Please note this represents changes to the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Draft as proposed by the Council in light of this review.

Page numbers have been provided that correspond with those in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Draft (July 2009).

Page 30: Strategic Objective 2

Strategic Objective 2: To provide everyone with access to a decent, affordable home. This Strategy makes provision for 12,400 9,900 new homes in south Wiltshire to meet demand up to 2026. It sets out a plan for an appropriate mix of types, sizes and tenures, particularly in order to address affordable housing needs. It identifies deliverable strategic sites to ensure there is a rolling five-year supply of housing.

Desired outcomes:

• The delivery of 12,400 9,900 new homes carefully managed to be in the most sustainable location and to respect the local character. Well over half the number will have been built in or around Salisbury, with significant growth in Amesbury. • More modest growth proportionate to the size of the settlement will have been delivered in the local centres of Mere, Downton, Wilton and Tisbury. • The Strategy has addressed the shortfall in affordable homes across south Wiltshire through ensuring a minimum of 40% of such homes have been delivered in all new schemes of 15 or more houses and 25% on developments of 5 to 14 houses. • All new homes meet the Lifetime Homes Standards, to allow more of the ageing population to live in their own communities. • New homes have delivered water efficiency improvements and where possible, will be low carbon or carbon neutral. • The regeneration of the UK Land Forces HQ in Wilton with a significant number of new homes matched by employment opportunities will have taken place. • The regeneration of Salisbury will have been achieved through a residential led mixed-use development on the Churchfields Estate. • New pitches will have been provided for gypsies and travellers.

Headline performance indicator:

Net additional homes provided per year (National indicator 154 to be monitored through AMR).

Target: average of 620 495 new homes per year.

Page 31: Strategic Objective 3

Strategic Objective 3: To deliver a thriving economy which provides a range of job opportunities to match a growing population and where traditionally strong sectors, such as scientific research and development, continue to be world leaders.

CM09252 App2 Page 129 To facilitate economic growth in a sustainable manner, this Strategy will deliver the following outcomes over the next 20 years:

Desired outcomes:

• Land will have been identified in sustainable locations to provide for about 13,900 10,400 new jobs up to 2026. • The business aspirations of Porton Down, Boscombe Down, Salisbury District Hospital and the MOD will have been delivered. • Growth sectors specific to south Wiltshire, such as biotechnology and military sectors will have been successfully facilitated. • Relocation of businesses from the Churchfields Estate to more unconstrained locations will have been implemented. • The regeneration projects identified through the Salisbury Vision, such as redevelopment of the Maltings/Central Car Park will have been delivered. • The loss of 1200 jobs caused by the relocation of the UK Land Forces HQ away from Wilton will have been mitigated. • Strategic employment growth will have been designed to meet RSS and building regulation environmental targets in order to contribute to the delivery of a low carbon economy.

Headline performance indicator:

Creation of new jobs per year (monitored on NOMIS figures at www.nomisweb.co.uk and reported in AMR). Target: average of 690 520 jobs per annum (as per RSS requirement)

Page 45: Core Policy 1

Core Policy 1 - The Settlement Strategy and distribution of growth in south Wiltshire

This Strategy plans for the delivery of 12,400 9,900 dwellings and 13,900 10,400 jobs over the period to 2026. The growth required to meet local needs will be accommodated in the following manner:

Salisbury and Wilton Community Areas

Salisbury and Wilton. Planned growth: 7,480 6220 homes and 36 29 ha (30 23 ha new allocation and 6 ha saved) of employment land. A retail-led mixed-use development is also planned.

The city of Salisbury is identified as a Strategically Significant City or Town ("SSCT") under Development Policy A of the RSS. Salisbury is the primary service, economic and cultural centre for south Wiltshire and, in line with RSS, will remain the focal point for the majority of new development in south Wiltshire.

Wilton Community Area Planned growth: Wilton Local Service Centre: 620 homes, 3 ha of employment land Rest of Wilton Community Area: 950 220 homes

Wilton is the Local Service Centre for its Community Area and relates to Development Policy B in the RSS . The proximity of Salisbury to the east means that Wilton has a functional relationship with its larger neighbour but retains an identity of its own. The UK Land Forces HQ in Wilton is a strategically important regeneration site, which will deliver employment and housing. The Community Area has three secondary villages (equivalent to RSS Development Policy C), which are Broad Chalke, Dinton and Great Wishford, where limited growth will be appropriate .

Amesbury Community Area Planned growth: Amesbury Service Centre: 1960 2100 homes. Rest of Amesbury Community Area: 690 295 homes, 17 ha of employment land CM09252 App2 Page 130

Amesbury, with support from Durrington and Bulford, is the Service Centre for the area. Although these settlements are distinct from one another, their close geographical and functional relationships between Amesbury, Durrington and Bulford mean that they constitute a unique group of settlements within south Wiltshire that neither conforms to the SSCT category nor is not directly comparable with any other category of settlement. the Local Service Centres or any of the Village categories. Amesbury Community Area contains the majority of allocated employment land in south Wiltshire (outside Salisbury of the SSCT ), including land at Solstice Park, Boscombe Down and Porton Down. Porton, Shrewton, and Tilshead are secondary villages in this community area, as well as “The Winterbournes” collectively. These settlements conform to Development Policy C of the RSS and perform a complementary role to Amesbury, Durrington and Bulford, each having a range a more local of services, which serve the surrounding areas.

Southern Wiltshire Community Area Planned Growth: Downton Local Service Centre: 190 300 homes Rest of Southern Wiltshire Community Area: 550 365 homes

Downton is a large settlement providing a good level of services and performs the role of Local Service Centre for this Community Area. It provides a good source of employment with one of eight strategically important employment sites in south Wiltshire located in Downton. The secondary villages (equivalent to RSS Development Policy C) in the Southern Wiltshire Community Area are Alderbury, Coombe Bissett, Morgan’s Vale/Woodfalls, Pitton, Whiteparish and The Winterslows. These villages provide a reasonable level of local services and facilities where modest growth will be appropriate. The proximity of Salisbury to the north means that a number of settlements located in the northern part of this community area have a much stronger functional relationship with the City performing which performs the role of the service centre, rather than with Downton.

Mere Community Area Planned Growth: Mere Local Service Centre: 270 200 homes 3 ha of employment land Rest of Mere Community Area: 20 0 homes

Mere is the Local Service Centre for this Community Area as it offers a range of services and facilities and is an important centre for the outlying villages in the west of south Wiltshire. This Community Area is unique in south Wiltshire in that there are no settlements that perform a secondary village role and hence it is anticipated that the majority of growth will take place in Mere over the plan period. A subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD will identify where Where exactly this growth will take place will be identified through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD . The existing Local Plan employment allocation at Mere of approximately 3 hectares will be implemented during the period of this Strategy.

Tisbury Community Area Planned Growth: Tisbury Local Service Centre: 160 200 homes. 1.4 ha of employment land Rest of Tisbury Community Area: 270 220 homes

Tisbury is the Local Service Centre for this Community Area and serves a wide and sparsely populated hinterland. The existing Local Plan employment and housing allocations on Hindon Lane will be implemented during the period of this Strategy. Fovant, Hindon and Ludwell are the secondary villages in this Community Area. These villages provide a reasonable level of local services and facilities and can accommodate reasonable levels of growth. Specific sites that can accommodate this growth will be identified through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD.

The Council’s target for housing development on previously developed land is 34% from the date of adoption of this Core Strategy to 2026. This includes the conversion of existing buildings.

Apart from the housing numbers attached to Local Service Centres, development will be focussed on the Secondary Villages in each Community Area. In addition, infill development will be permitted in the Small Villages of Barford St Martin, Bodenham, Britford, Chilmark, Figheldean/Ablington, Fonthill Bishop, Fovant, Gomeldon, Great Wishford, Middle Woodford, Newton Toney, Odstock, Orcheston,

CM09252 App2 Page 131 Stapleford, Steeple Langford, Wylye and Zeals. Exception development, based on identified local need, will also be permitted in these villages.

New housing will not be permitted outside the settlements named in Core Policy 1

[nb. numbers rounded]

Note: All numbers have been rounded up and include a contingency allowance.

Targets: Qualitative: The delivery of levels of growth in conformity with the Settlement Strategy; average of 620 495 housing completions per year; 34% of housing completions per year to be on previously-developed land.

Monitoring and Review: AMR & housing trajectory, number of dwellings built in sustainable locations aligned with the Sustainable Settlement Strategy.

Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council, Development Industry, Strategic Partnerships.

Policies replaced: Policy H1

Page 49: Core Policy 2

Core Policy 2: Strategic Allocations Planning permission will be granted for proposals that meet the requirements set out in the Development Templates at Appendix A of this document, for the following sites:

Housing Employment and other uses Fugglestone Red 1250 dwellings 8 ha Hampton Park 500 dwellings 0 ha Longhedge (Old Sarum) 800 450 dwellings 8 ha Churchfields & Engine Sheds 1100 dwellings 5 ha to be retained UKLF 450 dwellings 3 ha South of Netherhampton Road 400 dwellings 10 ha Central Car Park 200 dwellings Up to 40,000 sq m gross external area retail and leisure floorspace Kings Gate, Amesbury 1300 dwellings 0 ha Former Imerys Quarry 0 dwellings 4 ha

• New secondary school capacity for Salisbury. • New primary schools at strategic sites at Fugglestone Red, Hampton Park, Longhedge, Harnham and Kings Gate. • Additional doctor and dentist surgery capacity. • Adequate fire service response to areas of new growth. • Green Infrastructure linkages. • Retention of important green infrastructure to the northern slopes and the green lung running south from land east of Old Sarum and west of Hampton Park. • Demand Management measures to alleviate additional traffic pressures on Salisbury ring road. • A strategy for mitigating phosphate levels in the watercourses. • An integrated 'water grid' to ensure water supply.

Targets: See Core Policy 1; Reduction in local unemployment figures. Monitoring and Review: AMR housing completions; NOMIS official labour market statistics. Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council; Developers. Policies replaced: None CM09252 App2 Page 132 Page 59: Paragraph 5.46 (b)

5.46 (b) Strategic areas of search around Salisbury The map ‘potential areas for strategic growth in and around Salisbury/Wilton’ in topic paper 19 site selection process and SHLAA have indicatesd broad areas of search around Salisbury. which may provide in the region of 1000 additional homes . As part of our ongoing monitoring process, if further land is required in the future, the sites at Netherhampton and an additional phase at Longhedge should be considered. If necessary f urther work through a site allocation DPD will be required to further investigate these sites to see if they are deliverable.

Appendix A (Page 143)

Pages 145 to 147 - Hampton Park development template

Place shaping requirements: In addition to the provisions of 'Creating Places' and saved Local Plan policies, master planning of this site needs to specifically address: R Safeguarding zone for the high pressure gas main R A strongly defined urban/rural edge to the north of the site R The layout and utility of the Country Park, with added flexibility over the future function of the green open space to allow the community to agree its best use. R Defining the strategic gap between the development and the settlement of Ford - The layout of any development shall be revised to increase the width of the strategic gap between the development and Ford RA community forum be established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes meet local aspirations.

Page 164 - Longhedge development template to be amended to state up to 450 dwellings.

Page 161 to 163 - Delete South of Netherhampton Road development template

CM09252 App2 Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 134 1 Contents

Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Context and background 3 3.0 Given the flexibility and contingency in the SWCS, why the 6 review? 4.0 The review methodology 6 5.0 Stage 1: review of growth needs in South Wiltshire 7 6.0 Stage 2: Review of the underpinning strategy 10 7.0 Balancing the need for growth with environmental 11 constraints and community aspirations in South Wiltshire 8.0 Conclusions - why the SWCS growth figures should be 15 reduced 9.0 How 9900 houses and 10,400 jobs should be distributed 16 across South Wiltshire 10 Review of strategic site allocations 22 11 Methodology for reviewing Strategic Site Allocations 26 12 Consideration of results and implications for Strategy 38 13 The balance of housing needed as an result of the review 41 and implications for 5 year land supply 14 Implications for 5 year land supply 42 15 Implications for contingency 42

Page Table 1: Revised Employment Land Requirement 2006 -2026 9 Table 2: Affordable Housing Annual Need and Shortfall in South Wiltshire 13 Table 3: Numbers of Secondary Settlements in each Community Area 19 Table 4: Numbers of secondary settlements in each community area and 20 distribution of numbers Table 5: Comparison to Core Strategy Submission Figures with reviewed 21 figures Table 6: Comparison to Core Strategy Submission Figures – Employment in 22 hectares Table 7: Balance of housing needed compared to Core Strategy allocations 23 Table 8: Strategic Allocations Scores for Sustainability Appraisal Objectives 31 Table 9: Scoring results for assessment against SA criteria 32 Table 10: Scoring results for assessment against landscape criteria 33 Table 11: Summary of the risk to the historic environment overall, and the risk 35 to potential archaeology of each proposed development site Table 12: Scoring results for assessment against heritage criteria 35 Table 13: Scoring results for assessment against transport criteria 36 Table 14: Scoring results for assessment against consultation criteria 36 Table 15: Scoring results for assessment against water/flooding criteria 37 Table 16: Scoring results for assessment against biodiversity/wildlife criteria 37 Table 17: Scoring results for assessment against place shaping criteria 37 Table 18: Results of appraisals for each Strategic Site Allocation 38 Table 19: Balance of housing needed compared to revised Core Strategy 42 Allocations

Maps: Map 1: Potential Areas for Strategic Growth in and around Salisbury/Wilton 27

Appendices: Appendix 1 – Appraisal of Strategic Site Allocations 46 Appendix 2 – Summary of Key Changes 86

1.0 Introduction

1.0 The purpose of this paper is to explain the review process that the Submission Draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) has been subject to in response to the changing national planning advice, in particular the intention to abolish the South West Regional Spatial Strategy (SWRSS). It sets out the response that Wiltshire Council proposes to make to these changes, the methodology that has been used to ensure objective scrutiny of the strategy, and the conclusions that have been reached. It takes account of new evidence that has emerged since the initial Examination-in-Public (EIP) of the SWCS in March/April 2010 and explains how changes should be made to the strategy in order to ensure it addresses the changing circumstances, and assesses the nature of those changes against the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008

2.0 Context and background

2.0 The review of the Submission Draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) has been undertaken as a direct response to the Secretary of States published intention to abolish the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy (SWRSS). It is this intention, especially with regards to potential implications on housing and employment figures, that was agreed as the basis for the review with the Inspector overseeing the Examination in Public (EIP). It is the case that growth figures in the Submission Draft of the SWCS were based on and in conformity with the figures contained in the last published version of the SWRSS. This situation has now been further complicated by High Court action as explained under part (a) below.

2.1 In accordance with paragraph 4.52 of PPS12, in order for core strategies to be “sound” it is necessary for it to demonstrate that it is consistent with national planning policy (PPS12, Paragraph 4.33). Therefore it is necessary for the review to assess what impact changes to national policy may have on the strategy and to explore any amendments that may be necessary in response to ensure it is sound.

(a) Intention to Revoke the SWRSS

2.2 On 6 July 2010 the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Secretary revoked SWRSS by way of an order laid before Parliament. In a letter from DCLG containing guidance to all Local Planning Authorities (6 July 2010) it was confirmed that “Local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of housing provision in their area, and identifying long-term supply of housing land without the burden of regional housing targets”.

3 2.3 Following the decision of the High Court in Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] on 10

2.4 November 2010 the Chief Planner at CLG wrote to the Chief Planning Officers of local authorities in England saying:

“Status of letter to Chief Planning Officers Local planning authorities and planning inspectors should be aware that the Secretary of State has received a judicial review challenge to his statement of 10 November 2010, the letter of the Chief Planner of the same date and to the Secretary of State's letter of 27 May 2010 on the ground that the Government's intended revocation of Regional Strategies by the promotion of legislation for that purpose in the forthcoming Localism Bill is legally immaterial to the determination of planning applications and appeals prior to the revocation of Regional Strategies.

The Secretary of State is defending the challenge and believes and is advised that it is ill founded. Nevertheless, pending determination of the challenge, decision makers in local planning authorities and at the Planning Inspectorate will in their determination of planning applications and appeals need to consider whether the existence of the challenge and the basis of it, affects the significance and weight which they judge may be given to the Secretary of State's statements and to the letter of the Chief Planner.

The Secretary of State will notify the determination of the Court once it has been made. This is currently expected to be by the end of January 2011.”

2.5 CALA Homes lodged further judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge the lawfulness of the advice in this letter and this was heard on Friday 3 December 2010. The Judge required that the following be published on the CLG and Planning Inspectorate („PINS‟) websites:

“I am writing to you today following the judgement in the case brought by CALA Homes in the High Court, which considered that the powers set out in section 79 [6] of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety.

The effect of this decision is to re-establish Regional Strategies as part of the development plan. However the Secretary of State wrote to Local Planning Authorities and to the Planning Inspectorate on 27 May 2010 informing them of the Government‟s intention to abolish Regional Strategies in the Localism Bill and that he expected them to have regard to this as a material consideration in planning decisions.

Local Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate should still have regard to the letter of the 27 May 2010 in any decisions they are currently taking.”

2.6 Following this a further challenge was made by CALA Homes, which was not accepted by the High Court. In the judgment (7 February 2011), in referring to the distinction between materiality and weight of the SWRSS it states that: “…matters of planning judgement are within the exclusive province of the

4 local planning authority or the Secretary of State” (paragraph 29). As such, as evidenced by the review in this paper only limited weight should be given to the housing and employment requirements within the SWRSS.

(b) Introduction of the Localism Bill

2.6 The change of Government in 2010 brought in the localism agenda and the introduction of the Localism Bill in December 2010. The Localism Bill introduces a package of reforms that seek to devolve greater power and freedoms to councils and neighbourhoods, establish new rights for communities, action extensive changes to the planning system, and give communities greater say over planning decisions. This has just had its second reading. The key proposals are as follows: a) Abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy - the Bill outlines the removal of the primary legislation which sets the basis for regional spatial strategies. b) Neighbourhood planning - the Bill introduces a new right for communities to shape their local areas. Neighbourhood plans will enable communities to permit development (in full or in outline) without the need for planning applications. This is intended to lift the burden of centralised controls and give neighbourhoods and local areas the flexibility to bring forward new development or shape how development takes place. Plans will be taken forward by Parishes or 'Neighbourhood Forums' in places without Parishes. c) The local council would have a duty to provide support and to ensure compliance with other legal requirements. d) There will be a light touch examination of the plan by an independent assessor to ensure that it complies with legal requirements and national policy, and is aligned with neighbouring plans and the strategic elements of the council's plan. e) A referendum (with a simple majority in favour) would ensure that the final plan had public support. f) Neighbourhood plans would be required to be consistent with national planning policy and to conform to the strategic elements of local authority plans.

2.7 The Localism Bill includes safeguards to ensure neighbourhood plans do not override the local authority development plan and national policy. It should be noted that in ongoing EIP's such as Bristol, the Inspector has introduced new questions to be discussed on how 'localism' has been taken into account in the strategies.

2.8 It is therefore reasonable to take the spirit of the localism agenda into account in undertaking this review. We have undertaken the review in the spirit of the localism agenda and subsequently the Localism Bill when it was introduced, with particular regard to the views of local communities. We are of the view that it was appropriate to revisit the previous consultation responses received together with other new evidence in completing the review.

2.9 In summary, in light of the Coalition Government‟s introduction of the localism agenda, as a local planning authority we are aware that there are going to be changes to the national planning agenda and that this review which took place after the EIP was suspended was necessary because the SWRSS is

5 unlikely to be adopted and there is the need for certainty in planning for future growth within this part of Wiltshire.

3.0 Given the flexibility and contingency in the SWCS, why the review?

3.1 Whilst, as argued at the EIP, the Council believes the SWCS to be a flexible document that can respond to changing circumstances, it is the case that in order to be sound it had to demonstrate compliance with the growth levels set out in the draft SWRSS. The level of growth planned for was at the upper extent of what could be considered appropriate in the highly constrained environment of South Wiltshire. National policy objectives in PPS1 emphasise the need to bring forward growth in a sustainable manner, that is, in a manner that delivers important growth that an area needs but in a way which respects the particular constraints that are specific to that area. The duty of compliance with the draft SWRSS highlighted tensions within the community over the ability to achieve this sustainable growth, with a feeling that the level of building proposed in the SWRSS would be greater than the environments ability to absorb it in a sustainable manner. Given that the need to comply with the draft SWRSS, will no longer exist an evidence based review (using up to date information) should ascertain whether South Wiltshire requires the levels of growth proposed in the SWCS.

4.0 The review methodology

4.1 The review has been conducted using the following methodology:

 Consider all evidence that related to projected growth rates for both homes and jobs in South Wiltshire and in particular focus on new evidence produced since the publication of the SWCS submission draft.  Review the evidence to examine whether the underpinning rationale of the SWCS (that of frontloaded managed growth) is still the right course of action.  Review how the growth challenges faced in South Wiltshire can be best accommodated to effectively strike a balance between the growth needed to meet the challenges of South Wiltshire with the limited ability of the environment to absorb growth in a sustainable manner. The central outcome sought here will be to manage the growth required in the most sustainable way in order to comply with PPS1. This stage will also take account of the weight that should be given to representations received during the consultation.  Consider the findings of the process and whether these merit making changes to the SWCS and if so, summarise them and assess their scale and nature against the criteria set out in the 2008 Regulations (as set out in the PAS Plan Making Toolkit).

5.0 Review of growth needs in South Wiltshire

5.1 On 27 May 2010 the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced the Coalition Government‟s intention to “rapidly abolish Regional Strategies (RS) and informed Councils that:

“This intention to revoke Regional Strategies (RS) will mean that “Local Planning Authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long term supply of housing land without the burden of regional targets.”

5.2 In response to this, Wiltshire Council committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of the housing requirement for Wiltshire (Cabinet, 19 October 2010). This section outlines the rationale that the Council has used to determine housing and job growth levels for Wiltshire and the South Wiltshire area.

5.4 There are two factors which are key influences on this piece of work. Firstly, Wiltshire Council is producing a Core Strategy for the whole of its area, of which the policies within the SWCS will form a part. It is therefore necessary to understand that the methodology employed is Wiltshire wide and consistent, and that any geographical variations in outcomes will be explained through spatially distinctive local factors. Secondly it is important to emphasise that meeting the total identified housing and job needs in South Wiltshire hasn‟t been pursued through the SWCS Submission draft. It has always been the Council‟s case that meeting need as expressed in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, even for affordable housing, is beyond the environmental capacity of the area. The constraints and availability of brownfield land has not materially altered and hence it is still the case that the SWCS needs to make the most effective progress towards meeting local needs in an environmentally responsible manner, rather than simply plan to meet it outright.

(a) Housing requirement 5.5 The strategic housing requirement for the whole of Wiltshire has been determined to within the range 35,900 to 43,200. From this a figure has been derived for South Wiltshire.

5.6 The strategic requirement was developed through a number of steps. Firstly through considering the number of dwellings that would be required to provide for the projected employment growth based on figures produced by Cambridge Econometrics, who performed the similar function in the SWRSS. This range (35,900 to 57,800) was then refined by considering what could be

7 demonstrated to be realistic and achievable given the spatial characteristics of Wiltshire. The results of this analysis reduced the maxima of this range to 43,200. However, as this is so close to the need arising from the projected population (42,900); it was decided to use this latter figure as the maxima. This ensures that the requirement range has the potential to meet the needs arising from the projected population, provide for the employment growth, and begin to address affordability and affordable supply.

5.7 In South Wiltshire, a large amount of work has been undertaken to assess what proportion of the number of dwellings required to support the employment growth can realistically be achieved, given the constrained environment. This work is set out in Topic Papers 19 on the Site Selection Process, and revisited in Section 7 of this paper below. As has been consistently argued throughout the process by the Council, there is a need to balance growth levels against constraints in a sensitive way. The delivery of new dwellings should be maximised within the constraints to ensure that the economic prospects are addressed as far as is possible. Indeed this is a fundamental part of national policy, in planning sustainably for the long term as set out in PPS1.

5.8 The housing requirement for South Wiltshire should be in line with that which is considered to be deliverable, namely 8,900 to 10,600 as this will at least provide for the needs of the population, and is potentially deliverable, and although this does not meet the projected employment growth, it does seek to maximise the growth within the constraints considered. The demand created by the additional military population is likely to support the housing market in this area and so further housing should be able to be delivered to meet this specific need. However, given that the maximum of the range is already so ambitious it is considered that this should be maintained. An assumption has been made that a similar level of housing is likely to be required per military employee as that estimated in Tidworth, creating demand for an additional 300 dwellings. The resulting range for a housing requirement within South Wiltshire is therefore 9,200 to 10,600. In the development of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy a single figure is required. It would be overly ambitious if this was towards the top of the range, as this delivery estimate is reliant upon fundamental societal changes. Rather, a figure somewhere in the middle of this range is considered appropriate (9,900). This level of delivery can be seen to maximise the employment potential given the delivery constraints and provides for the projected population increase.

5.9 Delivery of this order is still ambitious, as is demonstrated when compared to the targets in the Structure Plan which were 400 dwellings per annum (as compared to 495 dwellings). This represents a rise of some 22.5% on historic housing delivery rates and maintains the step-change approach which has always underpinned to SWCS.

5.10 This figure is consistent with the strategic requirement to prioritise economic growth, and provides for the increase in resident population based on trends linked to factors such as decreasing household size and increased life expectancy.

8 (b) Job and employment land requirement

5.11 The SWRSS was based on projections produced by Cambridge Econometrics and required the Salisbury HMA (former Salisbury District area) to deliver 13,900 jobs, 400 of which should be within the Mere and Tisbury community Areas with the remainder being within the Salisbury Travel to Work Area (see RPP/02, page 117-118). These projections were produced in 2006, prior to the commencement of the 2008 recession.

5.12 Owing to the recession, the intention to abolish the draft SWRSS and the opportunity given to the Council to review figures, it is prudent to review the employment figures as well as housing. Revised economic projections have been commissioned from Cambridge Econometrics that take account of more recent events in the economy. These have been produced on the former district council areas and indicate that for the whole of Wiltshire 27,600 new jobs could be delivered over the period 2006 – 2026.

5.13 The re-run figures (see „Review of Employment Projections and Land Requirements‟ STU/11B) show a revised projection indicating a growth of 10,400 jobs between 2006 and 2026 in South Wiltshire, a reduction of 3,500 jobs from the SWRSS figures. This is expected given the slow down and / or negative growth now being experienced within the local economy as a result of the 2008 recession. The projected job growth is split between 41 different industry sectors. Within the employment review paper (STU/11B) the new projected job growth has been translated into a new employment land requirement using the same methodology as that used within the Salisbury District Employment Land Review (ELR) (STU//11). The Examination in Public in the Spring of 2010 implied that using the ELR would be a sound methodology to base employment land assumptions upon. This work has been undertaken for the whole period (2006 – 2026) as well as for 5 year increments during this period and the results of this is provided in the table below:

Table 1: Revised Employment Land Requirement 2006-2026 Business Use Land Requirement in Hectares Class 2006-2011 2011-2016 2016-2021 2021-2026 2006-2026 B1 Business 3.4 4.5 8.8 7.6 24.3 B2 General -4 0.6 0.0 -0.8 -4.3 Industrial B8 Storage and -1.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 -0.4 Distribution Total -2.0 5.3 9.4 6.9 20.45

5.14 This clearly shows that a reduction in the employment land required by the draft SWRSS (37ha) to around 20 ha is justified by the latest evidence. It reflects the effect of the recession with a negative land requirement between 2006 to 2010 and growth beginning to pick up again in 2011, peaking in the 2016-2021 period. This is different to the figures for the SWRSS based projections which showed the majority of employment growth taking place by 2011 (table 63, page 139 of STU/11), whereas more recent projections show clear contraction in economic output during this period as well as a change in sector growth resulting in a further reduction in land requirement. The result being that less employment land is needed at a much slower rate that previously envisaged.

6.0 Review of the underpinning strategy

6.1 The evidence, as collated in the set of themed topic papers prepared to support the SWCS, has been revisited in conjunction with the outcome of the review into growth requirements.

6.2 The pressures have not changed. There is the pressure for homes caused by an ageing population that must be planned for, together with young families and first time buyers finding it difficult to get on the housing ladder. There is still the need to plan for economic growth by providing the right choices for business that deliver an attractive investment environment and to support the Salisbury Vision through providing new employment (decant) sites. The latest retail evidence still indicates that Salisbury is at a watershed and needs a significant boost in its retail offer to avoid decline in the face of increased sub- regional competition. Regeneration of the UKLF site is paramount for future prosperity of Wilton, as is maintaining the strategy of balanced growth in Amesbury. It is clear that the villages should support modest, high quality growth commensurate with their role and function.

6.3 The findings of the evidence and Sustainability Appraisal in particular is still relevant in that within the South Wiltshire context, Salisbury is the dominant settlement which offers by far the best range of services, employment, housing and transport choices. As such it should remain as the principle focus for growth. As discussed at the EIP hearing sessions, the amount and location of growth around Salisbury needs to be considered within the context of a highly constrained environment and the need to plan sustainably as set out in PPS1. This underlines the central theme of the Core Strategy, which is to achieve a step change in delivery of homes and jobs which makes the best progress towards meeting economic and affordable housing needs, while planning responsibly in a sustainable way. The underpinning strategy of making the best progress we can towards meeting growth needs within in the context of respecting environmental factors remains unaltered.

6.4 The SWCS‟s aim, explained within paragraph 5.18 of the SWCS (SWCS/01, page 48), of „balanced growth based on mixed-use development‟ that delivers „growth in a sustainable manner, which balances the delivery of new homes with new jobs and service provision‟ again remains unaltered. The importance of avoiding the coalescence of Salisbury with villages such as Laverstock, Ford, Netherhampton and Quidhampton is also still valid. This is detailed in paragraph 3.8 (a) of the SWCS (SWCS/01, page 24) „Pressures on landscape‟ which states that „the principle pressure to be addressed is ensuring that the new strategic growth required does not erode the separate identity, character and visual and functional amenity of settlements‟. Where any potential coalescence has been identified as a result of a strategic site allocation, this has been identified as a constraint in the relevant development template in Appendix A of the SWCS. All evidence which has been assessed in carrying out this review has indicated that these strategic objectives are sound and if anything needs strengthening. This supports the underpinning strategy of planning for self-containment and planning to ensure the character of satellite settlements to Salisbury, as distinct settlements is maintained.

10 6.5 As outlined in Section 5, delivery of the 9,900 dwellings is still ambitious, as is demonstrated when compared to the historic delivery rates, representing a 22% increase, which also maintains the step-change approach which has always underpinned to SWCS. The encouragement of early delivery of sites, (known as the „frontloading‟ of the strategy), to meet the challenges faced in South Wiltshire has not and should not change.

7.0 Balancing the need for growth with environmental constraints and community

aspirations in South Wiltshire

7.1 Given the conclusions from the first stages of the review, it has been necessary to examine whether changes are needed to the strategy to reflect

the reduction in growth from 12,400 to 9,900, homes and 13,900 to 10,400 jobs, or whether the SWCS is flexible enough to be able to absorb these without any further changes.

7.2 The starting point for this part of the review is to answer the question: given that some of the challenges facing South Wiltshire were contributed to by slow growth rates would it not be sensible just to continue with the strategy unchanged? That is, plan for an oversupply of housing.

7.3 There are several reasons why it is not appropriate for the Core Strategy to plan for an oversupply of housing across South Wiltshire up to 2026. Many of these reasons overlap and are summarised below:

(a) Prudent use of the constrained environment in South Wiltshire

7.4 The arguments were well rehearsed at the EIP that South Wiltshire generally and in particular the growth point of Salisbury, are highly constrained environments with few reasonable choices over how future expansion can take place in a sustainable manner as required by PPS1. Indeed, evidence indicates that there are no realistic alternatives to the growth strategy for Salisbury promoted in the SWCS. That being the case, it is clear that developable land is at a premium around Salisbury and in light of environmental constraints (such as flood zones, historic landscapes, nature conservation) should be viewed as a limited resource. Therefore in order to plan sustainably for the long term prosperity of Salisbury it is important that this resource be used carefully, so that options remain for future generations. Not to do so, will mean that the future needs of Salisbury will be difficult to meet other than by growth that causes environmental harm, which would be detrimental to the character of the area and cause coalescence with neighbouring settlements, which clearly wish to retain their individual character (communities at Laverstock, Alderbury, Wilton, Nertherhampton, Ford have all expressed this concern). Pursuing such a course would be clearly not in accordance with PPS1 (see paragraph 5). Therefore as has been consistently argued throughout the EIP, the judicious use of valuable developable land is important to ensure a steady supply of growth in the longer term, so that Salisbury can continue to thrive in a sustainable way.

11 (b) There is no longer the requirement to plan for a “minimum” housing requirement

7.5 SWRSS Policy HMA 11 (Salisbury HMA) required provision for growth of at least 12,400 dwellings. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy had to conform to this (inter alia) to be found sound. By contrast, the DCLG letter and guidance of 6 July 2010 requires Local Planning Authorities to take responsibility for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area. There is therefore no longer any requirement to accommodate housing numbers over and above this „right level‟ simply in order to achieve „soundness‟. This is another factor to consider in conjunction with all the others set out in this section, which indicate why a more careful approach to the release of land will represent a more appropriate and sustainable way in which to plan for South Wiltshire.

(d) Recognition of Salisbury’s dominance in a predominantly rural area

7.6 The SWRSS proposed a level of housing for South Wiltshire that, in our experience arising from consultations carried out during the Core Strategy process, had not surprisingly little support from the local community. This was in terms of both its source (i.e. the housing level was seen as „Government imposed‟) and what it actually proposed. Furthermore, the SWRSS proposed a distribution of dwellings that did not fully reflect Salisbury‟s dominance in a predominantly rural area.

7.7 The lower level of housing proposed in this review, with an increased focus on the city of Salisbury would be more appropriate to the characteristics of the area and representative of communities views. In summary the evidence through which the spatial settlement strategy has been derived and the extent of community representations indicate that the dominance of Salisbury to South Wiltshire had been undervalued in the SWRSS and that the split of housing it promoted of under 50% (6,000 net additional dwellings, compared to 12,400) of the total in Salisbury and the majority outside of the City did not adequately reflect the size, role and function of the settlements in South Wiltshire.

7.8 With the exception of Amesbury, the main settlements (local service centres) outside of Salisbury are in reality large villages, set in a rural area. Their capacity to absorb growth in a sustainable manner is limited. The difference in scale is demonstrated in Topic Paper 3, „Sustainable Settlement Strategy EIP Ref: TOP 3a), which shows that Salisbury has over 40 basic facilities; outside of Amesbury each local service centre has fewer than 10. Therefore this review will look again at the balance between where the growth should be focussed, within the revised housing requirement. Section 9 of this paper will cover the issue of the spatial approach to housing distribution in more detail and explain the disaggregated approach being taken and the implications for the review.

12 (e) Level of Need identified in emerging SHMA

7.9 The emerging Strategic Housing Market Assessment for South Wiltshire concludes that after taking account of existing stock turnover, the affordable need shortfall and market demand shortfall per annum over the next 10 years is as follows:

Table 2: Affordable Housing Annual Need and Shortfall in South Wiltshire Affordable need Market demand TOTAL shortfall per annum shortfall per annum 763 718 1481

7.10 Given the constraints of the area, leading to difficulty in identifying appropriate sites for even the previously proposed 12,400 dwellings, together with community views, it would not be appropriate to accommodate the level of dwellings required to satisfy this overall need (i.e. 29,620 over a 20 year period).

7.11 It is not unusual for SHMAs to indicate demand and need for housing over and above what can and should be planned for in an area. However, SHMAs provide a useful tool to ensure the right type of housing is built in the right location to meet the needs of local people, providing information to direct homes to the areas where they are most needed.

7.12 The review proposals therefore provide an approach that balance the need to deliver new homes (including affordable) within environmental constraints and acceptability to the local community.

(f) Trends in windfall delivery of housing supply

7.13 The trend for delivery of windfall sites (windfall sites are those which have not been specifically identified as available in the development plan process, they comprise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available) in South Wiltshire has increased in the period between April 2006 and April 2010. PPS3 (paragraph 59) states that allowances for windfalls should not be included in the first 10 years of land supply unless Local Planning Authorities can provide robust evidence of genuine local circumstances that prevent specific sites being identified. However, this trend needs to be monitored as there is a possibility that if it continues (even at reduced levels) that Windfall could provide an important source of dwellings in the later stages of the plan.

7.14 Some 850 dwellings were delivered from windfall sources in the plan area between April 2006 and April 2010. The AMR (or successor) will review these figures on an annual basis and the Council will therefore be able to monitor the ongoing contribution that windfall development can make towards the delivery of housing targets. If windfall trends continue or indeed grow then this could provide a make an important contribution to the latter stages of the strategy. Given the highly constrained environment it is therefore prudent to monitor delivery of windfall development as the plan progresses rather than to over-allocate greenfield land at this stage. Should this source fail to make a contribution then the potential areas for development as identified on Map 1, page 28 (the green areas on the map as are included in the SWCS), would be

13 the first place to consider allocating further land if needed. However, if the review identifies any sites previously identified within the SWCS that are no longer needed during this plan period, they would also provide a source of supply that could be drawn on.

(g) Impact on Water Supply Infrastructure

7.15 Evidence which emerged during the EIP is of pertinence to this review. The debate did reveal that the surety of water supply given by Wessex Water was based on a lower growth figure than the Strategy was proposing. This questions the ability of water supply to meet the higher growth figures.

7.16 Paragraph 2.2 of Mr Adam‟s Amplified Written Statement pertaining to EIP Matter 5 refers to correspondence with Wessex Water, in which Mr Adam was given „assurance of supply being calculated on a figure 32.5% lower‟ [than the 12,400 figure proposed in the SWRSS]. The overall number of dwellings in this review is 31% lower than the SWRSS figure and therefore will help mitigate the potential pressure on water supply infrastructure that oversupply could produce.

(i) Consideration of the Localism Bill

7.17 The change of Government in 2010 brought in the localism agenda and the introduction of the Localism Bill in December 2010. The Localism Bill introduces a package of reforms that seek to devolve greater power and freedoms to councils and neighbourhoods, establish new rights for communities, action extensive changes to the planning system, and give communities greater say over planning decisions. This has just had its second reading. The proposals are summarised above in Section 2 of this document (page 5).

7.19 As explained in Section 2 of this review, it is considered reasonable to take the spirit of the localism agenda into account in undertaking this review. We have undertaken the review in the spirit of the localism agenda and subsequently the Localism Bill when it was introduced, with particular regard to the views of local communities. We are of the view that it was appropriate to revisit the previous consultation responses received together with other new evidence in completing the review.

(j) Local community representations

7.20 Throughout the production of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy significant public and stakeholder consultation was undertaken. A further assessment of the consultation feedback has been made to determine whether there are key community issues which need to be reassessed, as they previously could not be given weight given the context of the SWRSS. In particular, the consultation responses received during the plan preparation period for each strategic site allocation has been assessed and this is summarised in the tables in Appendix 1.

7.21 Given the Government‟s clear direction of travel with the localism agenda, the weight that should be given to consultation responses made throughout the preparation of the SWCS has been reviewed. Whereas during previous stages of the process, consultation responses clearly did inform place

14 shaping, the influence was limited by the fact that to be sound the SWCS had to comply with the SWRSS and deliver the levels of growth proposed. This did mean that if a community disagreed with key elements of the SWRSS there was limited scope for meeting their aspirations. This raised some clear tensions especially over the level and location of new growth during the production of the SWCS.

7.22 The consultation process is detailed in South Wiltshire Core Strategy Methodology and Output Report Incorporating Reg 30 1 d Statement, November 2009 (SWCS/10). The most common views of the community were expressed in the following themes:

 The growth levels with the SWRSS are too high for South Wiltshire and will erode the character of South Wiltshire  General support for the spatial strategy in the SWCS of focussing growth at Salisbury (if not the numbers).  Distributed of growth to existing settlements is preferred rather than a new settlement.  There is inadequate infrastructure to support such growth

7.23 While the general thrust of the comments support carrying out the review of the SWCS and especially reviewing the level of growth, it must be acknowledged that many comments received related to specific site allocations. These comments are revisited later in this review to assess what, if any changes are needed to the Strategic Site Allocations (SSA‟s) and included in the matrix at Appendix 1.

8.0 Conclusions - why the SWCS growth figures should be reduced

8.1 As has been consistently argued by the Council, South Wiltshire is a highly constrained environment and finding developable land to meet local housing and employment needs in a sustainable manner that complies with PPS1 is difficult. The key factors which indicate why it is necessary to reduce the numbers from those in the SWRSS and SWCS submission draft are explained above, and are in summary:  Prudent use of the constrained environmental capacity in South Wiltshire  The need to plan for sustainable growth that complies with the aims of PPS1  An improvement in housing delivery rates which has slightly eased the pressure for immediate growth  The intention to abolish the requirement to plan for a “minimum” housing requirement  Recognition of Salisbury‟s dominance in a predominantly rural area  Contribution of windfall delivery to housing supply  Impact on Water Supply Infrastructure  Spirit of the localism agenda and weight that should now be given to the housing and employment figures within the SWRSS.

15 8.2 Taking all of the factors identified into account it is the logical conclusion that the opportunity should be taken to reduce the levels of growth in South Wiltshire, balancing a locally derived need based on up to date evidence with environmental capacity and community appetite.

9.0 How 9900 houses and 10,400 jobs should be distributed across South Wiltshire

9.1 Having established that it is appropriate for the SWCS to deliver less growth than it currently identifies, the next step is to ascertain how the new housing and employment requirement of 9900 houses and 10,400 jobs should be distributed across South Wiltshire up to 2026. That is, if the numbers change, how does this affect the spatial strategy as set out in Core Policy 1 (see paragraph 5.17, page 45 of the SWCS submission document)? To assess this in a systematic manner the opportunity has been taken to review the underpinning methodology of the settlement strategy to see if any changes are necessary. This review has incorporated the following steps:

(a) Application of the Sustainable Settlement Strategy methodology

9.2 In order to ensure consistency with the SWCS Submission Document, the lower housing figures have been subject to the same distribution methodology as that set out in Topic Paper 3, (EIP Ref: TOP3, a, b, c). This methodology, as examined at the EIP, uses the numbers of Basic Facilities located in settlements as a starting basis to inform the proposed settlement hierarchy and sustainable distribution of housing contained within the Core Strategy. This categorisation was based on the countywide Rural Facilities Survey of 2005, as updated in 2008.

9.3 It is important to emphasise that this examination of basic facilities provided a starting point for the methodology to determine appropriate distributions of growth for Salisbury, Amesbury and Local Service Centres identified in the SWCS. Subsequently, for each settlement an evaluation was undertaken to take into account a number of additional criteria to inform the ability of settlements to accept growth in a sustainable manner, including:

 Identified housing needs for settlements as identified through the Housing Needs and Market Survey EIP Ref: STU 03)  The role and function of the settlement including spatially distinctive groups such as Amesbury and the Garrison Villages  An appraisal of the environmental constraints and hence scope for accommodating levels of sustainable growth  The availability of deliverable sites as promoted through the SHLAA  Established local strategies, such as that of providing balanced growth of homes and jobs at Amesbury  Community aspirations expressed through representations, such as supporting a strategy of dispersed growth, focussed on the most sustainable locations

16 9.4 A review of this methodology confirms it to be a sound way of distributing development and hence it has been used as the basis from which to distribute the new figure of 9,900 homes.

(b) A consistent approach to addressing Housing Needs

9.5 While the consideration of basic facilities was the key starting point for identifying a settlement hierarchy through role and function analysis, local housing needs were important criteria which was a central influence on the distribution of housing. In Topic Paper 3, Third Addendum (Paragraph 5 onwards), the Local Housing Needs and Market Survey of 2006 (LHNMS) was used as the basis to identify the housing needs within settlements and, importantly, the assess the level of affordable housing need. The amount of private dwellings needed to deliver affordable homes was identified to be some 1.5 private dwellings (which equates to 40% delivery of affordable homes). This was verified through the Viability Study (EIP Ref: STU 04

9.6 The LHNMS identified specific housing needs for a three year period on a Community Area (CA) basis, and this evidence was used as a basis through which housing numbers could be allocated to the basic hierarchy identified through the analysis of the spatial distribution of Basic Facilities.

9.7 New evidence in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) produced since the Submission of the SWCS clearly indicates that the distribution of need has not materially altered in relations to community areas. The SHLAA reaffirms the appropriateness of the „hierarchy‟ of need across the Community Areas (in simple terms of weight of numbers) and the relationship of communities as set out in Core Policy 1 of the SWCS Submission Document. This evidence is important in reaffirming the appropriateness of Core Policy 1 and that while housing numbers may change to reflect latest evidence, that the settlement hierarchy it sets out is still a sound one.

9.8 During the Core Strategy process, preserving Wilton‟s identity as a separate settlement from Salisbury has remained a high priority. This was, for example, stressed in both Chapter 7 of the Core Strategy and the Development Templates for the Strategic Sites at Fugglestone Red and UKLF contained within Appendix A of the document.

9.9 Notwithstanding this, at the Preferred Option and Revised Preferred Options stages of the process, the Salisbury and Wilton CAs were considered in combination in terms of proposed housing distribution.

9.10 Although the Core Strategy attempted to separate the housing numbers for these two areas, we have reconsidered this approach. There was local concern that the proposed housing numbers suggested for the Wilton CA in paragraph 7.10 of the Core Strategy could not have been accommodated without causing significant impact on the character and setting of Wilton and the other small rural settlements in the CA.

17 9.11 Paragraph 7.12 of the Core Strategy did in fact acknowledge this concern, stating that it might be possible to direct some of this housing towards Salisbury to help meet the needs of the CA in a more sustainable manner. Bearing this in mind we have reviewed the approach of separating these two community areas.

9.12 We remain of the view that existing population is not an important criterion for informing the sustainable distribution of development. However, it is noted that Wilton is the only settlement in its CA with a four figure population, whereas the Amesbury CA and South Wiltshire (the grouping of the other three CAs adjoining Salisbury) have 6 and 5 such settlements respectively, indicating the more rural nature of Wilton CA outside of Wilton itself.

9.13 Wilton itself is at the edge of its CA and, in terms of administrative boundaries, immediately adjoins Salisbury. The centre of the town is 3.5 miles from the centre of Salisbury, significantly closer than the other LSCs in the Core Strategy area (the next closest is Downton at 6.8 miles). It is therefore not surprising that a number of Salisbury‟s Basic Facilities are equally conveniently situated to also serve residents of the Wilton CA, and this explains why Wilton itself has fewer Basic Facilities than the other LSCs. Simply put, Wilton and Salisbury have a special functional relationship and while it is important to recognise their individual characteristics, the relationship should be acknowledged.

9.14 For the above reasons we are now of the view that the sustainable distribution of housing in the Salisbury and Wilton CAs should be considered in combination.

(d) Reviewing growth levels in rural areas.

9.15 One of the issues that emerged through the pre-submission consultation was that the local communities were keen to ensure some growth within the smaller rural settlements. As such, there was significant objection to the wholesale removal of existing settlement boundaries as proposed in the submission draft. The rationale for this was that some modest, proportionate growth would be welcome in order to avoid the stagnation of rural areas.

9.16 As discussed at the EiP into the SWCS, there was concern that the proposed removal of permissive housing policies in lower tier settlements within the Core Strategy might in fact have a negative impact on their sustainability. That is, that the historic low levels of infilling that the Local Plan policies have delivered is important to provide local housing opportunities, support local services and support the vitality of settlements. It is important to emphasise that this is not related to the need for housing allocations, but rather an acknowledgement that many smaller settlements have an appetite for modest growth. There is no evidence that these communities wish to see the stagnation of these settlements. These policies have therefore been saved for the time being, as reflected in the revised proposed Core Policy 1 (CP1) put forward by the Council to the Inspector during the formal hearing sessions of the EiP.

9.17 It is considered important that the Core Strategy makes provision for new housing in rural areas, thus providing a flexible strategic policy framework. This approach would ensure that communities can grow irrespective of whether this is through neighbourhood plans or community right to build.

9.18 While the community have expressed that they would wish to see some development within some of the smaller villages to keep the villages from stagnating, they have emphasised that this should be modest and in keeping with the character of the settlements. In order to identify a reasonable level of housing and given the community views that the levels of growth that have been experienced in the recent past, should continue, it is appropriate to base the number of houses that may be delivered through this source on the historic trends. This identifies average historic delivery of around 55 dwellings per year outside of Salisbury, Wilton and Amesbury on small windfall sites (brownfield sites of under 10 dwellings). Based on this evidence, it is proposed that the Core Strategy be revised to allow for 1100 houses in the plan period, in the rural areas outside of the urban areas of Salisbury, Wilton, Amesbury and the Local Service Centres of Mere, Tisbury and Downton.

9.19 It would be wrong to allocate this on a simple pro rata basis, as not all community areas are the same or have the same number of secondary settlements that are capable of accommodating modest growth. Table 3 shows each community area and the secondary settlements within them, as identified within Policy CP1 within the Core Strategy.

Table 3: Numbers of secondary settlements in each community area: Southern Amesbury Wilton Tisbury Mere Total Wiltshire Alderbury Porton Broadchalke Fovant Coombe Shrewton Dinton Hindon Bissett Morgans Tilshead Great Ludwell Vale Wishford /Woodfalls Whiteparish The Winterbournes The Winterslows 5 4 3 3 0 15

9.20 Therefore, the distribution of these homes in each community area is logically made on the basis of the number of secondary settlements each has. This equates to an average of about 73 dwellings per settlement over the lifetime of the plan, or 3 homes per year.

9.21 However, there is no assumption that these settlements should accommodate 73 dwellings over the lifetime of the plan, as this is just an indication of the level of housing that each CA could reasonably accommodate. There are also a number of smaller villages that CP1 identifies that may be capable of accommodating some development, and development in these settlements would contribute towards delivery of the figure for the community area. No specific allowance is made for these smaller settlements but it is considered that any development could be accommodated within the rural allowance of 1,100.

Table 4: Numbers of secondary settlements in each community area and distribution of numbers: Community Area No of settlements Multiply by 73 (rounded)

Wilton 3 220 Amesbury 4 295 Southern Wiltshire 5 365 Tisbury 3 220 Mere 0 0

Total 16 1100

9.22 This distribution is a realistic reflection of past windfall trends and a direct reflection of the stated aim of many settlements to have some modest growth to avoid stagnation. Due to its nature at this point it is not possible to be certain over where windfall proposals may come forward. Therefore, while it is valid to make a reasonable allowance of housing to facilitate these aspirations the Core Strategy is a strategic document and it is not appropriate for it to be spatially distributed down to individual settlement level. Rather the SWCS should set a positive, facilitating framework to allow these goals to be delivered. In time, subject to the passage of the Localism Bill, this may include communities pursuing a neighbourhood plan or right to build scheme.

9.23 Making realistic allowance for some growth in the smaller rural settlements would allow some 1100 houses to be delivered in the rural areas. Allowing for this modest growth in rural areas does not undermine the Core Strategies approach to front loaded development being focused around the City, as discussed later in this report.

(e) Housing distribution

9.24 The application of the methodology used to produce the sustainable settlement strategy and the other considerations described above result in the following outcomes for distributing the 9,900 homes.

Table 5: Comparison between Submission Document and review figures taking account of a rural allowance for neighbourhood plans. Community Area Submission Figure Revised Figure Change

Salisbury/Wilton 9050 6220 - 2830(31%) Amesbury 2650 2395 - 255 (10 %) South Wiltshire 740 665 - 75 (10 %) Mere 290 200 - 90 (31%) Tisbury 440 420 - 20 (5 %)

Total 13170 9900 - 3270 (25 %)

9.25 Once the rural allowance has been taken into consideration, 8,800 dwellings should be distributed amongst Salisbury and Wilton, Amesbury and the Local Service Centres as the main settlements in the area identified within Core Policy CP1.

20 9.26 This is based on the consideration of the level of facilities within Salisbury and Wilton, the availably of deliverable land, the environmental constraints, the need to plan sustainably for the long term and the latest housing needs figures, therefore a figure of 6,220 dwellings has been identified for Salisbury and Wilton Community Areas, which includes 6,000 dwellings for the strategic settlements of Salisbury and Wilton. This is consistent with the level identified within the draft SWRSS of 6,000 dwellings, which was also put forward by the former Wiltshire County Council at the EIP as a reasonable level of provision for „Salisbury and Wilton‟ if the SWRSS EIP Panel were minded to recommend increased figures.

9.27 This equates to over 60% of the housing requirement for the area, which is indicative of the dominance of Salisbury and Wilton, as the main strategic settlement in the area and represents a significant shift from the 4,100 identified within the adopted Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 over a 20 year period.

9.28 The four remaining Community Areas should therefore accommodate about 3680 dwellings in total, of which 880 form part of the rural allowance. However, it is of course possible that this level may in reality be higher should the local communities choose to bring forward new growth through proposed neighbourhood plans and the community right to build if current proposals in the Localism Bill become law.

9.29 Part 6 of Topic Paper, Second Addendum explained why the dispersal of housing in the Amesbury Community Area should be considered separately from that in other rural areas. In summary this is because of its unique characteristics and the functional relationship with the Garrison villages. This Topic Paper concluded that 35% of the growth of Salisbury should be provided in the Amesbury Community Area to provide for the longstanding strategy at Amesbury of delivering housing growth in conjunction with major business expansion at Solstice Park, (and the continued employers at Boscombe Down, Porton Down and the MOD) to boost the self-containment of the settlement. This rationale still remains sound and is supported by the community. Therefore Amesbury, as the dominant settlement in the Community Area should accommodate around 2,100 dwellings (around 35% of the dwellings proposed for Salisbury). Together with the rural allowance, this would provide for 2,395 dwellings within the Community Area as a whole.

9.30 This leaves the remaining three Community Areas to accommodate 1,285 dwellings in total, of which 585 have been distributed to the rural areas outside of the Local Service Centres, as shown in Table 4 above. This means that Downton, Tisbury and Mere should accommodate 700 dwellings. Applying the Sustainable Settlement Strategy criteria from Topic Paper 3 (and addenda) and using the number of basic facilities at each of these settlements as a means to distribute growth indicates that Downton should accommodate 300 dwellings; Mere 200 dwellings and Tisbury 200 dwellings.

(g) Employment distribution calculations

9.31 The distribution of employment land within the SWCS was geographically directed by the draft SWRSS, which required Salisbury to „enhance its role as an employment and service centre‟ (RPP/02, policy HMA11) whilst for the

21 Amesbury area, it identified that „there are opportunities for some job growth at locations such as Amesbury‟ (Paragraph 4.1.78).

9.32 As detailed in Paragraph 5.18 of the SWCS proposed submission draft, the strategy seeks to deliver growth in a sustainable manner, which balances the delivery of new homes with new jobs and service provision. The strategy of the SWCS of working towards self containment remains, with the mixed use sites and the majority of new employment land to be directed towards Salisbury City (albeit a reduced amount, as indicated in Table 7 below) with the sites at Porton Down and Boscombe Down being maintained due to the importance these sites contribute to the local economy. The small employment allocations at Mere and Tisbury should also continue to be saved to meet the employment requirements of these rural communities.

Table 6 Comparison to Core Strategy Submission Figures – Employment in hectares Community Area Submission Figure Revised Figure Change

Salisbury/Wilton 39 ha (33ha new and 29 ha (23 ha new -10 ha 6 ha saved) and 6 ha saved) Amesbury 17 ha 17ha No change South Wiltshire N/A N/A N/A Mere 3ha 3ha No change Tisbury 1.4ha 1.4ha No Change

Total 60.4ha 50.4ha

9.33 The Council‟s strategy of delivering the redevelopment of the Churchfields Industrial Estate still remains and for this around 28ha of employment land is needed (see paragraph 5.1 of Topic Paper 9 Economy – TOP/09 A) to facilitate a decant of businesses. This results in a total employment land requirement of around 48 ha. Reducing the employment land requirement by 10 hectares would result in around 50ha of employment land being required, meeting the full employment land need to 2026 for both strategic employment and the regeneration of Churchfields Industrial Estate.

10. Review of strategic site allocations

10.1 The previous sections of this paper have described how the review has confirmed that the underpinning strategy in the SWCS is still the right one and explained how the revised growth figures have been derived for South Wiltshire. The implications for the settlement strategy set out in Core Policy 1 have also been addressed, as has the question over why the SWCS as originally conceived should not simply be allowed to roll forward. This part of the paper sets out the implications of these conclusions on the Strategic Site Allocations (SSA‟s) as set out in Core Policy 2 of the SWCS.

10.2 The first part of this paper establishes that the housing requirement for South Wiltshire has been reduced from a minimum of 12,400 to 9,900 and the job requirement has reduced from 13,900 to 10,400. Having established that it is

22 appropriate for the Core Strategy to plan for fewer homes and jobs, this part of the paper therefore examines in detail the current Strategic Site Allocations to establish whether all of the sites are required at this time or if they can be reduced in number without jeopardizing the strategy itself.

(a) Explaining the contribution that the strategic allocations make to the revised growth figures

10.3 When considering the revised growth figures, it is important to emphasise that not all of the growth has to be met through allocations in the plan. Firstly those homes that have either been built since the start of the plan period (2006), have been granted planning permission or that will come forward on saved Local Plan allocations can be deducted from the total. These are known as existing „completions‟ and „commitments‟ and are not an insignificant number, as can be seen in the third column of the table below. Secondly PPS12 is explicit that only those allocations necessary to deliver the heart of the strategy are required. If the numbers of houses are being reduced, then there is a need to review the SSA‟s made in the SWCS to ensure the Core Strategy still meets this test of soundness.

10.4 The table below clearly shows that the strategic allocations proposed in the submitted Core Strategy more than meet the total residual housing requirement (when completions and deliverable commitments have been taken off) for Salisbury/Wilton and for Amesbury only a residual 160 dwellings will be left to find. Again this raises the question of whether it is appropriate to meet such growth through the level of allocations proposed in the SWCS, when it has been established how the environmentally constrained area of South Wiltshire makes planning sustainably, in accordance with PPS1, challenging and how the local community are concerned about growth levels.

Table 7: Balance of housing needed compared to South Wiltshire Core Strategy Submission Draft allocations.

Community Revised Completions Commitments Balance of Allocations in Balance taking Area Figure 2006 to 2010 at 2010 housing Submission account of Draft Core reviewed Strategy allocations Salisbury/ 6220 840 1053 4327 4700 -373 Wilton Amesbury 2395 674 252 1469 1300 169 Southern 665 90 116 459 0 459 Wiltshire Mere 200 101 40 59 0 59 Tisbury 420 83 122 215 0 215

Total 9900 1788 1583 6529 6000 1279

10.5 Section 7 of this report highlights‟ why it is considered appropriate to review the overall growth numbers for South Wiltshire and many of these factors

23 apply equally when considering the strategic allocations in and around Salisbury and Wilton.

10.6 Consultation carried out during the Core Strategy process indicated that there were many parts of the local community that did not support one or more of the strategic allocations proposed in Salisbury and Wilton.

10.7 Paragraph 4.6 of PPS12 states that strategic sites “should be those sites considered central to the achievement of the strategy”. There is no local desire or requirement for an over supply and the strategy therefore only seeks to meet the identified levels of housing growth.

10.8 By including the strategic allocations within the review of the most up to date evidence, this will allow a more complete picture to be formed of how the strategy can most effectively deliver sustainable growth towards meeting local needs taking into account the environmental constraints of Salisbury/Wilton and the views of the local community.

10.9 Work undertaken on the Salisbury Vision since the EiP including feasibility studies indicates that the redevelopment of Churchfields and The Engine Sheds will probably take up to 15 years. This means that the imperative of delivering the decant land in the first years of the plan period will not be so acute. Given that this review has already identified that less housing is needed in the early years of the plan period, and that the strategy is underpinned by the delivery of mixed use development, this is a further contributory factor which supports the conclusion that there is no longer a need to ensure that all strategic sites around Salisbury/Wilton are delivered within the initial plan period (5 years). This provides further justification as to why the strategic sites around Salisbury and Wilton as currently allocated in the Core Strategy should be reviewed.

10.10 Furthermore, the historic trends of delivery on windfall sites for Salisbury and Wilton indicate that this source of housing supply is likely to continue to contribute housing at a potentially significant level over the remainder of the plan period. While, by its very nature, it is not possible to rely on windfall levels continuing at the same levels, it is sensible to look at trends which indicate that even if delivery dropped to 50% of its current level it could still be significant source of supply. An examination of the delivery of dwellings in the Salisbury and Wilton Community Areas over the period 2006 to 2010 shows that 456 out of 854 gross dwellings (53%) have been delivered through windfall sites. The potential contribution of SSAs needs to be assessed in relation to the environmental capacity of Salisbury, as set out in Section 7, and for those reasons and given the likely continuation of delivery on windfall sites, it is concluded that it is preferable to reduce the levels of growth (and resultant environmental impact) on greenfield strategic allocations around Salisbury. The Core Strategy should ensure that the ongoing delivery of windfall dwellings is reviewed as the plan progresses as part of a plan, monitor and manage approach.

10.11 Therefore, given that there is clear justification for considering the contribution made to the Strategy by the SSA‟s, the following sections of this paper explain how a fair and objective methodology can be used to determine whether all the SSAs within the Core Strategy should be retained.

10.12 The Settlement Strategy Topic Paper Second Addendum (TOP 03c, paragraphs 3.15 to 3.20) explains that Amesbury and the Garrison Villages of Durrington and Bulford fulfil a unique role and function within South Wiltshire, which does not conform to other classifications within the settlement hierarchy. Any consideration of growth at Amesbury should therefore be viewed in this context, which has also been supported by a longstanding locally supported policy of balanced growth.

10.13 The policy of allowing growth at Amesbury in a balanced manner, which matches new homes at Butterfield Down and Archers Gate with large new employment opportunities at Solstice Park and nearby military bases, has been in place for 20 years. This has led to an evolving role for Amesbury as it becomes more self contained in relation to Salisbury, as well as providing jobs and services to a wider group of satellite settlements. A second phase of residential development at Archers Gate (provisionally called Kings Gate) has long been planned to ensure residential opportunities keep pace with employment growth. This approach continues to be supported by the local community. Paragraph 4.27 of the adopted Salisbury District Local Plan (LPP/01) in supporting policy H9 states „In order to ensure that future development in Amesbury is undertaken in a sustainable manner, it is important to ensure that the employment development and infrastructure needed to serve the new residential development are taken into account in the timing of the new housing development‟.

10.14 Table 7 above indicates that compared against the newly identified requirement for the Amesbury community area, after taking account of completions and commitments, the current strategic allocation proposed in Amesbury will result in a level of growth that is still consistent with its role and function and supports the communities‟ aspirations. This will allow for the strategic allocation to come forward and a reasonable level of windfall housing to support smaller more rural communities later in the plan period once existing commitments have been developed.

10.15 An examination of the historic delivery of committed dwellings in the Amesbury community area in the period 2006 to 2026 indicates that only 133 out of 674 (19%) have been delivered through brownfield windfall sites, compared to the figure of 53% in the Salisbury and Wilton community areas. Given these trends, retaining the full Kings Gate allocation is seen as the most effective way to ensure the delivery of the minimum amount of housing needed in the Amesbury community area

10.16 Therefore, a review of the Kings Gate allocation is not proposed.

(d) Excluding brownfield sites from the review

10.17 The brownfield sites of UKLF, Imerys, Churchfields, Maltings and Central Car park have been discounted from this review. Not only is it directly in accordance with national planning policy to develop brownfield sites first, but there are other reasons for this. The closure of UKLF and Imerys could create areas of decline if their future regeneration is not planned as a priority. This is

25 highlighted in paragraph 3.3(f) of the SWCS. In addition the Salisbury Vision highlights some key challenges facing the city of Salisbury. As detailed in paragraph 3.4c of the SWCS, Churchfields, Salisbury‟s major industrial estate, is highly constrained by railway bridges and the river, which means it has little room for expansion which is impacting negatively on local business expansion plans. The Salisbury Vision also proposes the redevelopment of the Central Car Park/ Maltings, which is seen as essential to secure the future of Salisbury as a retail centre, as expressed in Core Policy 7 of the SWCS. It is imperative that these regeneration and Vision projects on brownfield sites should continue to be planned for to ensure the future prosperity for Salisbury.

11. Methodology for reviewing Strategic Site Allocations

(A) Background

11.1 In reviewing the strategic site allocations in Salisbury and Wilton, it is important to bear in mind that the principle of suitability of development on all of these allocations has already been established otherwise they would not have been allocated in the emerging SWCS in the first place. It is important to emphasise that the Strategic Site Allocations identified within the SWCS submission draft remain deliverable and developable, and that this part of the review is seeking to answer the question: If the justification for reducing growth levels from strategic sites is accepted, then how could this best be achieved? As less land needs to be allocated to meet the strategic needs of the area, there needs to be a clear methodology for seeing which sites may not be required at this time. It is the case that some sites are easier to develop and may have different constraints, which make them a more sustainable option than others. The starting point for this part of the review is to revisit the original site selection methodology and implement a finer grain analysis to establish if the sites can be reasonably ranked in order of suitability.

11.2 The evidence for selecting the allocations is set out in the Site Selection Paper (Topic Paper 19, paper 2). The following map is an extract from that Topic Paper and illustrates those areas that have potential for future growth, subject to further detailed assessment and analysis. These areas are divided into one of 3 groups:  those with no scope for strategic growth – areas 4,6 and 15 illustrated in red on the map  those with only limited scope for strategic growth – areas 1,2,9,10,11 and 16 illustrated in blue on the map  those with potential for a strategic allocation – areas 3,7,8,12,13 and 14 illustrated in green on the map

26 Map 1: Potential Areas for Strategic Growth in and around Salisbury/Wilton

11.3 Most of the green areas that have been identified as having potential for strategic growth are where the strategic allocations have been proposed in the Core Strategy. The process of identifying these areas is based on a constraints mapping exercise - for example, this sifted out all those areas subject to heritage constraints, flood risk constraints, nature conservation constraints, AONB and national park, military land. The Landscape Character Assessment, prepared on behalf of the Council by Chris Blandford Associates, has then been used to assess the remaining areas in more detail. This assessment considered issues such as topography, visual assessment, townscape and landscape role and function, and any special qualities to be safeguarded in the area.

11.4 This review does not, and cannot change, this existing evidence in the Site Selection Paper. This review will not, therefore, change the appropriateness of these sites and hence all the green sites on the map above still have potential for strategic growth. What this review will examine is which, out of the greenfield SSAs, are the most suitable and should come forward first should some of those sites identified in the SWCS not be required as early as originally envisaged. This does not mean that the sites that are ranked as less suitable sites aren‟t still appropriate, developable and deliverable, and won‟t come forward at some stage in the future.

11.5 Therefore the sites assessed through this stage of the Review are:  Fugglestone Red  Hampton Park  Longhedge (Old Sarum)  South of Netherhampton Road

27 (B) Adopting a criterion based approach

11.6 A systematic and objective approach has been taken to reassess the strategic allocations and this has been based on a review of a number of key criteria that were used to identify their suitability for development in the first instance. These criteria are as follows:  sustainability  landscape appraisal  heritage  transport  water / flooding  biodiversity / wildlife  place making  consultation feedback

11.7 Each site is assessed against each of these criteria, using the following scoring/traffic light matrix:

1 – Least suitable 2 – Less suitable 3 – Suitable 4 – Most suitable

11.8 Those sites scoring the highest points are considered to be the most suitable and conversely those scoring the lowest points, the least suitable. A completed pro-forma assessing each site is included in Appendix 1. As discussed earlier in the review some sites have already been discounted from being reviewed namely, UKLF, Imerys, Maltings and Central Car Park and the redevelopment of Churchfields. The following explains in more detail each of the criteria that has been used to assess the sites.

(i) Sustainability 11.9 A further assessment of the sustainability of each site is carried out with reference to the Sustainability Appraisal Report July 2009 (SWCS/03).

11.10 All the strategic allocations were found to be sustainable otherwise they would not have been allocated in the first place. However, some are likely to be more sustainable than others. The Sustainability Appraisal Report (SWCS/03) assesses the sites against 23 different sustainability objectives, using different categories of assessment.

28 11.11 The sustainability objectives are:

Sustainability Appraisal Objectives 1 To promote social inclusion of all, ensuring a fully inclusive environment, and addressing the needs of the young and old, those with disabilities, and diverse groups. 2 To ensure that everybody has the opportunity of living in a decent and affordable home 3 To improve health and well being of the population 4 To improve community safety and reduce crime, including perceptions of the fear of crime. 5 To improve and protect accessibility to all services and facilities 6 To improve the availability and accessibility to open space, including accessible natural green space, within and around communities. 7 To increase energy efficiency including that of buildings, and promote the generation of energy from renewable sources 8 To reduce waste generation and increase levels of reuse and recycling 9 To improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 10 To promote sustainable transport choices by improving affordable and accessible solutions particularly in rural areas 11 To make efficient use of land and, where appropriate. Maximise the use of previously developed sites. 12 To respond to threats proposed by flooding and promote water in the interests of water resources. 13 To improve road safety and reduce congestion on roads 14 To maintain and improve the quality and quantity of the district‟s rivers including those protected under the Special Area of Conservation. 15 To conserve and enhance the district‟s biodiversity and geodiversity, including downland habitats and those protected under Special Protection Areas. 16 To conserve and enhance the District‟s landscapes 17 To facilitate sustainable economic growth, development and competitiveness of new and existing businesses 18 To provide suitable infrastructure to promote business growth and encourage investment in the district. 19 To raise educational attainment and improve workforce skills 20 To harness the economic benefits that arise from tourism/cultural activities 21 To maintain and enhance the viability/vitality of new and existing services and facilities and re- emphasise the „town centre first‟ objective in respect to retail development. 22 To promote development of highest standard that responds to its setting and is appropriate to its function. 23 To protect, maintain and improve the recognised built heritage and cultural assets of the district, including Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeology

11.12 The different categories of assessment used are as follows:

++ Strong and significant beneficial impact + Potential beneficial impact ? Uncertain or insufficient information on which to determine base the assessment at this stage ᷉ 1. Development has no impact; or 2. Effect is neutral - Development appears to conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts but mitigation possible -- Potentially significant adverse impact / mitigation less likely x Strong and significant adverse impact

29 11.13 The sustainability objectives were used along with a series of decision aiding questions detailed in table 4.1 of SWCS/03 to come out with an assessment score.

11.14 It should be noted that, whilst there are 23 sustainability objectives, for the Fugglestone Red, Longhedge and Netherhampton Road sites, one of the objectives was given two scorings, hence the total number of objectives for each of these sites is 24. The reason for this is that in the case of some Sustainability Appraisal (SA) objectives, the development of a site could have both positive and negative impacts. For example, Sustainability Objective 10 is to, „To promote sustainable transport choices by improving affordable and accessible solutions particularly in rural areas. Taking the Fugglestone Red site as an example, for this objective, this site was given two scorings. Firstly, the SA report concluded that this site has potential to encourage walking or cycling, is near to a park and ride bus service so has more potential for use and is also a catalyst to improve bus service. The SA report therefore concluded that for this reason the development of this site will have a potentially beneficial impact. However, the SA report also concludes that there are congestion issues associated with this site and that there is potential for further adverse impact on air quality in this area. There are also potential air pollution issues on Devizes Road. The SA therefore assesses this as having a potentially significant adverse impact /mitigation less likely.

11.15 For the Longhedge site, the SA report gives two scores against Sustainability Appraisal Objective 16, which is to “conserve and enhance the district‟s landscape”. The SA concludes that development of this site has the potential for adverse effects on the landscape due to Old Sarum Castle but that land to the north west of the Roman Road which bisects the site would have less impact. The SA therefore gives this site two scores – firstly, a negative score because the development appears to conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts. Secondly, a positive score, because mitigation may be possible.

11.16 For the site on Netherhampton Road, the SA report gives two scores against Sustainability Appraisal Objective 1 which is “to improve and protect accessibility to all services and facilities”. For this site, the SA comments that there are basic community facilities accessible in Harnham and good, well used walking and cycle routes into Salisbury for a wider range of facilities. The SA therefore gives the site a score of “potential beneficial impact” against this objective. However, the SA also concludes that the western side of the site is remote from facilities (over 2km) and raises issues over access, and therefore gives this site another score against this objective which reads “development appears to conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts”.

11.17 By examining the Sustainability Appraisal objectives findings for each site, and specifically looking at the different categories of assessment used, it should be possible to determine which of the strategic allocations are more sustainable and which are less sustainable.

11.18 The Sustainability Appraisal uses symbols to score each SA objective against each site. However, in order to judge which of the sites are more sustainable than others, the table below counts for each site how many of the sustainability objectives are scored in the Sustainability Appraisal as having a strong and beneficial impact, how many have potential beneficial impact

30 through to how many have strong and significant adverse impact. For example, for the Fugglestone Red site, three of the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives were assessed as having a “strong an significant beneficial impact”, thirteen of the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives were assessed as having a “potential beneficial impact”, two of the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives were assessed as having “uncertain or insufficient information on which to determine based the assessment”, and so on.

11.19 The full appraisals can be found in appendix v of the final Sustainability Report July 2009

Table 8: Strategic Allocations Scores for Sustainability Appraisal Objectives Fugglestone Hampton Longhedge Harnham Red Park Strong and significant 3 1 1 1 beneficial impact Potential beneficial impact 13 8 13 8 Uncertain or insufficient 2 6 1 4 information on which to determine base the assessment at this stage 1. Development has no 0 2 3 4 impact; or 2. Effect is neutral

Development appears to 3 5 6 6 conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts but mitigation possible Potentially significant 3 1 0 1 adverse impact / mitigation less likely Strong and significant 0 0 0 0 adverse impact – absolute constraints to development 24 23 24 24

(a) Assessing beneficial Impact on sustainability

11.20 Adding the number of Sustainability Appraisal Objectives for each site that have a “strong or significant beneficial impact” or “or potential beneficial impact” as a percentage of all the Sustainability Appraisal Objectives indicates which sites have the most beneficial impact. The results of these calculations are as follows (in order of sites with most beneficial impacts):

o Fugglestone Red 16 of the SA objectives were scored as having a beneficial impact, equating to 67%.

o Longhedge

31 14 of the SA objectives were scored as having a beneficial impact, equating to 58%

o Hampton Park 9 of the SA objectives were scored as having a beneficial impact, equating to 39%

o Netherhampton Road 9 of the SA objectives were scored as having a beneficial impact, equating to 37.5%

(b) Assessing negative impacts on sustainability

11.21 None of the sites had a “strong and significant adverse impact” on sustainability. Adding the number of Sustainability Appraisal objectives for each site where “development appears to conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts but mitigation possible” and where there is a “potentially significant adverse impact /mitigation less likely” indicates which sites have the most negative impact. The results of these calculations are as follows (in order of sites with least negative impact):

o Fugglestone Red 6 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 25%.

o Longhedge 6 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 25%

o Hampton Park 6 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 26%

o Netherhampton Road 7 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 29%

Conclusions 11.22 Using the assessment criteria described in paragraph B above this results in the following sustainability score (both positive and negative) for each of the 4 sites being assessed:

Table 9: Scoring results for assessment against SA criteria Positive Impact Score Negative Impact Score Fugglestone Red 3 3 Land South of Netherhampton 1 1 Road Longhedge 2 3 Hampton Park 1 2

32 11.23 This identifies that Fugglestone Red is the most sustainable site (i.e. most suitable), followed by Longhedge, Hampton Park and lastly Land South of Netherhampton Road.

(ii) Landscape appraisal

11.24 An assessment of the landscape of each site is carried out with reference to the district wide Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (STU/20) and the Settlement Settings Assessment (STU/21) undertake as part of the LCA. While this formed a key consideration in the initial identification of the greenfield strategic sites in the SWCS, there has been no attempt to use this criteria to see if any of the strategic sites are more preferable in landscape terms than others. In terms of impact on landscape, all development will have some impact, but by re-assessing the LCA it is possible to judge which of the sites are likely to have a greater impact on the landscape than others.

11.25 The Settlement Settings Assessment is based on a number of criteria, including a visual assessment. This looks at key elevated and low level views to Salisbury and Wilton, key Salisbury and Wilton landmarks, distinctive/memorable features in the setting of Salisbury and Wilton and ridgelines. This visual assessment also examines the townscape/countryside interface of the landscape, which considers the elevation, foreground character and built edge character as seen in immediate views form the settlement setting.

11.26 The Settlement Settings Assessment also includes a townscape and landscape analysis, which looks at the first views of Salisbury and Wilton, urban gateways, gateways distinctive to Wilton and Salisbury, the character of approaches to settlements and selected features on approaches such as green finger, necklace villages and open countryside separating necklace villages and these villages with Salisbury and Wilton.

11.27 Townscape and landscape role and function is another criteria used in the Settlement Settings Assessment. This characterises the landscape/townscape as having one of the following roles/functions:

 visually cohesive historic core  distinctive townscape / landscape  supportive townscape / landscape  connective townscape / landscape  weak townscape / landscape  outer rural areas

11.28 Special qualities to be safeguarded include features such as green fingers/corridors, peripheral areas with particular qualities and landscape that is not distinctive or supportive.

11.29 Taking account of these criteria, each site has been scored using the “traffic light” system as referred to below. Those sites scoring the highest points are considered to be the most suitable and conversely those scoring the lowest points, the least suitable.

33 1 – Least suitable 2 – Less suitable 3 – Suitable 4 – Most suitable

11.30 This results in the 4 sites being assessed as receiving the following scores in landscape terms.

Table 10: Scoring results for assessment against landscape criteria Fugglestone Red 3 Land South of Netherhampton Road 2 Longhedge 3 Hampton Park 3

(iii) Heritage 11.31 An assessment of the Heritage assets of each site is carried out with reference to the Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment (SHEA) (STU 23). This SHEA considers the impact of the proposed strategic allocations on:

 prehistoric landscape, known and unknown archaeology in general  setting of individual monuments  setting, key views in and out of Longford (grade II*) and Wilton (grade I*) designed landscapes (and also including Amesbury Abbey – grade II*)  the setting of Salisbury and key views in and out of Salisbury  historic farmsteads

11.32 Each proposed development site has been classified as being generally of high, moderate, low, or minimal risk to the historic environment if developed, as follows:

High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Minimal risk There is a severe There is a problem There is a slight The criterion is not problem relating to relating to the problem relating to adversely affected. the criterion, and no criterion but this may the criterion and in Therefore no mitigation measures be lessened if certain some cases this may mitigation measures can alleviate it to any mitigation measure be lessened if certain are required. great degree are adopted mitigation measures are adopted

11.33 This scoring of the potential effect on the historic environment has been assessed against two sets of criteria. The first set of criteria is concerned with known archaeology, site and monuments as follows:

 effects on the known archaeology of the site and the surrounding historic landscape  effects on the setting, context and key views to or from individual sites and monuments  effects on the setting, and key views in and out of the designed landscape that could be affected by the development sites  effects on the setting and key views in and out of the settlements of Salisbury, Wilton and Amesbury  effects on the setting of historic farmsteads

34 11.34 These potential impacts on the known aspects of the historic environment take account of both direct impacts (caused by the development) and indirect impacts (such as lighting and increased traffic movements and their effects on the aesthetics and tranquillity of the setting). These are detailed in Appendix 1 of the SHEA and summarised in Table 4.1 of the SHEA, which also provides an overall risk score for each proposed development site, taking full account of all the scores against each of the above criterion. Where appropriate, Table 4.1 of the SHEA summarises potential mitigation measures - reference must be made to Appendix 1 of the SHEA for further details. These have also been summarised in Appendix 1 to this review document.

11.35 The second criterion relates to unknown archaeology and the potential for a site to contain unrecorded archaeological remains. This risk is shown in Table 4.2 and on Map 4.2 of the SHEA. A summary of all these risks is provided in the following table:

Table 11: Summary of the risk to the historic environment overall, and the risk to potential archaeology of each proposed development site Known Heritage summary Potential heritage Fugglestone Red Moderate risk Moderate risk Hampton Park High Risk High Risk Old Sarum (Longhedge) High Risk High Risk South of Netherhampton Road, Harnham Low Risk High risk

11.36 It should be noted that the areas of land assessed in the SHEA do not always exactly match the extent of the proposed strategic allocations within the Core Strategy. Where this has a bearing on the comments made about a particular site in the SHEA (e.g. the Hampton Park site), then the site has been re- scored differently to that in the SHEA. For example, for the Hampton Park allocation the SHEA identifies risk of incursion into the setting of the Old Sarum Scheduled Ancient Monument, through potential development of the eastern portion of the strategic area of growth. This has been reassessed against the proposed mitigation contained in the allocation (i.e. a 51ha country park), which effectively neutralises both short and long term threat of development on this important green lung.

11.37 In conclusion the impact on heritage, as assessed in Appendix 1 of this review can be summarised as:

Table 12: Scoring results for assessment against heritage criteria Known Heritage Potential Heritage Fugglestone Red 2 2 Netherhampton Road 3 1 Longhedge 1 1 Hampton Park 3 1

11.38 This shows that in heritage terms, Land south of Netherhampton Road and Longhedge score poorly with Hampton Park scoring the best.

35 (iv) Transport 11.39 Updated Transport evidence has now been provided within STU/52 the Wiltshire Strategic Transport Assessment. This has been prepared by Wiltshire Council to inform the Wiltshire wide Core Strategy, as well as this review.

11.40 The study uses software (paragraph 3.2.1) to identify accessibility to areas of search around settlements, including accession mapping and the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS). This looks at key transport indicators such as access to essential services and facilities; public transport service provision; highway network capacity; journey to work patterns and ranks area from the most accessible to the least accessible. Further detail of this can be found in section 5 of the Strategic Transport Assessment.

11.41 The study as a whole looked at 162 areas of search/ sites across the whole of Wiltshire and, although not site specific, it is possible to generally identify the four sites within this review. Appendix 4 of STU/52 provides an overall summary of results.

11.42 However it should be noted that this assessment looks at current accessibility and the existing highway network and does not look at any improvements that could be made as a result of land being allocated for development.

11.43 In conclusion the sites subject to this part of the review have the following scores:

Table 13: Scoring results for assessment against transport criteria Fugglestone Red 2 Land South of Netherhampton Road 3 Longhedge 2 Hampton Park 3

(v) Consultation feedback

11.44 Overall, all the more general consultation responses point to the fact that local communities within South Wiltshire broadly felt that the level of growth proposed in the SWRSS for the area was too high for the environment to accommodate.

11.45 More detailed site specific responses were provided especially with respect to Core Policy 2 and the results of this area of consultation are discussed in Appendix 1 under the site specific table. In summary this identifies the following score for each site assessed.

11.46 Each site is assessed within the matrix in Appendix 1 against each of these criteria described earlier in this paper and can be summarised as follows:

Table 14: Scoring results for assessment against consultation criteria Fugglestone Red 3 - Suitable Land south of Netherhampton Road 1 – Least Suitable Hampton Park 3 - Suitable Longhedge 1 – Least Suitable

11.47 The proposed abolition of the SWRSS and the derivation of locally justified growth levels can therefore respond to some of the objections that have been raised by local communities to the proposed level of growth within the SWRSS. In the letter from the Chief Planning Officer to Local Planning Authorities dated 6 July 2010 regarding the revocation of SWRSS, it is made clear that Local Planning Authorities should continue to develop LDF core strategies “reflecting local people‟s aspirations and decisions on important issues such as climate change, housing and economic development”.

(vi) Water / flooding 11.48 An assessment of what floodzone the site falls within and also the water / drainage infrastructure that will be required to facilitate the development is made with reference to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (ref) (STU 29 A) and the development Topic Paper 17 Infrastructure section 4, which were informed by discussions with Wessex Water.

11.49 As with other criteria, the same scoring system has been employed to rank the sites according to how they perform under the SFRA and water infrastructure. This is shown at Appendix 1 and can be summarised as:

Table 15: Scoring results for assessment against water/flooding criteria Fugglestone Red 3 Land south of Netherhampton Road 2 Hampton Park 2 Longhedge 2

(vii) Biodiversity / wildlife 11.50 An assessment of biodiversity/wildlife issues for each site has been made with reference to the development templates in the SWCS, which themselves were informed by discussions with Natural England and or the County Ecologist. This is ranked in Appendix 1, but is not conclusive as all sites rank as the same.

Table 16: Scoring results for assessment against biodiversity/wildlife criteria Fugglestone Red 3 Land south of Netherhampton Road 3 Hampton Park 3 Longhedge 3

(viii) Place-shaping 11.51 The evidence clearly supports the need for the Core Strategy to address 'Place Shaping', through ensuring that growth is managed in a way that produces attractive, prosperous, vibrant, safe and strong communities where people want to live, work and do business (see Topic Paper 14, „Design‟ and its addenda). Therefore when considering the review of sites, while it was implicit that each site being reviewed could deliver high quality outcomes (or they would not have been included in the first place), it was considered appropriate to reappraise the opportunities each site presented to see if any sites were better placed to deliver than others. Key considerations when comparing the merits of these sites are whether the site is fairly self-contained

37 or whether the development will deliver a range of community benefits to the wider community. How the site integrates into the townscape of the existing built-up area was also considered.

Table 17: Scoring results for assessment against place shaping criteria Fugglestone Red 4 Land south of Netherhampton Road 2 Hampton Park 3 Longhedge 3

12. Consideration of results and

implications for Strategy

12.1 The detailed, individual appraisals of each strategic site allocation can be found in Appendix 1. In summary, the results are as follows, in order of the most suitable site first:

Table 18: Results of appraisals for Greenfield Strategic Site Allocations, Salisbury Site Score Fugglestone Red 28 Hampton Park 24 Longhedge 21 Netherhampton Road 19

12.2 The results indicate a distinction between the most suitable sites at the top and, and the least suitable sites at the bottom.

(a) Netherhampton Road 12.3 Table 8 above indicates that fewer dwellings are required than are currently allocated in the SWCS in Salisbury and Wilton. As the Netherhampton Road site has been rated as the least suitable, it is reasonable to suggest that the site (which is allocated for 400 houses and 10 ha of employment land and counts towards Salisbury‟s figures) is no longer be required as an SSA to meet housing requirements in the SWCS.

12.4 In terms of the employment land allocated on the Netherhampton Road site, one of the principal strands of the employment strategy of the SWCS is the regeneration of Churchfields and the decant sites that are required to facilitate this. There is an existing business park at Harnham, which has yet to be taken up and which, if the 10 ha employment allocation at Netherhampton Road were to be deleted, would still provide the choice for Churchfields businesses to decant to the Harnham area if they so wished.

38 12.5 Out of all the proposed strategic site allocations in the current Core Strategy, Harnham is the one that is the most divorced from existing communities, being located in the rural valley away from existing residential devlopment in a manner that does not make as good urban design sense as the other sites identified.

(b) Longhedge 12.6 This review indicates that the second least suitable site for allocation is Longhedge. With regards to this site, in evidence submitted to the EIP (paragraph 5.8 of HS/1868/3), English Heritage suggested that the following „flexible‟ allocation at Longhedge would be considered acceptable:

„Mixed use development of approximately 17ha/33% to 20ha/40% of the site to enable approximately 8ha of employment development and between 360 and 800 new homes, the precise figure to be determined following a thorough and detailed site assessment and masterplanning process‟

12.7 Whilst it is not accepted that Core Policy allocations can be expressed in such flexible terms, because of the findings of the review of Strategic Allocations it is acknowledged that the area of this site could be reduced as suggested, without having a detrimental impact on the Strategy.

12.8 Developing 20 hectares of the site, with 8 hectares for employment, would allow a housing allocation of 450 houses at approximately 35 dwellings per hectare.

12.9 Deleting or reducing the employment allocation at Longhedge, on the other hand, could have implications for the strategy in that it would jeopardise the relocation of employment uses from Churchfields and the need to identify decant sites to allow this to happen.

12.10 The principle of strategic growth in this area was established under the current Local Plan with the Old Sarum mixed used housing and employment allocation (subsequently granted planning permission) and the Local Plan recognises that there is potential for further growth beyond the current plan period. The Longhedge site is therefore important to consolidate and build critical mass at the existing community.

(c) Hampton Park 12.11 The results also indicate that Hampton Park is a more suitable site than Longhedge or Harnham. Indeed out of the Greenfield SSA‟s proposed for around Salisbury it is the second best site, behind Fugglestone Red. There are concerns that meant the site ranked lower than Fugglestone Red, principally because of sustainability and heritage concerns. This site is currently the subject of a planning application by Barrett Homes for 500 homes, Country Park and new primary school. The proposal broadly accords in principle with the SWCS submission draft, and is now subject of an appeal for non-determination. At the time of writing this review the Local Planning Authority has yet to consider this application at committee.

12.12 Consultation responses, both to the ongoing SWCS process and in particular the planning application, are generally opposed to the principle of the development of this site on the grounds that Laverstock is not considered to be part of Salisbury and therefore does not need the houses proposed.

39 Comments on the application also suggest that should the development go ahead against the wishes of the community then it should deliver the following:

 Larger Strategic gap at Ford  Numbers limited to a range of 200- 300  High quality layout and design (better than submitted in the application)  Public access to the green infrastructure  Social infrastructure for both new and existing residents as well as the school  Flexibility over the future use of the „country park‟ including possibility of a community farm.

12.13 These comments were made after the submission of the SWCS to the Secretary of State and it reasonable that they should be given consideration.

12.14 While the representations received are clear and are important considerations, this review has confirmed that in planning terms the site is one of the most appropriate to accommodate the new growth needed by Salisbury. To remove this site, without any credible evidence to support why, would undermine the fundamental soundness of the SWCS. The review has not identified any evidence which supports the removal or a reduction in numbers at this site.

12.15 While the site is within the Parish of Laverstock the site is distant from the village itself and directly abuts the city of Salisbury. It was well rehearsed at the EIP that Salisbury lacks sites within its existing urban area to meet levels of growth required and hence greenfields on the periphery need to be explored. This site forms an urban extension to the City. The development of this site with the retention of a strategic gap and country park will mean that no further development should take place on this edge of Salisbury.

12.16 Consideration of reducing the numbers of dwelling proposed on the SSA to meet the community‟s wishes has been studied in detail. However, reducing the allocation by 200 dwellings or more would undermine the viability of the site and would mean that the country park, school and the associated place- shaping attributes that the site could bring to the area would be lost. Furthermore there are no sound planning reasons to reduce this number other than the local views. However, minor changes to the SWCS are proposed in order to address the concerns raised by the local community to ensure that the site comes forward in a way that best reflects their views.

12.17 In response to the further assessment of this site and the weight of public opinion it is therefore proposed that the allocation be retained as included in the SWCS but that some of the measures identified by the community are added to the development template so that mitigation and community benefit is optimised. These minor changes are:  The layout of any development shall be revised to increase the width of the strategic gap between the development and Ford;  Added flexibility over the future function of the green open space to allow the community to agree its best use; and  A community forum is established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes meet local aspirations.

(d) Fugglestone Red This SSA is to remain unchanged. The site came out as the most sustainable and best of the greenfield allocations through the objective review. It provides a good opportunity to bring some much needed community facilities to the North West of Salisbury, which is lacking and in townscape/landscape terms remains a logical urban extension to Salisbury.

13. The balance of housing needed as a

result of the review and implications for

5 year land supply

13.1 Given the proposed changes to the SSA‟s the following table summarises how the SWCS will deliver growth over the course of the plan period.

Table 19: Balance of housing needed compared to revised Core Strategy Allocations Community Area Revised figure Completions Commitments Balance of Reviewed Balance housing allocations in taking Core Strategy account of reviewed allocations Salisbury/Wilton1 6,000 727 1010 4,263 3950 363 Rest of Wilton Community Area 220 113 43 64 0 64 Sub-total 6,220 840 1,053 4,327 3,950 377 Amesbury 2100 564 76 1,460 1300 160 Rest of Amesbury Community Area 295 110 176 9 0 9 Sub-total 2,395 674 252 1,469 1,300 169 Downton 300 16 42 242 0 242 Rest of Southern Community Area 365 74 74 217 0 217 Sub-total 665 90 116 459 0 459 Mere 200 82 36 82 0 82 Rest of Mere Community Area 0 19 4 -23 0 -23 Sub-total 200 101 40 59 0 59 Tisbury 200 54 101 45 0 45 Rest of Tisbury Community Area 220 29 21 170 0 170 Sub-total 420 83 122 215 0 215 Total 9,900 1788 1583 6,529 5,250 1,279

1 This includes allocations for Salisbury which are in neighbouring parish of Laverstock which itself is in the Southern Community Area.

13.2 One reason (but not the only one) that the allocations are „strategic‟ is the contribution they make to the Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 requirement of maintaining continuous 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is important, whatever the outcome of the review of the SWCS, that this 5 year supply is still maintained.

13.3 The reviewed strategic allocations in the plan at Salisbury, Wilton and Amesbury (5250 dwellings in total) represent around 10 years of land supply. Furthermore, these calculations do not include saved Local Plan allocations and commitments.

14. Implications for contingency

14.1 Paragraph 62 of PPS3 advises that “reflecting the principles of Plan, Monitor, Manage”, Local Development Documents should set out a housing implementation strategy that describes the approach to managing delivery of the housing and previously-developed land targets and trajectories. This should include scenario and contingency planning to identify different delivery options, in the event that actual housing delivery does not occur at the rate expected.

14.2 If the delivery of housing does not take place at the rate expected, for example if one of the retained allocations does not come forward, there is potential contingency via the areas indicated on the Site Selection Map (Map 1 above). This would include the Netherhampton Road (400 dwellings), the remainder of the Longhedge site (350 dwellings) or the area of search at Salisbury Hospital referred to in the SWCS (1132 dwellings). These sites represent strategic reserves. In addition to these, the Salisbury Vision sites not allocated in the SWCS because of short-term uncertainty about delivery could offer further potential contingency, particularly in the Southampton Road area.

15. Conclusions of this review

15.1 The Government‟s intention to abolish the draft SWRSS and the localism agenda has meant that a review of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Submission Draft is necessary. This is particularly so given that the housing and job growth numbers in the draft SWRSS are unlikely to form part of the adopted development plan relating to Wiltshire. A review has therefore been undertaken using up to date evidence to justify how the housing and job numbers need to be revised. PPS12 requires consistency with national policy in order for a strategy to be sound. Clearly with the many changes introduced by the change of Government that occurred after the initial SWCS EIP and in light of new evidence, it is prudent to review the document.

15.2 The review has been conducted, taking account of a number of factors, which have been assessed in order to determine if changes are required to the SWCS to ensure it represents the most appropriate way in which to manage the strategic growth in South Wiltshire.

15.3 As has been consistently argued by the Council, South Wiltshire is a highly constrained environment and finding developable land to meet local housing and employment needs requires a considered response. There are a number of factors which explain why it is appropriate to reduce the numbers from those in the SWRSS and SWCS submission draft, as follows:

 Ensuring prudent use of the constrained environmental capacity in South Wiltshire;  Ensuring the Core Strategy plans in a sustainable manner for future homes and jobs, in accordance with PPS1;  Recent improvements in housing delivery rates eased the pressure for so much immediate growth;  Intention to abolish the requirement to plan for “minimum” levels of housing within the SWRSS;  Greater recognition of Salisbury‟s dominance in a predominantly rural area in the distribution of growth;  Contribution that windfall delivery of housing supply makes to supply;  Impact on Water Supply Infrastructure;  Ensuring that the some growth in the rural settlements can take place;  Consideration of the localism agenda.

15.4 In light of these factors, we have concluded that the approach detailed in this document which seeks to balance the need to provide for appropriate levels of growth, including affordable housing delivery, in a manner that reflects the spatial characteristics of the area and the concerns of its local communities is justified. This approach is wholly consistent with achieving the correct balance.

15.5 Taking all of the factors identified into account it is the logical conclusion that the opportunity should be taken to reduce the levels of growth in South Wiltshire, rather than to continue with those within the submission draft which were challenging to the environmental capacity of the area.

15.6 With the rationale of the justification for a review established, an objective appraisal of the SWCS was conducted, based on a review of extant and new evidence. The review has confirmed that fundamentally the strategy is the right one and should be retained, but with some focussed changes principally to Core Policies 1 and 2, to reflect the revision downwards in the growth levels required and the consequent changes to the Strategic Site Allocations. The key finding of the review can be summarised as follows:

 The latest evidence indicates that the level of housing growth set out in the draft SWRSS is too high and that the SWCS should be planning for growth of 9,900 homes, not 12,400 within the draft SWRSS;  The SWCS should be planning for 10,400 jobs, not the 13,900 within the draft SWRSS;  There is still the need to provide for growth and the strategy of frontloading the delivery of strategic sites is still appropriate.

43  Although lower growth figures are proposed, these are still ambitious when compared to historic delivery rates.  While the projected need for affordable housing and economy driven growth remains much higher than the environmental capacity of South Wiltshire, an appropriate balance has been made towards meeting these needs.  The focus of growth at Salisbury/Wilton and Amesbury as the most sustainable places for development is correct.  There is a need to ensure provision for modest growth in the smaller rural communities to support their vitality.  Not all of the growth proposed to be delivered through the Strategic Site Allocations (SSA) is justified given the lower levels of growth.  A systematic appraisal of the SSA‟s has identified land that should not be brought forward at this time but instead be identified as a strategic reserve with development potential in the longer term.

15.7 In order to deliver these findings a number of changes are proposed to the SWCS, and these are set out as revisions to the document that partner this report. In summary the key changes proposed to the Core Strategy are as follows:

Summary of Key Changes proposed to the SWCS as result of the review

 The target for housing growth to be revised down to 9,900  The target for jobs growth to be revised down to 10,400  A growth figure of 6220 dwellings will be delivered in Salisbury/Wilton Community Area  2395 dwellings in Amesbury Community Area  Strategic site allocations will deliver 3950 dwellings in Salisbury/Wilton  The Strategic Site Allocation at Netherhampton Road is not required at this time and will be deleted  The Strategic Site Allocation at Long hedge will be retained but reduced to deliver 450 homes (employment to remain unchanged)  The Strategic Site Allocation at Hampton Park will be retained, but in recognition of strong local representations the development template will be revised to require larger strategic gap with Ford, flexibility over the future function of the green open space and establishment of a community forum to guide development  Land at Netherhampton Road and Longhedge will be added to the

long term reserve for the Strategy as future areas of search.

15.8 These changes are focussed on Core Policies 1 and 2 in the SWCS. In accordance with the Planning Advisory Service Guidance on making changes to the Core Strategy, these represent focussed changes which alter a narrow (albeit important) part of the plan, but do not alter the fundamental strategy or constitute a significant change in direction. There will be a number of small changes required throughout the document as a result of these focussed changes. They are confined to consequential changes necessary to ensure the document is consistent. All changes proposed to the SWCS as a result of this review are shown in full on the Council website in a document entitled:

44 „Schedule of Changes to South Wiltshire Core Strategy (Proposed Submission Document) As A Result Of the Review 2011‟. A summary is included in Appendix 2 of this document.

15.9 The evidence, as collated in the set of themed topic papers accompanying the SWCS, has been revisited in conjunction with the outcome of the review and shows that the pressures on South Wiltshire have not substantially changed. There is still the pressure for homes owing to an ageing population that must be planned for, young families and first time buyers finding it difficult to get on the housing ladder. There is still the need to plan for economic growth by providing the location choices for business that help support an attractive investment environment and to support the Salisbury Vision through providing new employment (decant) sites. The latest retail evidence still indicates that Salisbury needs a significant boost in its retail offer to reverse decline in the face of increased sub-regional competition. Regeneration of the UKLF is paramount for future prosperity of Salisbury and Wilton, as is maintaining the strategy of balanced growth in Amesbury. It is clear that the villages should support modest, high quality growth commensurate with their roles and functions.

15.10 The changes proposed will still deliver an ambitious strategy which maintains the approach which underpins the SWCS, achieved through the encouragement of the early delivery of sites, (known as the „frontloading‟ of the strategy), to make early progress in meeting the challenges faced in South Wiltshire. With the focussed changes proposed, it will now do so in a manner that is more appropriate to the levels of growth required based on up to date evidence and in a manner that is more reflective of views of the local communities.

45 Appendix A – Appraisal of Strategic Site Allocations

Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria Sustainability Section 11 of this report identifies that: 3  16 of the SA objectives were scored as having a beneficial impact, equating to 3 67%.  6 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 25%.

SA summary Page 55 of Appendix V of the Sustainability Appraisal SWCS/03 of Area of Search SA – Salisbury Area 3.

The area of search has a better relationship to Wilton than sites 1 and 2 as well as Salisbury City, and offers the potential for improvement of access to facilities for the existing somewhat isolated housing estate. Further benefits include the use of some previously developed land, the redevelopment of a secondary school and the opportunity for higher density development and the creation of new habitat through the restoration of the quarry area. Issues surrounding drainage and water abstraction and the potential for adverse impact on the approach to Wilton House are also identified. Careful design and layout would be required to ensure that development of the site does not bring about the coalescence of Wilton and Salisbury. Transport issues are also identified with the potential to increase congestion, decrease air quality and increase traffic on an identified accident black spot. All these issues should be addressed before development is considered. The site shares many of the problems of sites 1 & 2 but does offer some extra advantages. The cumulative impact of the development of sites 2, 3, and 4 on the outskirts of Salisbury should be considered.

Page 24 of main SA report (STU/03) paragraph 4.23-4.24): Fugglestone Red - The site has a reasonable relationship to Salisbury and offers the potential for improvement of access to facilities for the existing adjacent somewhat isolated housing estate. Issues surrounding drainage and water abstraction and the

46 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria potential for adverse impact on the historic Wilton House are also identified. Careful design and layout would be required to ensure that development of the site does not bring about the coalescence of Wilton and Salisbury. Transport issues are also identified with the potential to increase congestion, decrease air quality and increase traffic on an identified accident black spot. It was considered that all these issues should be addressed before development is considered.

Many of the above issues have now been addressed through the definition of the site boundaries which remove concerns about the impact on Wilton House and coalescence with Wilton and 1250 dwellings, 8ha of employment land and a new primary school are now proposed as a comprehensive mixed development. The former Imerys Quarry site, with an allocation for 4 ha of employment land was also part of the original Fugglestone Red area of search. Landscape The Chris Blandford Associates Settlement Settings assessment (STU/21) (part 2, fig 3.5) through its Visual Assessment – identifies the Fugglestone Red area as having a 3 townscape/ countryside interface is “elevated views, little/no foreground, generally harsh, abrupt settlement edge. Acknowledge potential convergence issue between STU/21 part 2, figure 3.6 analyses the Townscape and landscape of the settlement of Salisbury and Wilton, but Salisbury– the A36 and A360 which are the northern and southern boundaries of the effective masterplanning can area are “Green/Treed/River valley” approaches.“First views” and “urban gateways” to address this issue. Wilton are to the west of the area, whereas those to Salisbury are to the east. Most of the site is identified as STU/21 part 2 figures 3.7 look at the CBA Townscape and Landscape role and landscape that is not distinctive function. The study identifies that the majority of the site is “connective or supportive. townscape/landscape”. These are areas of townscape/landscape which are an integral part of the settlements and their environs, but lack individual distinction, or do In townscape terms, much of not play a significant contribution to the setting of settlements. This classification does the site is characterised as not render these areas unimportant, or from lacking in their own identify. Rather, they lacking individual are often areas divorced from or weakly attached to their landscape setting, or from distinction/does not play a landmarks within the landscape of historic cores. The use of mass-produced building significant contribution to the

47 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria materials, standard suburban layouts, styles and details are also contributing factors in setting of settlements. the lack of local identity. For the area that is distinctive The North West corner of site is “supportive townscape/landscape”. These are areas and supportive the of townscape/landscape which support the character of the historic cores and areas Fugglestone Red site forms a distinctive to the settlements. They provide the backdrop and ambience, and bolster very small area of this and the sense of place of the settlements and their approaches. much of the landscape protection proposed can be Figure 3.8 of STU/21 (part 2) identifies any Special qualities to be safeguarded. Most provided in this small area. of the site is identified as “landscape that is not distinctive or supportive” apart from the north west corner which is “distinctive and supportive landscape”.

Paragraph 3.9.14 identifies for area 11 (landscape that is not distinctive or supportive) that there is potential for:

 Softening of visually harsh and abrupt settlement edges Enhancement of public access to the area. Opportunities for sensitive, high quality, accessible green infrastructure allowing improved access to the countryside for urban populations e.g. development of public footpaths/cycle paths with connections to nearby green fingers/corridors.  Conserve and enhance distinctive approaches comprising a memorable green / treed character. Resist new development that disrupts the character of approach to and from Salisbury and Wilton, particularly along Devizes Road and The Avenue, respectively.  Consider the effects of any new development within this area on views to and from the chalk escarpment.

For the north west corner which is within area 10 (distinctive and supportive landscape), which is a larger area encompassing the entirety of the surroundings of Wilton paragraph 3.9.11 identifies that:

48 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria  Conserve key views over the Nadder and Wylye river valleys that strongly contribute to memorable and distinctive approaches to Wilton;  Maintain and enhance the green / treed / river valley character of approach via the railway, which contributes to a locally distinctive and memorable approach to and from Salisbury;  Improve public access to the area, particularly along the river valleys. Opportunities for sensitive, high quality, accessible green infrastructure allowing improved access to the countryside for urban populations e.g. extension of public footpath / cycle path network and connections to other green fingers/corridors;  Conserve the historic rural setting of locally distinctive listed buildings within Burcombe and South Newton (within outer rural setting). Ensure the sense of setting, scale, form and inherent character of such clusters of buildings is not lost with the location of new development. Resist extension or intensification of linear/resist ribbon development along the Burcombe Road and Warminster Road;  Resist any new development that would adversely affect the open, undeveloped nature of the upper downland slopes and it skyline;  Conserve key views that strongly contribute to memorable and distinctive approaches to Salisbury. Resist new development that disrupts key views to important landmarks and features within Wilton and its setting  Consider the effects of any new development within this area on views to and from Wilton‟s historic core;  Resist new development that would result in any reduction in the area‟s tranquillity;  Potential to soften visually harsh and abrupt settlement edges in this area through additional tree and shrub planting.

49 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria Heritage The following evidence is taken from the Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment 2 (STU/23 page 53) Known heritage summary: Sensitivities Moderate risk Known and unknown archaeology: There is potential for unknown archaeology in 2 the form of barrows and field systems recorded from cropmarks on aerial photographs. Setting and views to Old Sarum: Old Sarum is currently not visible from the northern Potential Heritage: Moderate end of the site because of existing screening by trees. There should be building height risk restrictions and tree planting to the north of the site to ensure this remains the case. Setting and views associated with Wilton Park: The site interrupts the rural and tree-lined Avenue approach to Wilton House and Park and development within the south eastern part of the site will be visible from within the Park unless screened (see mitigation measures below). This is likely to be further exacerbated by lighting associated with the development. Setting to the town of Wilton: The setting of Wilton‟s conservation area is likely to be at risk due to the development site‟s size and prominence on the skyline on a slope looking down onto the settlement. This will be further exacerbated by the likely disturbance and traffic that the site will generate. The development site is out of scale with existing development and could further blur the boundary between the settlements of Wilton and Salisbury. It will be important to retain the visual break between the two settlements. The development could also impact on the visual gateway into Salisbury along the A360. Summary of impacts • Overall MODERATE risk of unknown archaeology on the site • Overall MODERATE risk to the setting of Wilton Park, the town of Wilton, the integrity of the Avenue and the approach to Salisbury as well as threatening the distinction between Wilton and Salisbury. It is therefore essential that there is very careful site planning to address these issues and that all the identified mitigation measures are taken into account.

Transport New transport evidence has now been provided within STU/52 Wiltshire Strategic 2

50 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria Transport Assessment. This has been prepared by Wiltshire Council to inform the Wiltshire wide Core Strategy.

The study uses various software (paragraph 3.2.1) to identify accessibility to areas of search around settlements, including accession mapping and the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS). These all look at key transport indicators such as access to essential services and facilities; public transport service provision; highway network capacity; journey to work patterns and ranks area from the most accessible to the least accessible.

The study as a whole looked at 162 areas / sites across the whole of Wiltshire. Appendix 4 of STU/52 provides an overall summary of results. Out of the four sites assessed in this appendix the Fugglestone Red (Salisbury_B) site ranks joint 3rd implying it is not as accessible in transport terms as the other sites within this Review. Consultation CON/07 – the Our Place 1 Methodology and Output Report summarised the results of the Our 3 Feedback Place in the Future 1 consultation and identified that just over 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Fugglestone Red and the UKLF site would be suitable for development. Coalescence issue can be addressed via effective masterplanning.

This site was consequently taken forward to the Preferred Options consultation, there were a limited amount of responses received either supporting or objecting to the inclusion of this site in the strategy, however responses which are summarised in CON/13 include.

 This together with land to the north of this site and at Fugglestone Red could provide another 'new' community with support services.

51 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria  Suggest relocating the business park to Old Sarum, High Post, Fugglestone Red instead of Harnham  Build at Durrington/Bulford or Fugglestone Red / MOD Wilton

The site was again included within the „evolved‟ preferred options consultation and responses (CON/17) on this site included:  Totally agree with new houses focused on sites around Salisbury centre. Slightly concerned to lose city centre parking. Bishopdown Farm, Fugglestone Red good sites.  Fugglestone Red would add too much traffic.  Ok to Fugglestone Red, Amesbury, Old Sarum & Hampton Park.  I think Fugglestone Red could be used for housing right through the fields until it reaches the UKLF.  Fugglestone Red is a problem I am far from convinced we need to build houses in the first place, suggests that case is made before a site is suggested  Fugglestone Red could be increased with not too much impact upon the landscape if done carefully.  Support allocation of Fugglestone Red phase 2.  In part - Fugglestone Red, Archer's Gate, Old Sarum and Bishopdown Farm seem appropriate.  Fugglestone Red should not be mixed use.  Strongly disagree with the new business park. There will be too much traffic. Alternative sites could be Old Sarum and Fugglestone Red.  There is a severe lack of local services in Fugglestone Red, everyone gets in a car just to buy bread, milk or a paper. When there are more houses up in this area a decent local shop is a priority (exclamation mark). It cannot be considered good service  I strongly disagree with Fugglestone Red development, but I‟m sure you will take no notice so bear in mind.  Fugglestone Red Roundabout – Very poor visibility, single access point needs

52 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria  Welcome the proposal of employment in Fugglestone Red and  Old Sarum as housing will need to be balanced.  Support the identification of the site at Fugglestone Red within the document.

As summarised within SWCS/12 (SWCS 12 Regulation 30 1 e Statement - Summary of Representations), community comments received on the SWCS Proposed Submission draft included:  Strongly support inclusion of Fugglestone Red  Impact on SRN, and A36 and A360  Adverse landscape impacts  Coalescence of Salisbury and Wilton  Impact on protected trees  Impact on air quality

Overall these consultation responses showed that the proposed site at Fugglestone Red has general support although a minority of parties still objected to the proposed development.

Water / flooding The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (STU/29 A) identifies that Fugglestone Red is 3 located within flood zone 1 (low probability). This means that the site has an annual probability of flooding of 0.1% or less and that no sequential tests are needed. Low probability of flooding although water/drainage However discussions with Wessex Water and detailed in Topic Paper 17 Infrastructure infrastructure necessary to (paragraph 4.25) identifies that the site requires the following water and waste support development. infrastructure:  Boosted supply from existing local reservoir and a dedicated spine main to serve local distribution mains.  On site sewers required to be provided by developers with separate systems of drainage.  Off site surface water disposal to local land drainage systems with attenuated

53 Fugglestone Red Assessment Comments Score Criteria discharge needed to satisfy PPS25.  On site foul-water pumping station with rising main to Devizes Road.  Long off site connecting sewer to agreed point of connection, where planning capacity is available to accept future foul flows. Biodiversity / Opportunities to enhance natural environment, including the quality of the Camp Down 3 Wildlife SSSI, and the River Avon SAC. Place-shaping This site is a key site in facilitating the delivery of new buildings for the recently formed 4 West Salisbury Academy to the south of the site. A new cemetery is to be provided within the site to meet the needs of the Salisbury city. A local centre is also proposed as part of the development with suitable community infrastructure such as health care, subject to need and viability. This local centre will provide wider community benefits to existing Fugglestone Red and Bemerton Heath residents – existing Fugglestone Red residents in particular do not currently have ready access to a local convenience store amongst other facilities. TOTAL SCORE 28

South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria

Sustainability Section 11 of this report identifies that: 1

55 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria 9 of the SA objectives were scored as having a positive impact, equating to 37.5%

7 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 29%

SA Summary:

Page 99 of Appendix V of STU/03 of Area of Search SA – Salisbury Area 13

An extensive area of search but the eastern part of the site does have good connections with Harnham. Archaeological evaluation and biodiversity survey and assessment required to ensure no harm to heritage interests or SSSI. Potential problems with local highway network need to be addressed. Allocation of employment land is proposed to encourage reduction of travel to work journeys. Development to the south west should be avoided due to landscape concerns, It is recommended that parts of the site should be given further consideration but that the cumulative impact of the development of sites 12, 13 and 14 [see Map X above] on social inclusion objectives, including provision of appropriate facilities, should be carefully addressed as should the impact on the vitality of Salisbury Town Centre.

Land South of Netherhampton Road The SA recommended that (STU/03 paragraph 4.29, page 25 of main report) parts of the site should be given consideration due to good connections with Harnham. Employment development (10ha) is proposed with 400 dwellings and delivery of a local centre and community facilities to improve those presently in Harnham.

Landscape / CBA: 2 Approach / Views The Chris Blandford Associates Settlement Settings assessment (STU/21) (part 2,

56 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria fig 3.5) through its Visual Assessment – identifies that the area south of There are key elevated panoramic Netherhampton Road forms part of two visual areas. The first area has level views views from higher ground towards a mixed foreground and a mixed settlement edge. Moving to Elevated views, city centre countryside or valley foreground, generally soft settlement edge. A ridgeline additionally comes into the site: Higher parts of site are distinctive townscape/landscape.  Key elevated panoramic views from higher ground towards city centre  Distinctive ridgeline in the south Potential for development on this  Primarily “elevated views, countryside or river foreground, generally soft site to compromise visual and settlement edge, however in the lowest parts to the Netherhampton Road it is physical gap between Salisbury and “level views, mixed foreground, mixed settlement edge”. In the SE corner, it Ebble Valley villages. is “level views, countryside or river foreground, generally soft settlement edge”.

STU/21 part 2, figure 3.6 analyses the Townscape and landscape of the settlement of Salisbury identifies that:  “first view” of Salisbury occurs between the livestock market and Netherhampton  An urban gateway is at the beginning of the development to the south of the A3094 travelling towards Harnham  The land to the west is open countryside separating Netherhampton from Coombe Bissett.  There is a “commercial” approach to the south of the A3094 and a “green/treed/river valley” approach to the north.  The Nadder Valley to the north of the area is a “green finger”.

STU/21 part 2, figure 3.7 analyses the Townscape and landscape role and function and identifies: - Primarily “supportive townscape/landscape”. These areas support the character of the historic cores and areas distinctive to the settlements. They provide the backdrop and ambience, and bolster the sense of place of

57 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria the settlements and their approaches. Higher parts of the site are “distinctive townscape/landscape”. These areas are defined as specifically recognisable and distinctive to the settlements. They include townscape and landscape components such as quintessential views, the interaction of buildings forming spaces or the setting to local events, landform, setting and backdrops to the settlements, areas of rich biodiversity, historic approach routes and landmarks of distinctive character. These areas, frequently contiguous with the historic cores, often borrow from or bestow character to them.

STU/21 figure 3.8 and paragraph 3.99 identifies this site as being within Area 8 with some key elevational views towards Salisbury. Special qualities to be Conserve the exposed grass, and in places well-wooded, chalk escarpment, which form a distinctive and visually prominent backdrop to many views from within Salisbury and its landscape setting. Resist new development that disrupts the undeveloped nature of the skyline. This is particularly important in northern parts of the area, where the escarpment is prominent in views from a wider landscape;  Conserve key views that strongly contribute to memorable and distinctive approaches to Salisbury by public footpaths (including ancient trackways) and bridleways. Resist new development that disrupts key views to important landmarks and features within  Salisbury and its setting;  Consider the effects of any new development outside this area on views to and from the escarpment;  Resist new development that would result in any reduction in the area‟s tranquillity;  Conserve and enhance locally distinctive approaches via road and public footpaths, comprising a memorable green / treed character. Resist new development that disrupts the character of approach to and from Salisbury;  Maintain visual and physical separation between Salisbury and springline villages along the River Ebble and ensure the sense of setting, scale, form and

58 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria inherent character of such villages is not lost with the location of new development. Resist extension of linear/ribbon development along Salisbury Road and Homington Road;  Potential to soften visually harsh and abrupt settlement edges in this area through additional tree and shrub planting.

Heritage The following evidence is taken from the Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment (STU/23 page 91-92) 3

Sensitivities Known heritage summary: Low risk. Note that this is considered to be a Known and unknown archaeology: Much potential for unknown archaeology in conservative rating, as the Historic the form of prehistoric barrows, field systems and enclosures across the site. Environment Assessment did not Setting and views to Salisbury and the Cathedral: Water meadows are a key consider the full extent of the site feature of the surrounding landscape, with important views across these to the proposed in the Core Strategy. Cathedral spire. The higher southern portion of the site is visible across the valley and from the centre of the City, making it more sensitive to development. 1

Summary of impacts Potential heritage: High risk • Overall HIGH risk of unknown archaeology on the site • Overall LOW risk to the known historic environment so long as building heights are restricted on the southern end of the site and landscaping is used to frame views to the Cathedral. Transport New transport evidence has now been provided within STU/52 Wiltshire Strategic Transport Assessment. This has been prepared by Wiltshire Council to inform the 3 Wiltshire wide Core Strategy.

59 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria provision; highway network capacity; journey to work patterns and ranks area from the most accessible to the least accessible.

Consultation CON/07 – the Our Place 1 Methodology and Output Report summarised the feedback results of the Our Place in the Future 1 consultation and identified that just over 1 43.5% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Land south of Particularly controversial site in Netherhampton Road would be suitable for development. terms of consultation responses. Development will clearly have some impact on water meadows and visual impact, as highlighted in the CBA Landscape Appraisal.

This site was consequently taken forward to the Preferred Options consultation. A number of responses were received with respect to land south of Netherhampton Road and these are summarised in CON/13 and include.

 If these large housing areas have to be built, would it not be  better to build them somewhere like the Netherhampton road,  or fields to the left of Laverstock as you enter from the A30  Maybe Netherhampton Road could take some of the industrial slack.  A better alternative to a business park at Harnham would be at Old Sarum or High Post.

60 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria  There should be no more housing or employment permitted along the glorious views of Salisbury or Netherhampton Road  Netherhampton Road does not have the capacity to support a major new business park  Netherhamptom Road and Harnham Gyratory are already dangerously busy.  Maybe archaeological problems at Netherhampton Road  Modest development on the Netherhampton Road is supported but large housing developments on this scale would, we expect, cause unacceptable increases in commuter traffic through a residential area already suffering from constant through traffic.  Forget any ideas of a commercial park off Netherhampton Road or further house building off Netherhampton Road.  The re-location of Churchfields to Netherhampton Road is a complete non- starter.  The 800 houses and business park would create an unsustainable level of traffic on Netherhampton Road.  It is unrealistic to plan for high levels of housing/employment land to the south of Netherhampton Rd, Harnham.  To bring so many new jobs to a commercial park on Netherhampton Road in place of Churchfields will have a significant and serious impact on the local community.  I disagree strongly with your proposal to concentrate the major part of the industrial development at Netherhampton Road.  Netherhampton road is very unsuitable for a major industrial estate because of the traffic problems it will cause.  I can understand the need to relocate Churchfields Industrial Estate due to transport access. However, I do not feel that Netherhampton Road is the correct place for this.  Providing a new business park on the Netherhampton road where there are currently empty units on the current site seems ill advised,

61 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria The site was again included within the „evolved‟ preferred options, albeit in reduced capacity (housing element had been removed) consultation and responses (CON/17) on this site included:

 No business to south of Netherhampton Road, Harnham is a residential corridor, and there is already very heavy traffic. Any extra would turn it into more gridlock.  We think houses should be built on Netherhampton Road and not Churchfields.  Netherhampton road if used as another business park will make us suffer from noisy heavy traffic vibration and congestion at the junction of Netherhampton & Wilton road,  Agree apart from Churchfields proposal and Netherhampton Road  The proposal to create a major new business park on the Netherhampton Road I believe I catastrophically flawed.  Roads are too bad for realistic business park on Netherhampton Rd.  Primary concerns are in relation to the development of a new business park between Harnham Business Park and the Livestock  Market on the Netherhampton Road. Harnham business park has not attracted much attention, therefore why will a new business park at Nehterhampton Road.  Object to any further development in the Netherhampton Road area.  Any industrial development along Netherhampton Rd would be a disaster in terms of traffic  Harnham does not need an industrial estate. I appreciate the need for more houses.  Primary concerns are in relation to the development of a new business park between Harnham Business Park and the Livestock Market on Netherhampton Road.

The „evolved‟ preferred options public consultation identified that the public were

62 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria not entirely happy with the concept of a major new business park at Harnham but did suggest that some housing might be satisfactory.

As summarised within SWCS/12 (SWCS 12 Regulation 30 1 e Statement - Summary of Representations), community comments received on the SWCS Proposed Submission draft included:

Support  Will enable Vision projects to be achieved, particularly new land at Harnham that will help accommodate some of the businesses to be relocated from Churchfields.  Opportunity to improve and extend Harnham bus service  Good access to other employment opportunities  Site could be accessed through the contributions of two junctions along the A3094, one primarily residential, one primarily commercial Objections  Need for new employment sites is unproven/Surplus employment land available at Solstice Park/ Solstice Park, Old Sarum, High Post, London Road, Wilton MOD sites offer alternative employment land  Impact on traffic/Lack of transport study/ Dibden Bay Container Port will add to traffic flows through Harnham  Impact on Water Meadows  Flood risk  Impact on wildlife  Impact on archaeology  Inadequate capacity of foul drainage system/existing gas main and lack of funds to provide required improvements  More appropriate housing site near Salisbury District Hospital  Destruction of agricultural land  Inadequate school capacity

63 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria  Need for new housing numbers is unproven. Council already building huge housing estate at Rowbarrow and at Amesbury, this is enough.  Visual impact  Larger area of employment land than is required is identified  Impact on SRN  Impact on air quality  Concern existing employment land may be compromised.  There is already employment land at Harnham that will help accommodate some of the businesses to be relocated from Churchfields.  Noise pollution  Plan now shows 400 houses - not shown on original consultation document.  Area identified for Netherhampton Road allocation is in excess for what is required to accommodate 400 dwellings and 10 ha of employment land. The DPD is grossly misleading as it earmarks a site more than two and a half times the requirement.

Water / flooding The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (STU/29A) identifies that Fugglestone Red 2 is located within flood zone 1 (low probability). This means that the site has an annual probability of flooding of 0.1% or less and that no sequential tests are Low probability of flooding but needed. “significant” network improvements needed to support development. However discussions with Wessex Water and detailed in Topic Paper 17 Infrastrucutre (paragraph 4.25) identifies that the site requires the following water and waste infrastructure:  Upstream network has limited capacity with reduced pressure. Significant network improvements will be required to provide additional capacity to serve development proposals.  Engineering appraisal will be required to determine the scope and extent of

64 South of Netherhampton Road Assessment Comments Score Criteria these capacity improvements.  On site sewers to be provided by developers with separate systems of drainage. There is no spare capacity in local networks for any significant development.  Surface water disposal to local land drainage systems with attenuated discharge is required to satisfy PPS25.  Capacity improvements to foul water system may be needed subject to engineering appraisal when development proposals are identified in more detail.  Cumulative development within the catchment will require downstream improvements. Biodiversity / The proposal site is not subject of any statutory ecological designations or Wildlife designated sites of importance for biodiversity (e.g. SPA‟s, SSSI‟s). Nor is it 3 identified as an SNCI or County Wildlife Site. However, there is potential for negative effects on West Harnham Chalk Pit SSSI.

Place shaping The proposal includes delivery of a local centre and community facilities for the Harnham area. However, the existing community is self-sufficient (already has 2 basic facilities such as convenience store, two pubs, church, primary school) so whilst new facilities as part of proposed strategic allocation would be accessible by the existing community, they would not be essential for the existing community in the same way, as say the community facilities being delivered at Fugglestone Red.

This site does not immediately adjoin an existing area of residential development and does not therefore integrate with the community; this site is much more of a stand alone development compared to the other proposed strategic allocations. TOTAL SCORE 19

65 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score Sustainability Section 11 of this report identifies that: 2 3  14 of the SA objectives were scored as having a positive impact, equating to 58%.  6 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact, equating to 25%.

SA Summary: The SA recommended that (STU/03 paragraph 4.27, page 25 of main report)

The site was assessed in the light of proposed development on land to the south. The site is peripheral to the town but will have the benefit of accessing facilities in conjunction with Phase 1 of the Old Sarum development. It is further from the SAM but will still have landscape implications for distant views. However, the site does offer the opportunity to provide further facilities and provide a local centre. Landscape mitigation will be essential.

Page 72 of Appendix V of STU/03 of Area of Search SA – Salisbury Area 7 This site has been assessed in the light of the allocation within the existing Local Plan (H2D) on land to the south of the A345. The site is peripheral to the town but will have the benefit of accessing facilities in conjunction with Phase 1 of the Old Sarum development. The land to the north east of the site could be considered for development but it is recommended that land to the south west be given careful consideration due to adverse impacts on archaeology and landscape. There is an opportunity to produce a management plan to open up Old Sarum as a museum of army flying which would support cultural heritage objectives. Landscape / Approach / The Chris Blandford Associates Settlement Settings assessment (STU/21) Views / CBA landscape (part 2, fig 3.5) through its Visual Assessment identifies the Longhedge site 3 appraisal as a rural setting with necklace villages, including springline villages This area separates “necklace” STU/21 part 2, figure 3.6 analysis the Townscape and Landscape of the villages in the Lower Woodford

66 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score settlement of Salisbury which identifies that the area consists of: Valley and from Salisbury and  open countryside separating necklace villages and these villages and Wilton. However, even if the site is Salisbury/Wilton developed, there would still be a  The A345 to the west is a rural/vernacular approach to Salisbury significant gap between the edge of this development (A345) and the STU/21 part 2 figures 3.7 looks at the CBA Townscape and Landscape Lower Woodford Valley villages. Role and Function and identifies that the site in its entirety within an outer rural areas. These are areas of landscape from which distinctive views of the city are scarce or absent. The function of this landscape is in providing a backdrop to views of the settlements, and in providing a setting for approaches to connective, supportive and distinctive areas of townscape and landscape.

Figure 3.8 of STU/21 (part 2) identifies any Special Qualities to be safeguarded (fig 3.8) and identifies the A345 characteristic approach to Salisbury as an area to be protected.

Salisbury Historic The following evidence is taken from the Salisbury Historic Environment 1 Environment Assessment Assessment (STU/23 page 75) (STU/23) Known heritage summary : High risk Sensitivities

67 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score Known and unknown archaeology: There is great potential for unknown 1 prehistoric barrows, field systems and enclosures across the site as well as the possibility of further evidence of Roman activity associated with the Potential heritage: High risk Roman road and medieval remains.

Setting and views to Old Sarum and the Roman road: The scheduled Iron Age hillfort of Old Sarum would be compromised by development on this site with its associated traffic movements and lighting, particularly on the visible northern two-thirds of the site which is directly in view of Old Sarum. Old Sarum is the site of the original settlement of Salisbury and commands a prominent location in the landscape, Old Sarum hillfort is of paramount importance to the setting of the modern city, directly contributing to its rootedness and an understanding of its past evolution.

The setting of the proposed development site is currently predominantly rural, with little visual connectivity with Salisbury itself. The northern two- thirds of the site are elevated, and will be bounded by open country on two sides even after existing development around the football ground is complete The site is key to the setting of Old Sarum within a rural context, contributing to its visual prominence within the landscape. This will change to an extent when the development to the south east of the site is complete. But this existing development site is significantly less visible being on lower lying ground that is already largely developed. It will therefore have a significantly reduced effect on Old Sarum when compared with this proposed development site. The approach to Old Sarum and Salisbury from the north along the Roman road on the western edge of the site (A345) would be negatively affected by development. The Roman roads radiating from Salisbury are important features in the landscape and contribute directly to an appreciation of the City‟s regional status in the past, as well as the importance of it‟s connectedness with other nearby cities.

Summary of impacts

68 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score Overall HIGH risk of unknown archaeology on the site Overall HIGH risk to the setting of and views to and from Old Sarum and the integrity of the Roman Road, necessitating that the northern two-thirds of the site is NOT developed and that if development is undertaken on the southern part of the site the greatest care is taken to maintain the rural setting of Old Sarum, retain the visual setting to the Roman road and retain the visual dominance of Old Sarum when viewed within its rural setting. Transport / Highways New transport evidence has now been provided within STU/52 Wiltshire Model Strategic Transport Assessment. This has been prepared by Wiltshire 2 Council to inform the Wiltshire wide Core Strategy.

The study as a whole looked at 162 areas / sites across the whole of Wiltshire. Appendix 4 of STU/52 provides an overall summary of results. Out of the four sites assessed in this appendix Land around Longhedge / Old Sarum (Salisbury_A) site ranks joint 3rd implying it is not as accessible in transport terms as some of the other sites within this Review. . Consultation Feedback CON/07 – the Our Place 1 Methodology and Output Report summarised the results of the Our Place in the Future 1 consultation and identified that 1 just over 52.7% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Longhedge / Old Sarum would be suitable for development.

As well as local objection, significant objection from statutory consultee

69 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score (English Heritage)

This site was consequently taken forward to the Preferred Options consultation. However responses which are summarised in CON/13 include.

 At Old Sarum, where the principle of an urban extension to Salisbury has already been accepted…' Really! Please inform in us of any resolution, statement, agreement etc where this is  More houses in Old Sarum will impact on Laverstock  Too many houses have already been planned in Old Sarum without another 800  But Old Sarum is not within the Salisbury Community Area  Preferred option 7 is supported as it is clear that Salisbury (including its outer areas like Old Sarum) is the most sustainable location for new housing within the district and most new housing should be located there.  Land at Old Sarum housing site opposed  I oppose the sitting of 800 homes near Old Sarum.  The old Sarum estate would be a good place to develop. As it's quite isolated from the rest of Salisbury it will need great improvement in terms of facilities (shop, doctor, dentist, community centre, school, food outlets, etc)  At present time it would be preferable just to identify potential development sites such as Churchfields, Old Sarum and Salisbury

70 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score district Hospital.  800 homes at Old Sarum will mean that Laverstock is eclipsed in size by what is currently a smaller community within the parish.  English Heritage has considerable concern with an additional 800 new homes 'around Old Sarum' in addition to, and in light of, the evident impact of the new development currently under construction.  LEAVE OLD SARUM ALONE!  Slow down! If and when the Old Sarum development is completed and sold then in the time to take a pragmatic evidence based assessment of future housing needs  Relocate to Old Sarum, Solstice Park etc.  I would like to see all of the land around Salisbury hospital, land around Old Sarum and land to the North Eastern Fringes allocated to the southern areas where it rightfully belongs.  Land around Salisbury Hospital, Land around Old Sarum (800) and land to the North Eastern Fringes (500). There is no explanation, rationale or justification for this.

The site was again included within the „evolved‟ preferred options consultation and responses (CON/17) on this site included:  But why Old Sarum and Churchfields?  Provided no development around unique historic sites (such as Old Sarum) is handled sensitively  Old Sarum an Fugglestone are not suitable nor needed nor is Hampton Park  Ok to Fugglestone Red, Amesbury, Old Sarum & Hampton Park.  Old Sarum - no.  There should be no more development around Old Sarum  Old Sarum needs very sympathetic handling not to ruin this historic site.  Do not agree with new houses around Old Sarum. This is such an historic site that any development near it has to be planned very

71 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score carefully. It could not handle 300 new homes.  300 houses around Old Sarum is out of keeping with this ancient monument and must not be allowed.  Concerned about how visible site in Old Sarum will be.  As mentioned Old Sarum could be considerably enlarged in a northerly direction without compromising green-belt or strategic gap land.  Old Sarum, Porton Down and Boscombe Down triangle are more suitable for employment development  no more development at old Sarum - no infrastructure  Old Sarum should not be developed (housing or industry) as it would effect the character of the ancient site  Provided the development near Old Sarum is screened properly  Alternative sites could be Old Sarum and Fugglestone  I feel very strongly that Old Sarum which ideally includes the view seen from the hill itself should be preserved as possible in its present state.  I feel that the Old Sarum, Archers Gate, Hampton Park and Fugglestone Red developments should only be residential - not for other uses  I have concerns over the amount of development at Hampton Park and Old Sarum both within the Parish of Laverstock.

As summarised within SWCS/12 (SWCS 12 Regulation 30 1 e Statement - Summary of Representations), community comments received on the SWCS Proposed Submission draft included:

Longhedge  Impact on setting of Old Sarum SAM and Airfield Conservation Area  Remoteness from town centre,  Impact on archaeology  No one is signed up to deliver site.  The Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment April 2009 demonstrates the unsuitability of at least 2/3rds of the site.

72 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score  No long term vision for the site or for the settlement of Old Sarum  Impact on Laverstock and Ford parish.

English Heritage objection: The Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment April 2009, is included as part of the Core Strategy‟s evidence. It clearly demonstrates the unsuitability of at least 2/3rds of the site for various direct and indirect reasons. English Heritage considers for the reasons demonstrated by this independent evidence the designation as identified is unjustified and contrary to national policy.

Whilst the principle of development may have been established for the current development taking place to the north of Old Sarum airfield, it does not establish the principle of further development in this area of open countryside

The Core Strategy does not consider the future role of the settlement of Old Sarum and does not feature in the hierarchy. There is no indication of a long term vision for it.

Water / flooding The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (STU/29A) identifies that the Longhedge site is located within flood zone 1 (low probability). This means 2 that the site has an annual probability of flooding of 0.1% or less and that no sequential tests are needed. Low probability of flooding although water/drainage infrastructure will be However discussions with Wessex Water and detailed in Topic Paper 17 necessary to support development. Infrastructure (paragraph 4.25) identifies that the site requires the following Also issue with cumulative water and waste infrastructure: development of this site, Hampton  Landowner should pay particular attention to drainage and the control of Park and Old Sarum. surface water by the use of SUDS.  Engineering assessment of water and foul sewer drainage at the site and potential capacity improvements at Petersfinger sewerage works

73 Longhedge Assessment Criteria Comments Score and potable water capacity.  Cumulative development within the upstream catchment at Old Sarum, Hampton Park and Longhedge developments will trigger significant works with new relief sewer to ensure that risk from sewer flooding is resolved. Biodiversity / Wildlife No statutory or non-statutory sites of nature conservation value occur within or immediately adjacent to the site. Opportunity to create 3 biodiversity around SUDS. Place shaping The introduction of additional dwellings to the Old Sarum area will add a critical mass to secure the delivery and viability of planned and new local 3 facilities to create a more self-contained community based around a neighbourhood centre. TOTAL 21

Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score Sustainability Section 11 of this report identifies that: 1 9 of the SA objectives were scored as having a positive impact, equating to 39% 2 6 of the SA objectives were scored as having a negative impact,

75 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score equating to 26%

SA Summary The SA recommended that (STU/03 paragraph 4.25 and 4.26, page 25 of main report).

Hampton Park - The site is in a good location with walking and cycling links to main facilities and should be less car reliant than the other sites considered. The eastern part of the site should have a lesser effect on Old Sarum but could cause coalescence with Ford, while the western part of the site could have an adverse impact on Old Sarum. Part of the site is a County Wildlife Site and is also adjacent to the River Bourne (part of the River Avon SAC) both of which must be adequately protected from pollution or recreation pressure. With these mitigation measures in place it was considered that the site could be further considered for development.

A development of 500 dwellings is now proposed and the site is reduced in size from the growth area assessed but mitigation will still be required as detailed in the development template, particularly in regard to Old Sarum and the River Bourne.

Page 77 of Appendix V of STU/03 of Area of Search SA – Salisbury Area 8 In a good location with walking and cycling links to main facilities and should be less car-reliant than the other sites considered. The eastern part of the site should have a lesser effect on Old Sarum but could cause coalescence with Ford while the western part of the site could have an adverse impact on Old Sarum. Part of the site is a County Wildlife site and the site is adjacent to the River Bourne (part of the River Avon SAC) both of which must be adequately protected from pollution or recreation pressure. With these mitigation measures in place the site could be further considered for development due to its relationship with Salisbury and existing built development.

76 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score Landscape / Approach / The Chris Blandford Associates Settlement Settings assessment (STU/21) Views / CBA landscape (part 2) through its Visual Assessment identifies the area as having two 3 appraisal specific characters. Part of site is classified as having “elevated views, little/no foreground, generally harsh, abrupt settlement edge” whilst the North east area is “rural setting with necklace villages” (including springline villages). In addition there is a ridgeline in southern part of site that forms the proposed country park area. In addition this Country Park area has key elevated panoramic view to Salisbury form southern part of site (this is proposed as country park)

STU/21 part 2, figure 3.6 analyses the Townscape and landscape of the settlement of Salisbury. This identifies that the site has some key townscape and landscape features: The southern part of the site is a “green finger” between Paul‟s Dene and Bishopdown. This is proposed as part of the Country Park. - Green finger between Winterbourne Earls and Laverstock runs through the north eastern corner of the site - Open countryside separating Old Sarum airfield area and village of Ford from Salisbury. A strategic landscape gap is planned a part of the proposed development of this site to address this issue. - Urban gateway at junction of A345 and Old Castle Road, to the west of the site. Urban gateway on London Road (A30) to east of site.

STU/21 part 2 figures 3.7 look at the Townscape and Landscape Role and Function. The study identifies that the site primarily consists of supportive townscape / landscape. These are areas which support the character of the historic cores and areas distinctive to the settlements. They provide the backdrop and ambience, and bolster the send of place of the settlements and their approaches. In addition, the Northern part of site is an “outer rural area”. This is where most of the actual proposed development will be located. These are areas of landscape from which distinctive views of the

77 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score city are scarce or absent. The function of this landscape is in providing a backdrop to views of the settlements, and in providing a setting for approaches to connective, supportive and distinctive areas of townscape and landscape.

Figure 3.8 of STU/21 (part 2) identifies any Special Qualities to be safeguarded identifies the site as distinctive and supportive landscape. This includes the area for the proposed country park. The north east corner of the site is described as a „Rural setting with scattered villages‟. Figure 3.8 identifies part of the proposed site as falling into Area 2 and that the aim should be to:

 Maintain the perception of a compact settlement, contained in a unique „bowl‟ shaped formation within the chalk downlands. Resist new development that weakens this perception;  Maintain the sense of tranquillity and conserve key views from the chalk downland over Salisbury and within its river valley setting;  Conserve the exposed, and in places wooded, chalk escarpment, which form a distinctive and visually prominent backdrop to many views from within Salisbury. Resist new development that disrupts the undeveloped nature of the skyline;  Potential to soften visually harsh and abrupt settlement edges in this area through additional tree and shrub planting.

78 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score Heritage Assets / The following evidence is taken from the Salisbury Historic Environment 3 Archaeology / EH Assessment (STU/23 page 60) appraisal Known heritage summary: Low risk Sensitivities (from STU/23 p60) Known and unknown archaeology: The “western half” of the site There is great potential for unknown archaeology on the site in the form of referred to is not actually part of the field systems and further Roman and medieval remains. allocation. Hence, it is considered appropriate that the “high risk” Setting and views to Old Sarum and the Roman road: The Assessment grading is downgraded to “low risk”. concludes that Old Sarum and its setting would be greatly compromised by development on the western half of this site (Map 7.2) both by the It is also important to note that development itself and the increased activity that will come with the English Heritage now accept in the development in what is still a rural area. It would lead to the dilution of the Statement of Common Ground dominance of Old Sarum. Being the original site of the settlement of prepared in advance of the EiP that Salisbury and commanding such a prominent location in the landscape, the recommendations of the Historic Old Sarum is of paramount importance to the setting of the modern city, Environment Assessment 2009 have directly contributing to it‟s rootedness with its past in an accessible and been considered. visual way.

79 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score However, it should be noted that the western part of the site referred to above does not actually form part of the allocation. 1

The approach to Old Sarum along the Roman road following the northern Potential heritage: High risk edge of the site is equally sensitive. This again is key to an understanding of Old Sarum and it‟s prominence within the landscape. Furthermore, development on either side of the Roman road, with its associated lighting and disturbance would significantly erode its classically Roman straight-as- a-die character - the rural setting of the road is of great importance to appreciating it in context.

Setting and views to Salisbury: While the site is not that sensitive to views to listed buildings and the Cathedral, development may be visible and dominant on the skyline when viewed from Salisbury city centre. This in turn would reduce the current prominence of Old Sarum on the horizon. However, where the site slopes to the east, this visual intrusion is much less apparent (see Map 7.2).

Summary of impacts • Overall HIGH risk of unknown archaeology on the site • Overall HIGH risk to the setting of and views to and from Old Sarum and the integrity of the Roman Road, necessitating that the western half of the site is NOT developed and that if development is undertaken on the eastern half of the site the greatest care is taken to maintain the rural setting of Old Sarum, retain the visual setting to the Roman road and retain the visual dominance of Old Sarum when viewed from the city centre. Transport / Highways New transport evidence has now been provided within STU/52 Wiltshire Model Strategic Transport Assessment. This has been prepared by Wiltshire 3 Council to inform the Wiltshire wide Core Strategy.

The study uses various software (paragraph 3.2.1) to identify accessibility

80 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score to areas of search around settlements, including accession mapping and the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS). These all look at key transport indicators such as access to essential services and facilities; public transport service provision; highway network capacity; journey to work patterns and ranks area from the most accessible to the least accessible.

Consultation Feedback CON/07 – the Our Place 1 Methodology and Output Report summarised the results of the Our Place in the Future 1 consultation and identified that 3 just over 32.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Hampton Park would be suitable for development.

This site was consequently taken forward to the Preferred Options consultation. However responses which are summarised in CON/13 include.

81 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score  Why not link the existing development of Hampton Park with the new development at Old Sarum.  Representation provides support for the identification of land north of Bishopdown, Salisbury, for 500 dwellings within Preferred Option 29.  Do not build between Bishopdown Farm / Hampton Park and Ford  I oppose the location of additional housing on the land to the North East of Hampton Park/Bishopdown Farm  The development of Hampton Park II, provides the opportunity to complete the previous development to the south of  Pearce Way and facilitate a wider open space and recreational strategy for the north east of Salisbury. ¬  We do not want an extension of Bishopdown / Hampton Park. We do not want these beautiful views spoiled.  If there has to be a change to this field consider using SOME of the area between Bishopdown Farm/Hampton Park and Ford allotments.

The site was again included within the „evolved‟ preferred options consultation and responses (CON/17) on this site included:  In relation to the planned development at Hampton Park we need: Less than 500 homes.  Old Sarum and Fugglestone are not suitable nor needed nor is Hampton Park  Ok to Fugglestone Red, Amesbury, Old Sarum & Hampton Park.  I feel that the Old Sarum, Archers Gate, Hampton Park and Fugglestone Red developments should only be residential  When deciding the number of houses for Hampton Park you must consult Greentrees Primary School to see how much the school can expand. The number of houses must tie into school capability.  I have concerns over the amount of development at Hampton Park and Old Sarum both within the Parish of Laverstock.  Hampton Park: Accept additional housing is needed. Needs to done

82 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score with caution.  Comments following the public meeting at Greentrees school on the 8 October 2008. 500 houses between Hampton Park and Ford is too high.  New houses to built on Salisbury Retail Park site and Pearce Way/London road roundabout, not the strategic gap between Ford and Hampton Park.  If developments go ahead, following needs to be considered: 1) Strategic green gap be enlarged between Ford and Hampton Park. 2) Retirement bungalows to be included in housing developments. 3) Traffic needs be considered.  Proposals for Greenfield sites seem odd as not all the brownfield sites have been used. Would like to keep the strategic gap between Ford and Hampton Park.  Totally opposed to the suggestion that 500 new houses should be built on the farmland to the north of Hampton Park for numerous valid reasons.  Concerned because it appears that any proposed development may be built in front of my house along Pearce Way. Any new houses should be built on the Salisbury Retail Park, not on the Strategic gap between Hampton Park and Ford.

As summarised within SWCS/12 (SWCS 12 Regulation 30 1 e Statement - Summary of Representations), community comments received on the SWCS Proposed Submission draft included:

• Fully support identification of land at Hampton Park. This is in accordance with PPS12 paragraph 4.6 and 4.7.  Council has demonstrated a sound approach to site selection and has worked closely with developers to ensure that the site is deliverable in the short term. • Coalescence between Salisbury and Ford • Impact on views from east and north

83 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score • Impact on setting of Old Sarum SAM/landscape • Housing numbers; site is too small for 500 houses • Strategic landscape gap is a token  Impact on Laverstock and Ford parish.

English Heritage objections: We accept that the recommendations of the Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment April 2009 have been considered however we would suggest greater clarity is provided in respect of managing change in such an important historic location. This could reflect guidance applied to the proposed urban extension (reflected in the Core Strategy submission version) to the east of Swindon. Again, we recommend liaison with the county archaeologist who has had detailed involvement with guiding such an allocation.

Water / flooding The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (STU/29A) identifies that Hampton Park is located within flood zone 1 (low probability). This means that the 2 site has an annual probability of flooding of 0.1% or less and that no sequential tests are needed. Low probability of flooding, although water/drainage infrastructure will be However discussions with Wessex Water and detailed in Topic Paper 17 necessary to support development. Infrastructure (paragraph 4.25) identifies that the site requires the Also issue with cumulative following water and waste infrastructure: development of this site, Longhedge and Old Sarum.  Dedicated spine main to provide capacity. Sewers: limited capacity – requires off-site link plus extensive downstream improvements.  Cumulative development within the upstream catchment at Old Sarum, Hampton Park and Longhedge developments will trigger significant works with new relief sewer to ensure that risk from sewer flooding is resolved. Biodiversity / Wildlife The site is adjacent to the Bourne Tributary to the River Avon SAC. Part of the site is a County Wildlife Site. Provision of country park provides 3

84 Hampton Park Assessment Criteria Comments Score opportunity to enhance biodiversity. Place shaping The proposed development provides for a substantial 51 ha of green space, to be formed into a new Country Park for public access, benefiting 3 both existing residents as well as the new development at Hampton Park. The Park is intended to create usable open space within the City, where at present there is limited public access to the surrounding countryside and will provide a range of features for recreation and ecological enhancement. Some proposed key features include: picnic areas, turf maze, allotments, new pedestrian and cycle network, local equipped areas of play/local area of play, flower meadow, chalk grassland, new planting of native vegetation and a community orchard. The proposed development includes access points which aim to draw existing residents through the development and out into the Country Park. TOTAL 24

85 Appendix 2 – Key Focussed Changes to the SWCS

All changes including consequential changes are available to view on http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=944&Ver=4

Page numbers have been provided that correspond with those in the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Draft (July 2009).

SWCS Page 30, paragraph 4.3:

Strategic Objective 2: To provide everyone with access to a decent, affordable home. This Strategy makes provision for 12,400 9,900 new homes in South Wiltshire to meet demand up to 2026. It sets out a plan for an appropriate mix of types, sizes and tenures, particularly in order to address affordable housing needs. It identifies deliverable strategic sites to ensure there is a rolling five-year supply of housing.

Desired outcomes:

 The delivery of 12,400 9,900 new homes carefully managed to be in the most sustainable location and to respect the local character. Well over half the number will have been built in or around Salisbury, with significant growth in Amesbury.  More modest growth proportionate to the size of the settlement will have been delivered in the local centres of Mere, Downton, Wilton and Tisbury.  The Strategy has addressed the shortfall in affordable homes across South Wiltshire through ensuring a minimum of 40% of such homes have been delivered in all new schemes of 15 or more houses and 25% on developments of 5 to 14 houses.  All new homes meet the Lifetime Homes Standards, to allow more of the ageing population to live in their own communities.  New homes have delivered water efficiency improvements and where possible, will be low carbon or carbon neutral  The regeneration of the UK Land Forces HQ in Wilton with a significant number of new homes matched by employment opportunities will have taken place.

 The regeneration of Salisbury will have been achieved through a residential led mixed- use development on the Churchfields Estate.  New pitches will have been provided for gypsies and travellers.

Headline performance indicator:

Net additional homes provided per year (National indicator 154 to be monitored through AMR).

Target: average of 620 495 new homes per year.

86 SWCS Page 31, paragraph 4.4:

To facilitate economic growth in a sustainable manner, this Strategy will deliver the following outcomes over the next 20 years:

and the MOD will have been delivered.  Growth sectors specific to South Wiltshire, such as biotechnology and military sectors will have been successfully facilitated.  Relocation of businesses from the Churchfields Estate to more unconstrained locations will have been implemented.  The regeneration projects identified through the Salisbury Vision, such as redevelopment of the Maltings/Central Car Park will have been delivered.  The loss of 1200 jobs caused by the relocation of the UK Land Forces HQ away from Wilton will have been mitigated.  Strategic employment growth will have been designed to meet SWRSS and building regulation environmental targets in order to contribute to the delivery of a low carbon economy.

Headline performance indicator:

Creation of new jobs per year (monitored on NOMIS figures at www.nomisweb.co.uk and reported in AMR). Target: average of 690 520 jobs per annum (as per SWRSS requirement)

87 SWCS Page 45, paragraph 5.17:

Core Policy 1 - The Settlement Strategy and distribution of growth in South Wiltshire

This strategy plans for the delivery of 12,400 9,900 dwellings and 13,900 10,400 jobs over the period to 2026. The growth required to meet local needs will be accommodated in the following manner:

Salisbury and Wilton Community Areas

Salisbury and Wilton. Planned growth: 7,480 6220 homes and 36 29 ha (30 23 ha new allocation and 6 ha saved) of employment land. A retail-led mixed-use development is also planned.

The city of Salisbury is identified as a Strategically Significant City or Town ("SSCT") under Development Policy A of the SWRSS. Salisbury is the primary service, economic and cultural centre for South Wiltshire and, in line with SWRSS, will remain the focal point for the majority of new development in South Wiltshire.

Wilton Community Area Planned growth: Wilton Local Service Centre: 620 homes, 3 ha of employment land Rest of Wilton Community Area: 950 220 homes

Wilton is the Local Service Centre for its Community Area and relates to Development Policy B in the SWRSS. The proximity of Salisbury to the east means that Wilton has a functional relationship with its larger neighbour but retains an identity of its own. The UK Land Forces HQ in Wilton is a strategically important regeneration site, which will deliver employment and housing. The Community Area has three secondary villages (equivalent to SWRSS Development Policy C), which are Broad Chalke, Dinton and Great Wishford, where limited growth will be appropriate.

Amesbury Community Area Planned growth: Amesbury Service Centre: 1960 2100 homes. Rest of Amesbury Community Area: 690 295 homes, 17 ha of employment land

Amesbury, with support from Durrington and Bulford, is the Service Centre for the area. Although these settlements are distinct from one another, their close geographical and functional relationships between Amesbury, Durrington and Bulford mean that they constitute a unique group of settlements within South Wiltshire that neither conforms to the SSCT category nor is not directly comparagraphble with any other category of settlement. the Local Service Centres or any of the Village categories. Amesbury Community Area contains the majority of allocated employment land in South Wiltshire (outside Salisbury of the SSCT), including land at Solstice Park, Boscombe Down and Porton Down. Porton, Shrewton, and Tilshead are secondary villages in this community area, as well as “The Winterbournes” collectively. These settlements conform to Development Policy C of the SWRSS and perform a complementary role to Amesbury, Durrington and Bulford, each having a range a more local of services, which serve the surrounding areas.

Core Policy 1 - The Settlement Strategy and distribution of growth in South Wiltshire (Continued from above)

Southern Wiltshire Community Area Planned Growth: Downton Local Service Centre: 190 300 homes Rest of Southern Wiltshire Community Area: 550 365 homes

Downton is a large settlement providing a good level of services and performs the role of Local Service Centre for this Community Area. It provides a good source of employment with one of eight strategically important employment sites in South Wiltshire located in Downton. The secondary villages (equivalent to SWRSS Development Policy C) in the Southern Wiltshire Community Area are Alderbury, Coombe Bissett, Morgan‟s Vale/Woodfalls, Pitton, Whiteparish and The Winterslows. These villages provide a reasonable level of local services and facilities where modest growth will be appropriate. The proximity of Salisbury to the north means that a number of settlements located in the northern part of this community area have a much stronger functional relationship with the City performing which performs the role of the service centre, rather than with Downton.

Mere Community Area Planned Growth: Mere Local Service Centre: 270 200 homes 3 ha of employment land Rest of Mere Community Area: 20 homes

Mere is the Local Service Centre for this Community Area as it offers a range of services and facilities and is an important centre for the outlying villages in the west of South Wiltshire. This Community Area is unique in South Wiltshire in that there are no settlements that perform a secondary village role and hence it is anticipated that the majority of growth will take place in Mere over the plan period. A subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD will identify where Where exactly this growth will take place will be identified through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD. The existing Local Plan employment allocation at Mere of approximately 3 hectares will be implemented during the period of this Strategy.

Tisbury Community Area Planned Growth: Tisbury Local Service Centre: 160 200 homes. 1.4 ha of employment land Rest of Tisbury Community Area: 270 220 homes

The Council‟s target for housing development on previously developed land is 34% from the date of adoption of this Core Strategy to 2026. This includes the conversion of existing buildings.

Core Policy 1 - The Settlement Strategy and distribution of growth in South Wiltshire (Continued from above)

New housing will not be permitted outside the settlements named in Core Policy 1

[nb. numbers rounded]

Note: All numbers have been rounded up and include a contingency allowance.

Monitoring and Review: AMR & housing trajectory, number of dwellings built in sustainable locations aligned with the Sustainable Settlement Strategy.

Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council, Development Industry, Strategic Partnerships.

Policies replaced: Policy H1

SWCS Page 49, paragraph 5.22:

Housing Employment and other uses Fugglestone Red 1250 dwellings 8 ha Hampton Park 500 dwellings 0 ha Longhedge (Old Sarum) 800450 dwellings 8 ha Churchfields & Engine Sheds 1100 dwellings 5 ha to be retained UKLF 450 dwellings 3 ha South of Netherhampton Road 400 dwellings 10 ha Central Car Park 200 dwellings Up to 40,000 sq m gross external area retail and leisure floorspace Kings Gate, Amesbury 1300 dwellings 0 ha Former Imerys Quarry 0 dwellings 4 ha

Core Policy 2: Strategic Allocations (continued)

 Retention of important green infrastructure to the northern slopes and the green lung running south from land east of Old Sarum and west of Hampton Park.  Demand Management measures to alleviate additional traffic pressures on Salisbury ring road.  A strategy for mitigating phosphate levels in the watercourses.  An integrated 'water grid' to ensure water supply.

Targets: See Core Policy 1; Reduction in local unemployment figures. Monitoring and Review: AMR housing completions; NOMIS official labour market statistics. DeliverySWCS Responsibility: Page 45, paragraph Wiltshire Council;5.17: Developers. Policies replaced: None

SWCS Page 59, paragraph 5.46 (b):

5.46 (b) Strategic areas of search around Salisbury The map „potential areas for strategic growth in and around Salisbury/Wilton‟ in topic paper 19 site selection process and SHLAA have indicatesd broad areas of search around Salisbury. which may provide in the region of 1000 additional homes. As part of our ongoing monitoring process, if further land is required in the future, the sites at Netherhampton and an additional phase at Longhedge should be considered. If necessary further work through a site allocation DPD will be required to further investigate these sites to see if they are deliverable.

91 SWCS Page 143, Appendix A (Hampton Park development template)

Place shaping requirements: In addition to the provisions of 'Creating Places' and saved Local Plan policies, master planning of this site needs to specifically address:

 Safeguarding zone for the high pressure gas main  A strongly defined urban/rural edge to the north of the site

 The layout and utility of the Country Park, with added flexibility over the future function of the green open space to allow the community to agree its best use.  Any master plan must ensure the delivery of a significant Defining the strategic gap between the development and the settlement of Ford the size of which is to be agreed with the local planning authority and the community representatives prior to submission of a planning application.  A community forum be established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes meet local aspirations.

Delete South of Netherhampton Road development template

SWCS Page 164, Appendix A (Longhedge development template)

makes a significant strategic contribution to meeting local housing needs of South

Wiltshire.

SWCS Page 161 to 163, Appendix A (South of Netherhampton Road development template) Delete all

92 SCHEDULE OF CHANGES TO SOUTH WILTSHIRE CORE STRATEGY (PROPOSED SUBMISSION DOCUMENT) AS A RESUTL OF THE REVIEW 2011.

Note: The text changes here represent changes made to the original proposed submission draft SWCS text (as in the orange book) and do not include and proposed major or minor change consulted on after EIP, nor the changes made by Full Council prior to submission.

Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Para 1.1 The Core Strategy (Strategy) is an important document, setting out a spatial strategy and planning policies for the next 20 years. It is a key part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) for Wiltshire. Together with the proposed to be abolished South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), national planning policy and saved polices from the Salisbury District Local Plan, it will form the basis of planning decisions in the shout of the County to 2026. Together this policy, with the exception of national planning policy, is known as the Development Plan. Para 1.12 The proposed to be abolished Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RSS) forms part of the development plan for Wiltshire and sets out the numbers of houses and jobs that should be provided for. These figures are were identified using a review of evidence on the expected economic and population change, regional housing requirements, resources and infrastructure available, the role and function of places and sub-regional relationships between places. The Secretary of State‟s Proposed Changes to the Draft RSS for the South West suggests a housing requirement of 12,400 homes for south Wiltshire for the period 2006-2026. This would require an average housing delivery of 620 dwellings per year. This broadly corresponds with the level of need that has also been identified at a local level. Before the announcement that the RSS was to be abolished tThe Core Strategy must be in conformity with the RSS.

The review of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) has been undertaken as a direct response to the Secretary of State‟s published intention to abolish the emerging South West Regional Spatial Strategy (SWRSS). It is this intention, especially with regards to potential implications on housing and employment figures, that was agreed as the basis for the review with the Inspector overseeing the Examination in Public (EIP). It is the case that growth figures initially in this Submission Draft of the SWCS, were largely based on and in conformity with the figures contained in the last published and proposed to be abolished version of the SWRSS. The Review has concluded that housing and employment numbers should be reduced to 9,900 houses and 10,400 jobs.

Para 1.13 This Strategy aligns with and is in conformity with other plans and strategies that operate in the area. The Strategy has been designed to be complementary and add a local spatial dimension to other policies and not simply repeat them. The relationship will be made explicit at relevant points throughout the document. Key documents include:

Page 1 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference  National planning policy  The proposed to be abolished Regional Spatial Strategy  Sustainable Community Strategy Community produced strategies such as community and parish plans  Salisbury Vision  Heritage strategies such as Conservation Area Appraisals and the Stonehenge World Heritage Site Management Planning Policy Guidance  Forward work programmes of external infrastructure providers to alight delivery, such as the review of the Salisbury Transport Plan  Plans and strategies of key consultees such as Wessex Water‟s Resource Management Plan  Emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Add after para 1.13. In accordance with PPS12, for the SWCS to be found sound it is necessary for it to demonstrate that it is consistent with national planning policy (PPS12, Para 4.33). Therefore, in addition to examining the impacts of the announcements on the SWRSS, it is necessary for the review to assess what impacts changes to other national policy areas may have on the strategy and to explore any amendments that may be necessary in response to ensure it is sound. A prime example of this is the emerging Localism Bill, which while not the catalyst for the review, nonetheless needs to be taken into account if the SWCS is to be considered sound.

Table 1 (page 6), Options considered Reasons why no pursued Further information Row 1. New Settlements to the east of the Conformity with RSS, Iimpact on See Preferred Options document at district to match new housing to nature conservation habitats, SA, www.wiltshire.gov.uk planned employment growth at community representations. Porton Down.

Para 2.6 The southern part of Wiltshire also has stronger relationships with Dorset and Hampshire. Southampton (identified as a Regional Hub in the South East Plan) and the conurbation of Bournemouth, and Poole (identified, with and Christchurch, as a Strategically Significant City or Town (South East Dorset) in the South West RSS) provide a range of employment. Leisure and cultural opportunities that can be found in Salisbury. Air and seaports related to these settlements are widely used by south Wiltshire residents. Para 3.3 A Strategy of Managed Growth – Identifying Pressures leading to Local Housing Needs Page 19 The Strategy plans for managed growth to deliver the new houses required to meet local needs, namely 9,900

Page 2 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference houses. The levels of growth required accord with those set out in the emerging RSS of 12,400 houses to be delivered in the Salisbury Housing Market Area („HMA‟) of south Wiltshire between 2006 and 2026. This figure is not arbitrary, but based on local needs as revealed by analysis of the evidence8. In particular the following challenges have been identified: Para 3.4, page 20 The Economic challenges faced by south Wiltshire Para 3.4 (a), page 20 This section briefly highlights the key economic challenges faced by south Wiltshire17.

3.4(a) There is a need to identify land in sustainable locations to provide for about 13,900 10,400 new jobs / 37 20 ha of employment land up to 2026.

If south Wiltshire is to have a prosperous future then it is necessary to identify where, how and when land will be brought forward to accommodate the level of new jobs required to support prosperous, resilient communities, which provide local job opportunities matched to population in a manner which reduces the need for out-commuting. Para 4.0, page 29 By 2026 south Wiltshire will be thriving and vibrant, where people can lean and develop their skills, enjoy a good quality of life and good health in a safe, clean neighbourhood, appreciate a superb environment which makes the most of the natural landscapes and historic buildings and complements them with exciting new buildings.

The 12,400 9,900 homes will have delivered just underover 4,000 affordable homes in south Wiltshire. The retail, leisure and cultural function of Salisbury will have been greatly enhanced by the successful redevelopment of the Maltings/Central Park. The successful redevelopment of Churchfields will have created a new and vibrant neighbourhood of the city, with the new and relocated businesses prospering in their new locations. The new homes balanced with the economic growth will have provided local opportunities to work and live in the local area and will have successfully reduced the amount of out commuting.

Partnership working with the Cathedral authorities and English Heritage at Stonehenge on the implementation of their respective management plans will have greatly enhanced Salisbury's reputation as a major international tourist destination. The important employers at Porton Down, Boscombe Down and the MOD on Salisbury Plain will have consolidated their presence in the area through the realisation of their ambitious future plans.

Amesbury will remain as an important centre providing a balanced range of homes, jobs and services in a

Page 3 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference sustainable manner and will continue to be the focus of managed growth, providing over 1900 new homes to match the job opportunities at Solstice Park, Porton Down and Boscombe Down. Downton and Wilton will be comfortable with their relationship with Salisbury, benefiting from the level of services and jobs it provides and will have been the subject to new growth proportionate to their size which will help provide local opportunities. Mere's important role as a service centre to a wide rural area, will have been consolidated, with growth of about 270235 new homes by 2026 and allocation of employment land to meet local needs for jobs. Tisbury's role as an important service centre will have been consolidated through careful growth which will meet local needs, but acknowledges the constraints of the road network as well as the opportunities of the rail line, and will have grown by some 160 235 homes. Para 4.3, page 30 Strategic Objective 2: To provide everyone with access to a decent, affordable home. This Strategy makes provision for 12,400 9,900 new homes in south Wiltshire to meet demand up to 2026. It sets out a plan for an appropriate mix of types, sizes and tenures, particularly in order to address affordable housing needs. It identifies deliverable strategic sites to ensure there is a rolling five-year supply of housing.

Desired outcomes:  The delivery of 12,400 9,900 new homes carefully managed to be in the most sustainable location and to respect the local character. Well over half the number will have been built in or around Salisbury, with significant growth in Amesbury.  More modest growth proportionate to the size of the settlement will have been delivered in the local centres of Mere, Downton, Wilton and Tisbury.  The Strategy has addressed the shortfall in affordable homes across south Wiltshire through ensuring a minimum of 40% of such homes have been delivered in all new schemes of 15 or more houses and 25% on developments of 5 to 14 houses.  All new homes meet the Lifetime Homes Standards, to allow more of the ageing population to live in their own communities.  New homes have delivered water efficiency improvements and where possible, will be low carbon or carbon neutral  The regeneration of the UK Land Forces HQ in Wilton with a significant number of new homes matched by employment opportunities will have taken place.  The regeneration of Salisbury will have been achieved through a residential led mixed-use development on

Page 4 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference the Churchfields Estate.  New pitches will have been provided for gypsies and travellers.

Headline performance indicator:

Net additional homes provided per year (National indicator 154 to be monitored through AMR).

Target: average of 620 495 new homes per year. Para 4.4, page 31 Strategic Objective 3: To deliver a thriving economy which provides a range of job opportunities to match a growing population and where traditionally strong sectors, such as scientific research and development, continue to be world leaders.

To facilitate economic growth in a sustainable manner, this Strategy will deliver the following outcomes over the next 20 years:

Desired outcomes:  Land will have been identified in sustainable locations to provide for about 13,900 10,400 new jobs up to 2026.  The business aspirations of Porton Down, Boscombe Down, Salisbury District Hospital and the MOD will have been delivered.  Growth sectors specific to south Wiltshire, such as biotechnology and military sectors will have been successfully facilitated.  Relocation of businesses from the Churchfields Estate to more unconstrained locations will have been implemented.  The regeneration projects identified through the Salisbury Vision, such as redevelopment of the Maltings/Central Car Park will have been delivered.  The loss of 1200 jobs caused by the relocation of the UK Land Forces HQ away from Wilton will have been mitigated.  Strategic employment growth will have been designed to meet RSS and building regulation environmental targets in order to contribute to the delivery of a low carbon economy.

Page 5 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Headline performance indicator: Creation of new jobs per year (monitored on NOMIS figures at www.nomisweb.co.uk and reported in AMR). Target: average of 690 520 jobs per annum (as per RSS requirement) Para 5.3, page 39 Within these Community Areas the approach is to plan as far as possible for self-contained settlements. This means focusing growth around settlements with a range of facilities, where local housing, service and employment needs can be met in a sustainable manner. This approach is based on national guidance and best practice43. A hierarchy has been identified based on the size and function of settlements, which is the basis for setting out how the Spatial Strategy will deliver the levels of growth for the south Wiltshire area44. Growth will be primarily focussed on settlements in the first three tiers of the settlement strategy.

The hierarchy of settlements is as follows:

A: Salisbury:

The city of Salisbury is identified as a Strategically Significant City or Town (“SSCT”) under Development Policy A of the RSS and is the primary service centre in south Wiltshire. Because of the level of services, shops, jobs and homes the city provides, the larger proportion of growth will be concentrated here. This Strategy seeks to enhance its Salisbury‟s position as a self-contained settlement, which has a range of homes, jobs and services to offer. This will be delivered through significant growth in jobs, homes and retail provision, based on the release of strategic development sites around the city and regeneration focused on Churchfields and the Maltings/Central Car Park.

B: Amesbury and the Garrison Villages:

Amesbury is the second major settlement in south Wiltshire due to its size and range of facilities, and has functional relationships with Durrington and Bulford. Although it is not an SSCT, it has an important function as a service centre, which means it It performs a more significant role than the Local Service Centres identified in (c) C below. The role and function of Amesbury and its close relationship with Durrington and Bulford is explained in more detail in Chapter 8. Because of the level of services, shops and jobs that Amesbury provides, it will be the focus of significant strategic growth outside Salisbury.

Page 6 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference C: Local Service Centres:

Downton, Mere, Tisbury and Wilton are important local centres that provide a good level of services to their surrounding areas and are equivalent to Development Policy B of the RSS. They are categorised as large villages rather than towns (with the exception of Wilton) and therefore the scale of growth will reflect their constraints as well as the opportunities they offer for sustainable development. A detailed explanation of their role and function is included in Chapters 7, 9, 10 and 11.

Although Local Service Centres act as important centres these settlements also have important functional relationships with neighbouring settlements, which will influence how future growth is allocated.

D: Secondary Villages:

The secondary villages are Alderbury, Broad Chalke, Coombe Bissett, Dinton, Fovant, Great Wishford, Hindon, Ludwell, Morgan‟s Vale/Woodfalls, Pitton, Porton, Shrewton, Tilshead, Whiteparish, The Winterbournes and The Winterslows.

In terms of their role, function and level of services, this group of villages perform a less significant, but nevertheless important complementary role to the Local Service Centres. Levels of growth proportionate to their size, character and environment will be supported in these settlements.

E: Small Villages

The small villages are Barford St Martin, Bodenham, Britford, Chilmark, Figheldean/Ablington, Fonthill Bishop, Fovant, Gomeldon, Great Wishford, Middle Woodford, Newton Toney, Odstock, Orcheston, Stapleford, Steeple Langford, Wylye and Zeals.

These are small villages with limited services, which are functionally reliant on Local Service Centres. As such, they do not represent the most sustainable locations for new growth in the rural areas and hence development will be restricted to only infill and exception development.

F: Other Settlements and the Countryside.

Page 7 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference

This tier includes some of the smallest settlements in south Wiltshire, often in remote rural areas and with no facilities of their own. Functionally, they are almost completely reliant on local service centres for day to day needs. As such, they represent the most unsustainable location for new growth and hence new development will not be permitted in these villages45. To reflect this any housing policy boundaries for settlements not listed in (A) to (E) or housing restraint areas currently within the Local Plan are removed by this Strategy, and hence new development will no longer be appropriate in these locations.

This tier includes some of the smallest settlements in south Wiltshire, often in remote rural areas and with no facilities of their own. Functionally, they are almost completely reliant on local service centres for day-to-day needs. As such, they represent the most unsustainable location for new growth and hence new development is unlikely to be appropriate in these villages45. To reflect this any Housing Policy Boundaries (HPBs) for settlements not listed in paragraphs (A) to (E) and all Housing Restraint (HRA) and Special Restraint Areas (SRAs) currently within the Local Plan will be subject of a further review in connection with the Wiltshire Core Strategy – where the degree of sustainability of such settlements will be considered on a consistent countywide basis. Until such time as this review is undertaken the HPBs, HRAs and SRAs will remain in place.

Footnote 45

There are 66 small villages 67 other settlements and a list of these can be found in Topic Paper 3: Settlement Strategy Second Third Addendum.

Para 5.7, page 42 5.7 The Spatial Strategy for South Wiltshire

South Wiltshire will plan for 12,400 9,900 houses and 13,90048 10,400 jobs over the next 20 years. 13,500 of these jobs will be delivered in the Salisbury Travel to Work Area ("TTWA")49 within south Wiltshire. A further 400 jobs will need to be delivered within the rest of south Wiltshire, outside the TTWA. Essential infrastructure improvements will be delivered when required to ensure that this growth can be adequately supported. Where necessary the delivery of development will be phased to ensure that the infrastructure improvements are implemented in a timely manner. Map 3 sets out the principal elements of the Strategy. In order to ensure that these figures can be delivered, the Strategy

Page 8 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference has been designed to be flexible and to have contingency. Map 3, page 43 Remove reference to „land south of Netherhamtpon Road‟ map.

Para 5.8 The Key Diagram illustrates how the spatial strategy acknowledges the dominant role of Salisbury and allocates the majority of strategic growth in and around it to reflect its status as south Wiltshire‟s SSCT primary service centre. In accordance with the settlement strategy, the important role of Amesbury is also recognised through the allocation of strategic housing. The Local Service Centre will be the main focus of growth within their Community Areas. Para 5.12, page 44 Responding to these functional relationships and shaping how they will be in the future, is an essential part of this Strategy. They should not be considered to be either unchanging or benign. For example, the Vision for Salisbury, as strongly supported through the consultation process and promoted in the RSS, sees Salisbury as a Strategically Important City, which offers a strong range of local homes, jobs and retailing opportunities in a self-contained manner, which can help reduce the need to travel. The historic under provision of housing has been undermining this objective, through driving up house prices, making it difficult for a young workforce to afford a home, which in turn undermines the ability of local employers to recruit staff. This has led to polarisation in the city between a young workforce who find it difficult to afford to locate to the area and an ageing but generally affluent population. This situation means that there is a growing trend of both out and in commuting, which undermines economic productivity and harms the environment. These trends are leading Salisbury towards a larger dormitory role and do not meet the objectives that the community and stakeholders aspire to. Therefore this Strategy is focussed on addressing the causes of the problems, by delivering the local homes, jobs and services that can alter the functional relationships with neighbouring centres in a positive manner. Core Policy 1 Core Policy 1 - The Settlement Strategy and distribution of growth in south Wiltshire

This strategy plans for the delivery of 12,400 9,900 dwellings and 13,900 10,400 jobs over the period to 2026. The growth required to meet local needs will be accommodated in the following manner:

Salisbury and Wilton Community Areas

Salisbury and Wilton. Planned growth: 7,480 6220 homes and 36 29 ha (30 23 ha new allocation and 6 ha saved) of employment land. A retail-led mixed-

Page 9 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference use development is also planned.

Wilton Community Area Planned growth: Wilton Local Service Centre: 620 homes, 3 ha of employment land Rest of Wilton Community Area: 950 220 homes

Wilton is the Local Service Centre for its Community Area and relates to Development Policy B in the RSS. The proximity of Salisbury to the east means that Wilton has a functional relationship with its larger neighbour but retains an identity of its own. The UK Land Forces HQ in Wilton is a strategically important regeneration site, which will deliver employment and housing. The Community Area has three secondary villages (equivalent to RSS Development Policy C), which are Broad Chalke, Dinton and Great Wishford, where limited growth will be appropriate.

Amesbury Community Area Planned growth: Amesbury Service Centre: 1960 2100 homes. Rest of Amesbury Community Area: 690 295 homes, 17 ha of employment land

Amesbury, with support from Durrington and Bulford, is the Service Centre for the area. Although these settlements are distinct from one another, their close geographical and functional relationships between Amesbury, Durrington and Bulford mean that they constitute a unique group of settlements within south Wiltshire that neither conforms to the SSCT category nor is not directly comparable with any other category of settlement. the Local Service Centres or any of the Village categories. Amesbury Community Area contains the majority of allocated employment land in south Wiltshire (outside Salisbury of the SSCT), including land at Solstice Park, Boscombe Down and Porton Down. Porton, Shrewton, and Tilshead are secondary villages in this community area, as well as “The Winterbournes” collectively. These settlements conform to Development Policy C of the RSS and perform a complementary role to Amesbury, Durrington and Bulford, each having a range a more local of services, which serve the surrounding areas.

Page 10 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Southern Wiltshire Community Area Planned Growth: Downton Local Service Centre: 190 300 homes Rest of Southern Wiltshire Community Area: 550 365 homes

Downton is a large settlement providing a good level of services and performs the role of Local Service Centre for this Community Area. It provides a good source of employment with one of eight strategically important employment sites in south Wiltshire located in Downton. The secondary villages (equivalent to RSS Development Policy C) in the Southern Wiltshire Community Area are Alderbury, Coombe Bissett, Morgan‟s Vale/Woodfalls, Pitton, Whiteparish and The Winterslows. These villages provide a reasonable level of local services and facilities where modest growth will be appropriate. The proximity of Salisbury to the north means that a number of settlements located in the northern part of this community area have a much stronger functional relationship with the City performing which performs the role of the service centre, rather than with Downton.

Mere Community Area Planned Growth: Mere Local Service Centre: 270 200 homes 3 ha of employment land Rest of Mere Community Area: 20 homes

Mere is the Local Service Centre for this Community Area as it offers a range of services and facilities and is an important centre for the outlying villages in the west of south Wiltshire. This Community Area is unique in south Wiltshire in that there are no settlements that perform a secondary village role and hence it is anticipated that the majority of growth will take place in Mere over the plan period. A subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD will identify where Where exactly this growth will take place will be identified through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD. The existing Local Plan employment allocation at Mere of approximately 3 hectares will be implemented during the period of this Strategy.

Tisbury Community Area Planned Growth: Tisbury Local Service Centre: 160 200 homes. 1.4 ha of employment land Rest of Tisbury Community Area: 270 220 homes

Page 11 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Tisbury is the Local Service Centre for this Community Area and serves a wide and sparsely populated hinterland. The existing Local Plan employment and housing allocations on Hindon Lane will be implemented during the period of this Strategy. Fovant, Hindon and Ludwell are the secondary villages in this Community Area. These villages provide a reasonable level of local services and facilities and can accommodate reasonable levels of growth. Specific sites that can accommodate this growth will be identified through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD.

The Council‟s target for housing development on previously developed land is 34% from the date of adoption of this Core Strategy to 2026. This includes the conversion of existing buildings.

New housing will not be permitted outside the settlements named in Core Policy 1

[nb. numbers rounded]

Note: All numbers have been rounded up and include a contingency allowance.

Monitoring and Review: AMR & housing trajectory, number of dwellings built in sustainable locations aligned with the Sustainable Settlement Strategy.

Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council, Development Industry, Strategic Partnerships.

Policies replaced: Policy H1

Page 12 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Core Policy 2, page Core Policy 2: Strategic Allocations 49 Planning permission will be granted for proposals that meet the requirements set out in the Development Templates at Appendix A of this document, for the following sites:

Housing Employment and other uses Fugglestone Red 1250 dwellings 8 ha Hampton Park 500 dwellings 0 ha Longhedge (Old Sarum) 800450 dwellings 8 ha Churchfields & Engine Sheds 1100 dwellings 5 ha to be retained UKLF 450 dwellings 3 ha South of Netherhampton Road 400 dwellings 10 ha Central Car Park 200 dwellings Up to 40,000 sq m gross external area retail and leisure floorspace Kings Gate, Amesbury 1300 dwellings 0 ha Former Imerys Quarry 0 dwellings 4 ha

The specific, detailed infrastructure requirements to allow this Strategy to be delivered are included in the Area Visions (Chapters 6-11), the Development Templates at Appendix A and Integrated Delivery Plan at Appendix E. Key strategic elements of infrastructure central to the delivery of this plan are:  New secondary school capacity for Salisbury.  New primary schools at strategic sites at Fugglestone Red, Hampton Park, Longhedge,  Harnham and Kings Gate.  Additional doctor and dentist surgery capacity.  Adequate fire service response to areas of new growth.  Green Infrastructure linkages.  Retention of important green infrastructure to the northern slopes and the green lung running south from land east of Old Sarum and west of Hampton Park.  Demand Management measures to alleviate additional traffic pressures on Salisbury ring road.  A strategy for mitigating phosphate levels in the watercourses.  An integrated 'water grid' to ensure water supply.

Page 13 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Targets: See Core Policy 1; Reduction in local unemployment figures. Monitoring and Review: AMR housing completions; NOMIS official labour market statistics. Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council; Developers. Policies replaced: None Map 3b, page 51 Remove „Land south of Netherhampton Road‟ from map. Reduce area covered by Longhedge proposed allocation, amend Longhedge annotation to read „450 homes‟ rather than „800‟.

Para 5.23, page 51 The Strategic importance of the sites

The sites in Core Policy 2 are all integral to delivery of this Strategy. There are a number of important contributions that each will make to deliver the successful outcomes sought through the spatial objectives and these include:

(a) Achieving sustainable, balanced growth The sites are allocated in strategic locations that will contribute to providing balanced communities, where there are housing and job opportunities, supported by key infrastructure and a range of services. Therefore the sites are located in the major settlements of Salisbury and Amesbury with one at Wilton due to its close relationship with Salisbury, as these settlements provide the best range of facilities to achieve self-containment. As well as the balanced nature of the settlements, many of the sites have been chosen to balance job and employment opportunities on a local basis. Furthermore some strategic sites will provide Local Centres to serve the development comprising additional community facilities such as a local shop. Such sites include Fugglestone Red, and Longhedge and South of Netherhampton Road.

(b) Regeneration These are areas that are at risk of decline if positive steps are not taken. Sites with an important regeneration purpose are UKLF Wilton (mitigating MOD vacating the site with the loss of 1200 jobs), Imerys (former aggregates quarry closed with loss of local jobs), Churchfields (a need to allow more expansion space for local businesses) and the Maltings/Central Car Park (to improve Salisbury's retail and leisure offer in the face of strong sub-regional competition).

Page 14 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference

(c) Frontloading delivery of housing Not enough homes have been delivered to meet identified requirements in the past 10 years in south Wiltshire, leading to issues of affordability. There is a need to address this and to build contingency into this plan to ensure that uncertain market conditions or unforeseen events will not prevent the delivery of the strategy in the future. To do this a deliberate strategy of frontloading has been produced and all the strategic sites have been planned to commence delivery within the early years of the plan. This initial oversupply will build in contingency and help deliver affordable housing.

(d) Securing economic growth The economic centrepiece of this strategy is to provide enough new strategic sites to attract new business and facilitate the relocation of existing businesses from the constrained Churchfields Estate in Salisbury, thereby allowing them room to expand. The strategic sites will allow for a range of employment choices in sustainable locations around Salisbury. Fugglestone Red, Longhedge (Old Sarum), UKLF, South of Netherhampton Road, Central Car Park and the Imerys site, will all provide employment opportunities to facilitate this.

New allocated employment sites will be delivered alongside allocated housing sites and will be master planned comprehensively to deliver a range of job types and unit size taking into account the most current Employment Land Review and decant uses required as a result of the regeneration projects. However, beyond Churchfields decant sites the majority are expected to be office based at Salisbury SSCT.

Office and Research and Development based business parks will also be acceptable in order to try and achieve a step change in the job base at Salisbury SSCT. Such sites will also deliver flexible and affordable workspace, particularly small and start up units, on accessible lease terms to provide continuing opportunities for business start- ups. These start up or incubator units should be supported by shared business infrastructure relevant to the use class. Such units will be subject to a section 106 agreement to ensure that they remain so into perpetuity.

Employment sites, as well as taking account of other relevant policies within this Core Strategy, including Core Policy 14 with respect to saved policy E8B, Porton Down, will be required to deliver important infrastructure to support the businesses and their employer's needs whilst at work. Infrastructure provision including a crèche, gym, shop and catering establishments as well as training facilities, all should help to secure inward investment. In addition all businesses should prepare Green Travel Plans.

Page 15 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Para 5.24, Figure 3, Replace Housing Trajectory with new trajectory representing updated figures. page 53 Para 5.27, page 54 In accordance with PPS3 the Core Strategy plans for the supply of continuous housing over a 16-year period and identifies specific sites and broad locations for further development. Furthermore, this strategy exceeds the requirements of PPS 3 in that it will deliver more than a 10-year supply of deliverable sites from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. This "front-loading" approach has been deliberately designed to ensure that there is no shortfall in the delivery of homes in south Wiltshire. This approach, (to be achieved through the early release of strategic allocations, the saved Local Plan allocations and commitments) will provide over 8000 5000 houses in the initial years of the Strategy, and represents a step-change in housing delivery. A further supply of housing will also be delivered through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD. This overall strategy ensures that we meet both the requirements of the RSS and PPS3. Para 5.31 (a) (a) Education Education, page 55 New secondary school capacity for Salisbury, which will initially be met through extension and rationalisation of existing stock, with a longer term aspiration for a new secondary school provision to be facilitated through developer contributions.

New primary schools at strategic sites at Fugglestone Red, Hampton Park, and Longhedge and Harnham are required up front in the development process. On these strategic sites, land will be provided by the developers, who will also either provide the school building for the LEA or will provide a financial contribution so that the LEA's preferred operator can build the school. Para 5.41, page 58 While the frontloading strategy has been partly designed to treat the cause of past undersupply of housing it is important to emphasise that this is a forward looking strategy. The level of contingency built into the frontloading will allow non-delivery of several strategic sites and still allow the RSS targets and local needs figures to be met and thereby still address the challenges that under provision has caused. The driver of frontloading is thus twofold, both to address the challenges historic under provision has caused and to ensure that the Strategy has sufficient contingency to deal effectively with unforeseen circumstances. Para 5.46 (b) (b) Strategic areas of search around Salisbury

The site selection process and the SHLAA have indicated broad areas of search around Salisbury, which may provide in the region of 1000 additional homes. Further work through a site allocation DPD will be required to further investigate these sites to see if they are deliverable61. The site selection process which led to the selection of the

Page 16 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Strategic Allocations also identified an additional area which has potential for strategic development (Area 12 on the map in Appendix K) as well as a number of areas with limited potential for strategic growth (the blue areas on the map in Appendix K). These are the strategic areas of search round Salisbury which may provide for some 1000 additional homes and some 15ha of employment land. The identification of these areas of land is not tantamount to a future allocation. More work would need to be done either through the development management process or the Site Specific Allocations DPD to ascertain their appropriateness or otherwise for future development.

Delete MIN/47(as above) and amend to:

5.46 (b) Strategic areas of search around Salisbury The map „potential areas for strategic growth in and around Salisbury/Wilton‟ in topic paper 19 site selection process and SHLAA have indicatesd broad areas of search around Salisbury. which may provide in the region of 1000 additional homes. As part of our ongoing monitoring process, if further land is required in the future, the sites at Netherhampton and an additional phase at Longhedge, should be considered. If necessary further work through a site allocation DPD will be required to further investigate these sites to see if they are deliverable.

Para 5.46 (d), page (d)The rural areas 60 The issue of giving local communities, especially in the rural areas more ownership over the level of growth they see as appropriate for their area is central to the Localism Bill. This will introduce neighbourhood plans and the community right to build in a way which hands more control over planning matters to the communities themselves. The published Bill states that Neighbourhood Plans must work inside some limits and will still need to be compliant with national planning policy.

Therefore, due to the views received from the communities and the publication of the Localism Bill it is considered that it is important that the Core Strategy makes provision for new housing in the rural areas in order to facilitate delivery of these local aspirations through neighbourhood plans and community right to build and ensures compliance with emerging national policy.

Consequently, Core Policy 1 indicates that 1,000 homes have been set aside to allow Neighbourhood Plans and Community Right to Build Schemes to deliver homes in rural areas that are put forward, prepared and agreed by the local communities.

Page 17 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference

The Sustainable Settlement Strategy and Core Policy 1 indicate how growth will be distributed across south Wiltshire. A finer grain analysis through a Site Specific Allocations DPD will be carried out to identify how the growth can best be accommodated. Para 5.46 (f), page (f) Review of existing employment and land supply 60 There is a large oversupply of employment land within the TTWA south Wiltshire at the current time63. However this land is not in the optimum location. Para 5.3 of this Strategy identifies that Salisbury is where the larger proportion of growth will be concentrated with Amesbury providing significant growth outside of Salisbury. The RSS recognises Salisbury as is therefore the key employment centre with the key strategic aim being to extend and enhance the city as an employment and retail centre. It recognises that there are With opportunities for some modest job growth at locations such as Amesbury, but is clear that the majority of the extant employment land available in south Wiltshire no longer conforms with the RSS the strategic aim because it is not located in Salisbury64.

Some 64ha of employment land is available at Solstice Park, which no longer directly conforms to the RSS the strategic aim of this Core Strategy. However this land is consented and remains available for development. Therefore although employment development on this site can proceed in accordance with its planning permission, the allocation will not be relied on to meet the strategic requirements of the proposed to be abolished RSS and the allocating policy will not be saved. If the site is not developed in a timely manner it will be reviewed through the Site Specific Allocations DPD to identify whether the site is more appropriate for another use65.

Local Plan employment allocations have been saved which should deliver the 400 jobs in the Community Areas of Tisbury and Mere needed outside of the TTWA over the period to 2026. However, this will be further assessed within the Site Specific Allocations DPD to determine if further employment land needs to be allocated. Para 5.48, page 61 The type of houses that are needed - affordable housing

Previous chapters have highlighted the problem in providing enough affordable housing in south Wiltshire. PPS3 requires an overall, plan-wide target to be set for the amount of affordable housing to be provided. The proposed to be abolished RSS requires that 35% of all housing development annually in the south Wiltshire HMA is affordable. Core Policy 2 sets a target of 40% affordable homes on new development. This means that of the 12,400 9,900 homes that this strategy seeks to deliver, 4340 3960 need to be affordable homes. Since the start of the RSS plan period (2006) to adoption of this Core Strategy (2010), 308 affordable dwellings will have been delivered through

Page 18 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference completions and commitments. Therefore, 4032 3652 affordable homes need to be delivered over the 16 year plan period of the Core Strategy (2010 to 2026), the equivalent of approximately 250 225 per annum. This represents a step change from previous rates of delivery. Based on an economic viability study66, Core Policy 3 below has been determined which sets out the proportion of affordable housing sought for different site-size thresholds. A cascade approach to identifying appropriate occupiers will be implemented and the approach to the level of subsidy, or indeed whether subsidy should be provided at all, and the availability of such housing in perpetuity will be subject of an SPD in due course67. Core Policy 3, page Core Policy 3 - Meeting Local Needs for Affordable Housing 62 The Council's target for affordable housing is that 250 225 of net additional dwellings per annum from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy to 2026 should be affordable. This will be achieved by:  A requirement for 40% affordable housing (net) on sites of 15 dwellings or more.  A requirement for 25% affordable housing (net) on sites of between 5 and 14 dwellings.  All affordable housing required by this policy, of 5 dwellings or above will be delivered on the development site. Only in exceptional circumstances, where a developer can prove to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that on-site delivery is not possible, will a commuted sum be considered. The tests for considering off-site contributions will be set out in the forthcoming Affordable Housing SPD.  On sites of 4 dwellings or less a financial contribution will be sought towards the provision of affordable housing. The level will be set within the Planning Obligations SPD.  Tenure will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis to reflect the nature of the development and local needs as set out in Core Policies 6, 10, 11, 14 and 16, the up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other available evidence. Affordable housing size and type, including any distinction between flats and houses, will be expected to reflect that of the demonstrable need for the community within which a site is located  The provision of affordable housing will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis taking into account the viability of the development, the mix of affordable housing proposed and the availability of any additional public subsidy. Preference is for the provision to be made without public subsidy but if this can be demonstrated not to be possible for reasons of viability then the Council will consider other delivery mechanisms including the use of public subsidy, or the transfer of land.  Affordable housing units will be dispersed throughout a development and designed to a high quality, so as to be indistinguishable from other development.

Parish and Town Councils and other parties will be encouraged to identify 100% affordable housing schemes,

Page 19 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference including on exceptions sites outside of settlement boundaries, if a local need has been identified where environmental considerations will not be compromised. Sites should be sensibly and sensitively located within easy access to employment and services.

The need for and type of affordable housing will be reviewed regularly throughout the plan period as set out in PPS3, and revised targets will be determined depending on the prevailing housing need and market conditions at the time, following a public consultation period. This will only occur if the housing need varies by more than 10% from the previously set target. Targets: 250 225 affordable housing completions annually Monitoring and Review: AMR & housing trajectory, annual number of affordable housing completions. Strategic Housing Market Assessments. Delivery Responsibility: Wiltshire Council, Development Industry, Strategic Partnerships, RSL's. Policies replaced: Policy H25, Policy H26. Para 5.51, page 63 Making adequate provision for Gypsies and Travellers South Wiltshire already has a good range of pitches for Gypsies and Travellers (around 35% of the total county provision) and the number of unauthorised encampments has been low, however there is a need to make provision for additional accommodation69. The proposed to be abolished RSS requires the provision of an additional eighteen residential and five transit pitches in south Wiltshire to 2011 as well as contributing towards the 5 plots required to meet the needs of travelling show people. This provision will be delivered through a DPD for the whole of Wiltshire. Para 6.1, page 71 Portrait of Salisbury Salisbury city is the main centre of south Wiltshire, acting as a focal point for a wide rural catchment and it is identified in the emerging soon to be abolished RSS as a strategically significant city. The council has undertaken a visioning exercise, which sets out plans for the future evolution of the city. Map 4 Remove „Land south of Netherhampton Road‟ from map and references within key.

Para 6.8 and 6.9, Providing decent homes and employment opportunities in and around Salisbury and Wilton. page 73 The scale and distribution of growth 7480 6220 new homes and 36 29 ha of employment land (comprising 23 30ha new allocation and 6ha saved) will be provided to meet Salisbury and Wilton‟s needs over the lifetime of this Strategy, and as shown in Map 4. Because of how the administrative boundaries around the city are set out, a large proportion of the allocations are not located

Page 20 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference within the boundary of the city itself but on new Greenfield sites in adjoining parishes within the Southern Wiltshire and Wilton Community Areas. Para 6.10, page 73 Core Policy 2 in Chapter 5 set out the strategic allocations. These allocations are shown on the map above and in summary for the Salisbury area include:

Site Allocation No. of Dwellings Employment (ha) Fugglestone Red 1250 8 Hampton Park78 500 0 Longhedge (Old Sarum)79 800 450 8 Churchfields/Engine Shed 1100 5 (retained) South of Netherhampton Road80 400 10 Central Car Park 200 0 UKLF 450 3 Imerys 0 4 73 Para 6.13, page 74 Salisbury Vision sites represent a key source of delivery. There are two key sources of additional housing supply; other Salisbury Vision sites and further strategic areas of search. While The strategic sites identified within the Strategy have clear evidence of deliverability within the first five years of the plan. , sites within strategic areas of search remain less certain, with further work required to identify and overcome the barriers to delivery. With regard to the Salisbury Vision, the uncertainty over delivery must be balanced with the level of community and stakeholder support for the Vision as well as discussions with key landowners which clarify that there is reasonable potential that the projects may be delivered in the lifespan of the Core Strategy. Further dialogue with stakeholders, clarification of potential barriers to development and master planning is required to demonstrate that these sites are deliverable. A DPD will be the vehicle for this work. The Vision sites where this further process needs to be applied (together with their potential housing contribution) are: Salt Lane (@10 dwellings) Brown Street (@15 dwellings) Bus Station (@10 dwellings) Bus depot (@25 dwellings)

Page 21 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Southampton Road (@750 dwellings)

In general terms these sources are identified as:

No Of Dwellings Employment (ha) Salisbury SSCT Area Of Search 1132 15 Salisbury Vision Sites 800 0

Para 6.17, page 76 The main sources of employment growth for the Salisbury and Wilton area will be through new strategic allocations as detailed in Core Policy 2 above and major regeneration schemes identified below. Retail growth will be delivered in the city centre through the redevelopment of the Maltings/Central Car Park. The Strategy will deliver 13,40 0 around 10,400 jobs including on 29 36 ha of employment land based on B1, B2 and B8 uses and up to 40,000 sq m gross external area retail and leisure floorspace. Evidence84 suggests that for new jobs the market need is for around 19 ha of mainly for B1 business use (offices), in the region of 4 ha for B2 general industrial uses and the remaining approximately 13 ha for storage and distribution. The main sectors that are forecast to expand are hotels and catering, the wider service industries, distribution and education and health. This Strategy provides a range of sites in locations around the city to suit all needs and uses will be located appropriately. For example the Imerys site is most appropriate for heavy industrial uses, while offices would be appropriate on the redeveloped Churchfields site. The types of use appropriate to each strategic site allocation are included In the Development Templates In Appendix A.

These outcomes will be delivered from the following sources: Para 6.28, page 80 Managing Delivery of the Strategy for Salisbury and Wilton The housing trajectory shows how the Strategic Site Allocations in Salisbury and Wilton (alongside those in Amesbury and Wilton) will be delivered in a timely manner to meet local needs and the RSS targets. The trajectory is based on a realistic evaluation of housing supply, informed by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment ("SHLAA"), which has included evidence from developers regarding projected build rates and the requirements and timing of essential infrastructure provision89. For the critical influence of infrastructure on timing of delivery see Chapter 5 and the Integrated Delivery Plan in Appendix E. Managing risks and making contingencies are also critical to delivery and the approach adopted in this Strategy with respects to contingency is explained in Chapter 5. An analysis has been carried out on the potential risks to delivery of the strategic sites, the mitigation and actions taken in respect of these risks, and the possible implications for the Core Strategy. The Risk Analysis is attached to the Core Strategy as

Page 22 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Appendix I. Figure 4, page 81 Housing Trajectory needs replace with updated housing numbers. Para 6.30 (b), page New primary schools at strategic sites at Fugglestone Red, Hampton Park, and Longhedge and Harnham are 81 bullet 2. required up front in the development process. Map 5, page 85 Amend annotation on map to reduce numbers at Longhedge from 800 to 450 and amend area of Longhedge on map in line with changes. Para 7.10, page 92 The scale and distribution of growth 220 new homes and 3 ha of employment land will be provided to meet the needs of the Wilton Community Area over the lifetime of this Strategy. Housing may be delivered through locally produced Neighbourhood Plans or Community Right to Build schemes as detailed in CP1 and paragraph 5.46. Core Policy 2 in Chapter 5 sets out the strategic allocations. These allocations are shown on the map above and in summary are:

Site allocation No. of Dwellings Employment (ha) UKLF 450 3 Para 8.7 The scale and distribution of growth 2650 2395 new homes and 17 ha of employment land will be provided to meet the needs of the Amesbury Community Area over the lifetime of this Strategy102. Core Policy 2 in Chapter 5 sets out the strategic allocations. Housing may also be delivered through locally produced Neighbourhood Plans or Community Right to Build schemes as detailed in CP1 and paragraph 5.46. These allocations are shown on the map above and in summary for the Amesbury Community Area include:

Site Allocation No. of Dwellings Employment (ha) Kings Gate 1300 0 Para 8.18 8.18 Existing employment land supply The Amesbury Community Area is the location of the majority of the currently allocated employment land in south Wiltshire. However, as explained in Chapter 5, the soon to be abolished RSS recognises Salisbury as the key employment centre and hence the existing allocation is not in conformity with this. Para 8.20 8.20 At Solstice Park, Amesbury, some 64ha of employment land is available. This no longer conforms with the soon to be abolished RSS, which instead directs major employment growth to Salisbury. However this land is consented and has been the subject of significant investor commitment prior to revisions to the RSS being introduced. Therefore, employment development can proceed on this site as per the existing planning permission, but the

Page 23 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference allocation will not be saved from the last local plan107. Para 9.9 The scale and distribution of growth 740 665 new homes will be provided to meet the needs of Southern Wiltshire Community Area over the lifetime of this Strategy. These will be in addition to the two major growth sites for Salisbury in the parish of Laverstock identified in Chapters 6 and 7. Housing may also be delivered through locally produced Neighbourhood Plans as part of the Rural Allowance. Para 10.10 , page 10.10 The scale and distribution of growth 116 290 200 new homes and 3 ha of employment land (on a saved Local Plan allocation) will be delivered to meet needs in the Mere Community Area over the lifetime of this Strategy. It is anticipated that most, if not all, of this growth will be centred on Mere. However, the Strategy is designed to be flexible and has the potential for some of the growth to be accommodated through infill and affordable exception development at Zeals. Housing may also be delivered through locally produced Neighbourhood Plans as part of the Rural Allowance. The identification of new growth sites will be made through the subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD. No new strategically important sites have been identified in this Core Strategy but the following is saved:

Saved Local Plan allocation No. of Dwellings Employment (ha) E12 Land at Mere 0 3

Para 11.8, page 440 420 new homes and 1.4 ha of employment land (on a saved Local Plan allocation) will be provided in the Tisbury 123 Community Area over the 20 year lifetime of this Strategy. The identification of new growth sites will be made through a subsequent Site Specific Allocations DPD. Housing may also be delivered through locally produced Neighbourhood Plans as part of the Rural Allowance. No new strategically important sites have been identified in this Core Strategy but the following mixed-use site is saved:

Saved Local Plan allocation No. of Dwellings Employment (ha) Land at Hindon Lane,Tisbury (H14) 90 1.4ha Para 12.4, page Green infrastructure 131 Green infrastructure ("GI") is the physical environment within and between our cities, towns and villages. It is a functionally linked network of open spaces, including formal parks, gardens, woodlands, green corridors, waterways, street trees, open countryside, and sites of importance for biodiversity. The soon to be abolished RSS requires authorities to produce Green Infrastructure Plans133.

Page 24 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Para 13.1, page Remove line with respect to land South of Netherhampton Road: 138 South of Netherhampton Rd Planning consultants appointment, Archaeological investigations, landscape appraisal and transport assessment in progress

Appendix A, Page Hampton Park 145-147 Site Description This area of land to the east of the City is limited by the A345, the built envelope of Paul's Dene, Bishopdown, and Hampton Park, the flood plain of the River Bourne, the village of Ford, and the Conservation Area at Old Sarum Airfield. It has a gradual slope down to the Bourne with some level sections in the centre and south. There is a sharp rise towards Castle ridge.

Objectives for the development To develop 500 new homes through a high quality residential development which delivers an appropriate sense of place in accordance with the South Wiltshire Design Guide, 'Creating Places', in a sustainable location close to Salisbury in a manner that compliments the existing community at Bishopdown Farm and makes a significant strategic contribution to meeting the local housing needs of South Wiltshire. Specific issues to be addressed are:

Protection of the strategic landscape setting of the northern slopes of Salisbury including safeguarding views to and from Old Sarum Scheduled Ancient Monument. Strategic gap planning to ensure Ford retains its independent character and does not become merged with the city. The delivery of a significant country park that will be handed to the local community in perpetuity. To deliver a development that is adequately served by essential infrastructure including transportation, water, drainage, education, healthcare and emergency services and green infrastructure. To plan for the permanent retention and enhancement of the Castle Hill/Bishopdown green lung to the city as a key area of habitat retention and informal recreational open space. To deliver a development which conserves and in places enhances the natural environment, including the quality of the Bourne tributary of the River Avon SAC/SSSI

Page 25 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Site Constraints The sensitive landscape at the northern slopes of Salisbury including the setting of Old Sarum SAM Strategically important green lung at Bishopdown/Castle Hill Retention of the separate identity of Ford and avoiding potential coalescence. The Bourne tributary to the River Avon SAC High pressure gas main to west of the site Retention of existing byways Existing residential amenity to the north and south Salisbury Air Quality Management Zone Interface with existing residential properties and rural fringe

Land uses and quanta of development 500 new dwellings of which a minimum of 40 % will be affordable. The breakdown will be as detailed in Core Policy 6.

Essential Infrastructure Requirements Education: 1 form entry primary school and contributions towards secondary education Transportation: Any major infrastructure requirements outcomes identified by the Salisbury Transport Model. A Transport Assessment setting out how the model shift promoted at national and RSS level will be achieved. Green Infrastructure: 1 in 10 dwellings to have facilities for roosting bats. New woodland hedging and native species to connect to retained hedges to River Avon. Surveys of protected species, especially botanical, in June/July Heritage/Salisbury Historic Environment Assessment: High risk to the west at Old Sarum SAM. Great potential for archaeology, field systems and Roman remains. Trial pitting under supervision of Wiltshire Council Archaeologist required. Drainage and Water: Dedicated spine main to provide capacity. Sewers: limited capacity - requires off-site link plus extensive downstream improvements. Cumulative development within the upstream catchment at Old Sarum, Hampton Park and Longhedge developments will trigger significant works with new relief sewer to ensure that risk from sewer flooding is resolved. A contribution is required towards a management and mitigation plan to address phosphate levels in the watercourses and their threat to protected species as well as its implementation. PCT: Financial contribution towards new or improved doctors and dentist surgeries. Emergency Services: Contribution to the provision of a new community fire station or improvements to existing

Page 26 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference facilities in order to provide a comprehensive and flexible responses to future emergencies. Renewable energy: 10% renewable energy generated on or near the site.

Place shaping requirements In addition to the provisions of 'Creating Places' and saved Local Plan policies, master planning of this site needs to specifically address:  Safeguarding zone for the high pressure gas main  A strongly defined urban/rural edge to the north of the site  The layout and utility of the Country Park, with added flexibility over the future function of the green open space to allow the community to agree its best use.  Any master plan must ensure the delivery of a significant Defining the strategic gap between the development and the settlement of Ford the size of which is to be agreed with the local planning authority and the community representatives prior to submission of a planning application.  A community forum be established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes meet local aspirations.

Strategic Linkages Linkages with the existing residential development at Bishopdown Farm and Hampton Park, to ensure that the new communities can integrate. Delivery Mechanism This site should be the subject of partnership between private and public sector based on frontloading a master plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority as part of the planning application process. This Master Plan will guide the private sector led delivery of the site. Key delivery milestones, monitoring and review This site has been chosen not only because strategically, environmentally and consultatively it can make a significant contribution to meeting local needs through regeneration, but also because early discussions with land owners, agents and prospective developers have encouraged the Local Planning Authority that this site can be brought forward within the first five years. In order to safeguard the delivery of housing within this 147 period the following milestones will be adhered to: Immediate partnership working with LPA and stakeholders frontloading matters

Page 27 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference A planning application accompanied by master plan and design code within 18 months of adoption of the Core Strategy. A section 106 agreement will be required setting key milestones for delivery including that the site shall start delivering housing within 12 months of the grant of permission and a phasing agreement setting out completions at agreed milestones moving forward. Failure to meet any of the above deadlines without production of compelling justification will lead to conclusion that the site is not deliverable and the site could be de-allocated in a mini-review of the Core Strategy and the site replaced with an alternative site where more certainty exists. An independent viability review of the site will be undertaken by Wiltshire Council within two years to review the standards of delivery set in view of the projected recovery from the recession of 2009. This review will not be undertaken where the developer has demonstrated commitment through delivery in the first two years of the Strategy. Appendix A, page Remove development template for Land south of Netherhampton Road, Netherhampton. 161-163 Appendix A, page Longhedge development template 164-166 Description of site The site is located to the north of Salisbury city, to the north east of Old Sarum and the A345. To the south of the site is the Beehive Park and Ride site, largely screened by trees, and a small area of employment land. To the east is an employment site and Old Sarum Airfield, which is a Conservation Area. To the immediate east is an existing Local Plan allocation site, where detailed planning permission has been granted for 600 dwellings and building has commenced. This site lies to either side of the Salisbury City Football Club stadium.

Objectives for the development To develop a housing led mixed use development of 800 450 dwellings and 8 ha of employment, through a high quality master plan which delivers an appropriate sense of place in accordance with the South Wiltshire Design Guide, 'Creating Places' in a sustainable location, in a manner which compliments the existing community and makes a significant strategic contribution to meeting local housing needs of South Wiltshire. Specific issue to be addressed are: The introduction of additional dwelling to the Old Sarum area will add a critical mass to secure the delivery and viability of planned and new local facilities to create a more self-contained community based around a neighbourhood

Page 28 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference centre. The provision of employment opportunities for both new investment and decant from Churchfields.

Site constraints Football stadium and airfield noise will need to be mitigated Highways impact on Castle Road and wider area, and associated impact on air quality Impact on setting of Old Sarum SAM and Old Sarum Airfield Conservation Area High potential for unknown archaeology on the site Street lighting designed to minimise light pollution and sky glow.

Land uses and quanta of development The site comprises approximately 51ha and will accommodate a mix of employment and housing. The site will deliver approximately 800 450 dwellings of which a minimum of 40% will be affordable. The breakdown will be as detailed in Core Policy 6. Community infrastructure and approximately 8ha of employment land which will include general industrial, office, research and development, storage and distribution, but exclude retail.

Essential Infrastructure Requirements Education: 2 1 form entry primary school and financial contributions for secondary. Transportation: Any major infrastructure requirement outcomes identified by the Salisbury Transport Model. A Transport Assessment which sets out how the modal shift promoted at national and soon to be abolished RSS level will be achieved, including improved, bus, cycle and walking routes and possible junction improvements at Beehive roundabout, opportunities for links cycle and footpath to the Salisbury city centre, Beehive Park and Ride and other strategic sites. Implementing measures to prevent overloading of Castle Road and potential contribution to Beehive Park and Ride. Contribution to addressing the objectives set out in the Salisbury AQMA Green infrastructure: Formal and informal public open space to be provided on site. Strategic landscape plan required to ensure opportunities to improve views from Old Sarum, through the screening of existing functional buildings. The strengthening of existing tree belts at the site. Flooding: A flood risk assessment will be required and satisfy the requirements of PPS 25, reference should be made to the Level 1 SFRA Drainage and Water: This should pay particular attention to drainage and the control of surface water by the use of SUDS. Engineering assessment of water and foul sewer drainage at the site and potential capacity improvements at

Page 29 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Petersfinger sewerage works and potable water capacity. Cumulative development within the upstream catchment at Old Sarum, Hampton Park and Longhedge developments will trigger significant works with new relief sewer to ensure that risk from sewer flooding is resolved. PCT: Financial contribution towards new or improved doctors and dentist surgeries. Emergency services: Contributions towards the Fire Service for new or improved fire stations in order to provide a comprehensive and flexible responses to future emergencies. Community facilities and services: Additional community facilities and services to complement and reinforce the viability of the already planned district centre. Renewable Energy: 10% renewable energy generated on or near the site as per RSS policy.

Place shaping requirements In addition to the provisions of 'Creating Places' and saved Local Plan policies, master planning of this site needs to specifically address: There are opportunities to secure the long term future of Old Sarum Aerodrome through some sensitive new development, acting as a catalyst for a new Management Plan related to heritage and a legal agreement which controls the level of flying activity, which has been a longstanding issue locally. Key views to and from Old Sarum and impact on the SAM. Show how the new neighbourhood can be integrated into the existing community, both residential and commercial and into the built and natural environment. Employment land should not comprise development that will cause a nuisance to the new or existing residents.

Strategic Linkages Linkages with the existing allocated site at Old Sarum to ensure that the new communities can integrate and function as one.

Delivery Mechanism This site should be the subject of partnership working towards based on frontloading a Master Plan to be approved by the Local Planning Authority as part of the planning application process. This Master Plan will show integration with the existing proposed development of 650 dwellings at Old Sarum.

Key delivery milestones, monitoring and review This site has been chosen not only because strategically, environmentally and consultatively it can make a significant

Page 30 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference contribution to meeting local needs through regeneration, but also because early discussions with land owners, agents and prospective developers have encouraged the Local Planning Authority that this site can be brought forward within the first five years. In order to safeguard the delivery of housing within this period the following milestones will be adhered to: Immediate partnership working with LPA and stakeholders frontloading matters A planning application accompanied by master plan and design code within 18 months of adoption of the Core Strategy. A section 106 agreement will be required setting key milestones for delivery including that the site shall start delivering housing within 12 months of the grant of permission and a phasing agreement setting out completions at agreed milestones moving forward.

Failure to meet any of the above deadlines without production of compelling justification will lead to conclusion that the site is not deliverable and the site could be de-allocated in a mini-review of the Core Strategy and the site replaced with an alternative site where more certainty exists.

An independent viability review of the site will be undertaken by Wiltshire Council within two years to review the standards of delivery set in view of the projected recovery from the recession of 2009. This review will not be undertaken where the developer has demonstrated commitment through delivery in the first two years of the Strategy. Appendix D, page Remove „Land south of Netherhmapton Road‟ from Map. Reduce size of proposed Longhedge allocation to reflect 183 the Review. Appendix E, page Strategic Objective 2: To provide everyone with access to a decent, affordable home. 189 Desired outcomes:  The delivery of at least 12,400 9,900 new homes carefully managed to be in the most sustainable location and to respect the local character. Well over half the number will have been built in or around Salisbury, with significant growth in Amesbury. Page 189 Average of 620 495 housing completions per year over the plan period (minimum) Appendix E (Integrated Delivery Plan), Strategic Objective 2, Table, 1st Row, Targets

Page 31 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Page 189 Delivery of Strategic Sites (60005250 dwellings) Appendix E (Integrated Delivery Decant sites to be delivered as part of Fugglestone Red, Longhedge, South of Netherhampton Road Strategic Sites. Plan), Strategic Objective 2, Table, 2nd Row, Targets and Timescale Page 189 250 225 affordable housing completions (minimum) annually from date of adoption of Core Strategy (2010) Appendix E (Integrated Delivery Plan), Strategic Objective 2, Table, 3rd Row, Targets Page 192 Strategic Objective 3: To deliver a thriving economy which provides a range of job opportunities to match a growing Appendix E population and where traditionally strong sectors, such as scientific research and development, continue to be world (Integrated Delivery leaders. Plan), Strategic Objective 3 Desired outcomes: Identification of land in sustainable locations to provide for about 13,900 10,400 new jobs up to 2026. Page 192 Provision of 13,900 10,400 jobs in south Wiltshire (695520/year average) Appendix E (Integrated Delivery Plan), Strategic Objective 2, Table, 1st Row, Target Page 192 Delivery of 37 20 ha of employment land. Appendix E (Integrated Delivery Plan), Strategic Objective 2, Table, 2nd Row, Target

Page 32 of 33 Proposed CS REFERENCE CHANGE Review Change Reference Page 202 New Primary Schools at: Appendix E  Fugglestone Red (Integrated Delivery  Hampton Park Plan), Strategic  Longhedge Objective 7, Table,  Netherhampton Road 1st Row, Target Page 209 Replace graph with updated housing trajectory. Appendix E (Integrated Delivery Plan), Graph 1 Appendix F – Map – Salisbury East – Amend Longhedge Area Amendments to Map – Salisbury South – Remove site at land South of Netherhampton Road. Local Plan Maps Appendix G Add to list:

Topic Paper 20: Review of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Appendix H, page Amend all graphs to represent new housing figures. 227 Appendix I, REFERS TO: FUGGLESTONE RED; HAMPTON PARK; LONGHEDGE; CHURCHFIELDS/ENGINE SHEDS; SOUTH Delivery Risk OF NETHERHAMPTON ROAD; CENTRAL CAR PARK; IMERYS; KING'S GATE Assessment, page 231

Page 33 of 33

HOUSING REQUIREMENT TECHNICAL PAPER

Technical paper setting out the housing requirement for Wiltshire 2006-2026

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to address Wiltshire’s overall housing requirement for the plan period 2006 – 2026, as well as that for South Wiltshire in support of the proposed review of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy. This is in response to the announcement on 27 May by the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) confirming the Coalition Government’s intention to “rapidly abolish Regional Strategies (RS)”.

1.2 The south west Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), whilst not adopted, contained specific policies on a wide range of planning issues with one of its central functions to establish the overall scale and distribution of new housing across the south west region. These regional targets were translated into local authority targets, and in some cases housing targets set for specific settlements as well as broad Areas of Search. These Strategically Significant Cities or Towns (SSCTs) included the Wiltshire towns of Chippenham, Salisbury and Trowbridge, with the west Swindon identified as an Area of Search.

1.3 A further letter from the Secretary of State on the 6 July 2010 announced the revocation of RS by way of an Order laid before Parliament. This letter confirmed that “Local Planning Authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long term supply of housing land without the burden of regional targets.”

1.4 The revocation decision has since been subject to judicial review and successfully challenged at the High Court1. The judgement upheld the grounds for the challenge, namely that the Secretary of State:

• Used his powers to revoke RSs improperly and against a fundamental purpose of primary legislation to establish RSs as a tier of planning policy; and, • Acted unlawfully by revoking RSs without any reference to the requirement to assess the environmental impacts of the revocation (ie without an SEA).

1.5 The immediate impact of this judgement is to reinstate RS as part of the development plan, this was confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate in guidance issued to Inspectors which stated that the RS as it stood on 5 July forms an ongoing part of the development plan.”2

1.6 However, the intention to abolish RS has since been confirmed through the Decentralisation and Localism Bill, published in December 2010 this bill contains the relevant clause providing the mechanism for future revocation. Further legal challenges are ongoing regarding the weight to be given to the announcements to revoke regional plans. However Wiltshire has moved quickly to confirm its position and this was formalised at the Cabinet meeting of 19 October 2010 which resolved that Cabinet:

1.7 In light of the revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies, reaffirms that the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 sets out housing figures for Wiltshire up to 2016 (as set out in saved Policy DP4);

1 High Court Queen’s Bench Division Case No. CO/8474/2010 2 The Planning Inspectorate November 2010 Regional Strategies – Impact of CALA Homes Litigation

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

• Agrees that Wiltshire’s new housing requirement is determined through a comprehensive review involving local communities, which responds to the Decentralisation and Localism Bill; and • Agrees that the new housing requirement be progressed as part of the Core Strategy process.

1.8 The previous emerging Wiltshire housing targets were developed through the RSS process with initial evidence provided by Wiltshire County Council through the submission of Section 4(4) advice. The draft RSS then presented housing targets for the former district areas which were subsequently revised during the Examination in Public (EiP) in to the RSS. The Proposed Changes version of the RSS identified the most recent regional strategic housing requirements for Wiltshire. Table 1 shows the various stages of the RSS with corresponding housing requirements.

Table 1: Housing Requirements Area / Wiltshire 4/4 Advice Draft RSS RSS Settlement and (net Requirements Proposed Swindon dwellings 2006-2026 Changes Structure 2006-2026) 2006-2026 Plan 2016 (1996-2016) OPTION 1 Kennet 5,250 5,000 5,000 6,000 District North 9,000- Wiltshire 10,000* Chippenham 3,000 4,500 4,500 5,500 urban area District 6,000 4,500 4,500 5,200 Remainder West of 0-1,000* Up to 2,000 1,000 3,000 Swindon Salisbury 8,000 District Salisbury 3,900 5,000 5,000 6,000 urban area District 4,100 4,000 4,000 6,400 remainder West 11,750 Wiltshire Trowbridge 5,000 5,000 5,000 6,000 urban area District 6,750 5,500 5,500 6,300 remainder Wiltshire 34,000 - 33,500 – 34,500 44,400 Total 35,000 35,000 *The Structure Plan makes provision for an additional 1,000 dwellings at the western side of Swindon, which could at least in part lie in North Wiltshire.

1.9 The revocation has, in the short-term, implications for the consideration of planning applications in advance of an up to date planning framework through an adopted Local Development Framework (LDF). In the longer-term the main issue is one of establishing a housing requirement for Wiltshire to be tested and included within the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

1.10 The Chief Planner at the DCLG published guidance to local authorities prior to the publication of the Decentralisation and Localism Bill. The key elements of this guidance are still relevant and are as follows:

a) Localism will be at the centre of the new Coalition Government’s agenda with the pre-cursor to this agenda being the revocation of RSS in order to allow local targets to be set.

b) Local Planning Authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of local housing provision in their area, and identifying a long term supply of housing land. Some may decide to retain their existing housing targets that were set out in the revoked RSS. Others may decide to review their targets.

c) Local Planning Authorities should quickly signal their intention to undertake an early review so that communities and land owners know where they stand.

d) The revocation of RSS is not a signal for local authorities to stop making plans for their area. Local Planning Authorities should continue to develop their LDF Core Strategies and other documents, reflecting local people’s aspirations and decisions on important issues such as climate change, housing and economic development. Authorities may decide to review and/or revise their emerging policies in light of the revocation of RSS.

e) Each Local Planning Authority’s development plan will now consist only of adopted development plan documents, saved policies, and any old style plans that have not lapsed. Local Planning Authorities should also have regard to other material considerations, including national policy. Evidence that informed the preparation of the revoked RSS may also be a material consideration, depending on the facts of the case.

f) Local Planning Authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process in line with current national policy set out within Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing . It is important for the planning process to be transparent, and for people to be able to understand why decisions have been taken.

g) Local Planning Authorities should continue to identify enough viable land to meet the ambition for growth for at least 15 years from the date the plan is adopted. Authorities should also have a five year supply of deliverable sites.

1.11 This guidance allows for local authorities to retain their existing targets as set out in the revoked RSS or to review their housing targets. It also specifically refers to “Option 1” figures (i.e. those that were submitted by strategic planning authorities - the Section 4(4) advice - to inform the figures within the original draft RSS) suggesting that it may be appropriate to base revised targets on these, supplemented by more recent information.

1.12 Within this context Wiltshire Council is required to reappraise the level of housing Wiltshire should plan for to identify locally derived requirements in accordance with the localism agenda, and in anticipation of the revocation of RS. It is the intention to determine the strategic requirement for the whole of Wiltshire through this paper, and then to engage with communities to assess the aspirations for development. This will provide a both a top-down approach, ensuring that the needs of the area can be met as well as a bottom-up approach, enabling communities to input and take ownership of local housing requirements. In this light, the strategic requirement is determined to form a range of figures within which development could be demonstrated to be appropriate. This range should be broad enough to ensure that the bottom-up requirement is consistent without prejudicing the aspirations for the area.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

1.13 In the light of the above, this paper seeks to determine the housing requirement for Wiltshire from 2006-2026. The methodology used to generate these figures has emerged in the light of lessons learned from the Section 4(4) advice; the sub-regional context of Wiltshire; and an assessment of the political aspirations of the council.

Background / Context. 1.14 Within Wiltshire there are significant opportunities to strengthen the environmental, social and economic well-being of the county. In order to do this Wiltshire must be well placed to meet current and future demands for housing and employment, whilst safeguarding and enhancing the rich and ensuring that sustainable development is achieved. To achieve this, a number of documents have been produced which identify the key priorities, objectives, and outcomes for Wiltshire.

1.15 There are a number of policy documents which are particularly relevant in the process of appraising Wiltshire’s future housing requirements. A summary of which is provided below.

The Corporate Plan 1.16 The Wiltshire Corporate Plan sets out the priorities and outcomes for the county for the next four years (2010 – 2014). It is not the purpose of this paper to repeat the Corporate Plan, however the most relevant elements are summarised below and are referred to at various stages throughout this paper.

1.17 Supporting the local economy - The Corporate Plan is clear that a strong local economy is essential to providing local jobs, creating wealth and investment and in helping to enhance people’s general health and wellbeing. In order to provide the necessary environment for a strong local economy the Corporate Plan identifies the need to tackle the number of people travelling out of the county for work; the decline of some of Wiltshire’s town centres; the lower levels of business growth and confidence and the skills gaps in our workforce. In addition the Corporate Plan has the specific objectives to: • Support business start-ups and expansions helping to create 6,000 new jobs and safeguard 8,000 existing jobs; • Secure employment growth in higher paid and higher skilled jobs; and, • Retain and support growth of Wiltshire’s top employers.

1.18 Meeting housing needs - The Corporate Plan recognises the important role that Wiltshire Council has in tackling the housing issues across the county. It recognises that there is not enough affordable or high quality housing to meet current and future needs. Therefore it identifies the specific objectives: • To help more people live independently at home for longer; • Secure 2,400 new affordable homes and bring 2,160 empty homes back into use; and • To be one of the best 25% of councils in England for housing management services.

The Community Plan 2011-2026 1.19 The Wiltshire Community Plan 2011-2026 entitled People, places and promises sets a clear vision for Wiltshire alongside the priorities and objectives over the next 15 years. This outlines the overall strategic direction and long-term vision for the economic, social and environmental well-being of Wiltshire. Set out within the draft Community Plan are three key priorities. Contained within these priorities are set objectives, the most relevant to this paper are summarised below.

1.20 Creating an economy that is fit for the future – This is based on the recognition that the economy is a key measure of strength and future planning should ensure that Wiltshire’s economy is strong, adaptable and competitive. To achieve this the Community Plan identifies the need to encourage a greater proportion of higher value and higher skilled jobs; reducing the

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

reliance on public-sector employment; improving the skills of Wiltshire’s working population to meet employer demand; enabling older people to work beyond retirement age if they so wish; and to support existing business.

1.21 Reducing disadvantage and inequalities – A key priority is to ensure that Wiltshire is able to meet the needs of the growing older population. This includes addressing the lack of affordable housing, including social housing and shared ownership, by building new housing and bringing empty homes back into use.

1.22 Tackling the causes and effects of climate change – It sets an ambition to significantly reduce domestic, business and transport CO2 emissions. This will entail providing a safer and more integrated transport system in order to achieve a major shift to sustainable transport.

1.23 Together the Corporate Plan and Community Plan provide the overarching priorities and objectives for Wiltshire. The role of the Local Development Framework is to provide the planning principles, in terms of the distribution and scale of growth for housing and employment in order to deliver sustainable patterns of development which in turn deliver economic growth whilst addressing, as far as possible, issues of housing affordability.

The Spatial Vision for Wiltshire 1.24 The Spatial Vision for Wiltshire was identified through the Wiltshire 2026 planning consultation. It provides a clear overarching direction for development within Wiltshire.

a. By 2026 Wiltshire will have a much more sustainable pattern of development, focused principally on Trowbridge, Chippenham and Salisbury. Settlements of all sizes will have become more self-contained and supported by the necessary infrastructure, with a consequent reduction in the need to travel, an improvement in accessibility to local services, a greater feeling of security and the enhancement of a sense of community and place. This pattern of development, with a more sustainable approach towards transport and the generation and use of power and heat, will have contributed towards tackling climate change.

b. Housing, employment and other development will have been provided in sustainable locations in response to local needs as well as the changing climate and incorporating exceptional standards of design. Wiltshire’s important biological and built environment will have been safeguarded and, where necessary, extended and enhanced to provide appropriate green infrastructure, while advantage will have been taken of the County’s heritage to promote improvements in tourism for economic benefit.

1.25 There are clear themes identified within these plans and visions for Wiltshire which can be briefly summarised as follows: • Ensure the delivery of sustainable patterns of development; • Increase the self-containment of settlements across Wiltshire; • Reduce the need to travel and the levels of out-commuting; • Addressing housing needs across Wiltshire by responding to local needs and aspirations; and, • Create an economy that is flexible, adaptable and competitive.

1.26 Such objectives should be the cornerstone of strategic planning for Wiltshire with the mechanism to help deliver these objectives being the Local Development Framework.

Previous Community Consultation 1.27 In Wiltshire, two separate Core Strategies are being progressed; one for South Wiltshire and another for the whole of Wiltshire. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy is well advanced and its

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

completion will enable new housing sites to be identified before the Wiltshire Core Strategy is in place and a 5 year housing land supply to be maintained. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy will in effect be replaced by the Wiltshire Core Strategy when it is adopted.

1.28 A key plank of the Government’s Localism agenda is the decentralisation of decision-making and the transfer of more power to local communities to influence how local communities will develop. Wiltshire Council undertook a public consultation from October until December 2009 on the Wiltshire 2026: Planning for Wiltshire’s Future. This document, although based on housing targets identified in the revoked RSS, indentified a range of development options for the county (excluding South Wiltshire, which is discussed below). The comments received provide a useful indication as to the aspirations of residents throughout the county. A full 3 analysis of the Wiltshire 2026 consultation responses can be found on the council’s website . A summary of the responses is provided below, with a breakdown for each Community Area available in Appendix 1.

Spatial Vision for Wiltshire Summary of Responses • Acceptance of the underlying principles with calls for it to be more locally distinctive. • The plan should be firm and clear, ensuring that development takes place with the support of the local community • Although some people expressed concern over the level of growth set regionally, many people accepted that development could be a means of securing wider objectives with benefit to the community as a whole • Balance in development was seen as important, with the need to equate housing growth with employment opportunities • Infrastructure delivery was seen as a key concern, especially in terms of its timely delivery at the point of development, rather than later on in the plan period

Wiltshire 2026 Summary of Responses • The housing targets contained within the RSS were heavily criticised and led to demands for the council to ‘stand up’ for Wiltshire and recognise the unique rural character and dispersed settlement pattern of the County. • There was criticism that no justification for the scale of growth proposed was provided. Residents did not understand why housing was needed. • General support for an approach based on a hierarchy when planning at the strategic level. • General support for directing most development towards SSCTs and market towns, although there was criticism that the allocation system was too rigid and prevented natural, incremental growth of settlements, particularly in rural areas • Development generally regarded as acceptable where it helps to improve the self- containment of a settlement. • Considered the lack of flexibility will exacerbate affordability issues, especially in rural areas.

South Wiltshire Core Strategy 1.29 Wiltshire Council submitted the South Wiltshire Core Strategy Proposed Submission Development Plan Document to the Secretary of State for independent examination in November 2009. This document set out the strategy for the delivery of growth for the next 20

3 http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/planninganddevelopment/planningpolicy/wiltshirecorestrategy.htm

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

years to 2026. The Issues and Options South Wiltshire Core Strategy was subject to statutory consultation in July 2007, as well as prior to submission.

South Wiltshire Core Strategy Summary of Responses • Support for the concentration of development at Salisbury; • No evidence to justify the need to provide the scale of housing proposed; • Significant concerns regarding the ability of South Wiltshire to deliver the scale of housing proposed; • Salisbury has significant environmental constraints which restrict the scale and distribution of development; • Significant concern that the existing infrastructure will not be able to support proposed development levels; and, • The proposed scale of employment land is unrealistic.

1.30 In light of the Government’s announcement to abolish RS, the Inspector agreed to suspend the Examination in order for Wiltshire Council to review the housing and employment figures within the submitted Core Strategy. This has been undertaken as part of this comprehensive review of housing and employment requirements for Wiltshire as a whole. Given the difference between 4 the level of housing required and considered appropriate through this paper and that in the previously emerging RSS, it is considered that some focused changes to the draft Core Strategy will be appropriate. The proposed review will be presented to Full Council on the 22nd February 2011 along with this paper detailing the strategic requirement for the whole of Wiltshire.

2. Geographic context

2.1 It is critical to understand the sub-regional context of Wiltshire, and to identify its relationship with other areas. Wiltshire is a predominantly rural area surrounded by the large urban centres of Bath, Bristol, and Swindon as well as some significant smaller centres. These centres exert commuting and housing demand pressures on Wiltshire, which need to be mitigated by any development proposals.

2.2 As such, the current commuting and migration patterns, and aspirations of neighbouring authorities need to be assessed in order to set the parameters for this assessment.

2.3 Commuting – In 2007, the Office for National Statistics in conjunction with Newcastle University produced a set of 2001 based Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs). These areas are defined such that 75% of the resident working population work within each area, and 75% of those working in each area also reside in that area. Map 1 shows the TTWAs in and surrounding Wiltshire.

2.4 This suggests that Wiltshire should not be considered in isolation, as it performs a much broader sub-regional role. However, the parameters used within the definition of TTWAs may not fully represent all significant flows as it attempts to define self-contained areas rather than areas of interaction. As such, it is necessary to look at the detailed flows from the 2001 Census to establish the settlements outside of Wiltshire that provide a place of work for a significant number of Wiltshire residents or vice versa. This information is presented in Appendix 2a.

4 Whilst this paper sets out the Wiltshire wide requirement alone, comparative data is available for the constituent former district areas, and so indicative requirements can be generated for South Wiltshire. However, these district level figures should only be used where they are supported by a host of locally derived information (as from the South Wiltshire Core Strategy consultations), including an assessment of community aspirations, and the consideration of the links with neighbouring areas.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

2.5 At a strategic level, Wiltshire has 196,700 jobs and 217,300 working residents. This represents a net outflow of over 20,000 workers (or 10% of the working population). This is reflective of the location of Wiltshire as well as the job offer (with a pay differential). Indeed, in 2008 those working in Wiltshire earned £2,500 less on average per year than those living in Wiltshire (Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, ONS). This situation should be addressed by developing the economy of Wiltshire to provide higher skill/value jobs (as recognised in the Corporate Plan) as well as ensuring that the delivery of dwellings and jobs are aligned.

2.6 There are very large numbers of out-commuters (in excess of 5,000) from Wiltshire to Swindon, and Bath. There are also significant numbers (in excess of 2,000) travelling from Wiltshire to Test Valley (with over 3,000 travelling to Andover alone), Bristol, London and West Berkshire.

2.7 In terms of in-commuters there are significant numbers of commuters (in excess of 2,000) from each of Swindon, Mendip (with almost 2,000 travelling from Frome alone), Bath city, and Test Valley to Wiltshire.

Map 1: 2001 based Travel to Work Area

2.8 As recognised in Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, one of the Government’s objectives for prosperous economies is to reduce the need to travel. This is clearly an issue in Wiltshire as the job offer is not aligned to the resident workforce, resulting in the commuting flows above. As such, the delivery of housing should and will be targeted to address this imbalance. However, it must be realised that individuals are free to choose to

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

travel and that by providing a job offer equal to the requirements of Wiltshire, commuting will still occur.

2.9 Migration – In 2004, DTZ Pieda were commissioned to identify a set of Housing Market Areas (HMAs) for the South West. These HMAs represent areas within which most people who are looking to move home will search for a new property in which to live. Map 2 shows the HMAS in and surrounding Wiltshire.

2.10 These areas broadly agree with the detailed commuting flows above, in that they show strong relationships between Wiltshire with Swindon and Bath in particular. Indeed, this conclusion is supported by the more recent work undertaken by the NHPAU to determine up-to-date housing market area boundaries. However, these HMAs are regionally focussed and so may miss some of the locally significant flows. As such, it is necessary to look at the detailed migration flows from the 2001 Census. This information is presented in Appendix 2b.

Map 2: Housing Market Areas

2.11 In 2001, Wiltshire saw net migration inflows totalling some 7,300, with 56,700 moving to and 49,400 moving from Wiltshire (including those flows within the area). These flows were particularly strong from the South East. Indeed, the largest internal migration flow nationally is now from the South East to the South West. The high quality of life enjoyed by Wiltshire, as well as it’s accessibility to London has promoted these flows, and it should be realised that these are likely to continue. Whilst this creates pressure for housing within Wiltshire, and may result in

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

residents experiencing difficulty accessing the housing market, it does provide an opportunity for economic development with an increased workforce.

2.12 Appendix 2b shows that there are several areas beyond the boundary of Wiltshire that provide either significant origins or destinations for the cross-border migration flows.

2.13 In general, the in-migration flows are largely matched by the out-migration flows. However, the size of these flows are particularly large (in excess of 1,000) to/from London and Swindon.

2.14 Sub-regional aspirations - Given the strong functional relationships with the settlements above it is appropriate to ensure that the proposed housing requirements for Wiltshire align with, or as a minimum consider, the emerging policies for these areas. It is particularly important that the housing aspirations of Swindon, Bath, Test Valley (in particular Andover), Mendip (in particular Frome), Bristol, and West Berkshire are considered.

2.15 Wiltshire Council has maintained a close dialogue with neighbouring authorities, with the exception of London Authorities, in order to recognise future risks and challenges to Wiltshire associated with development across the region. The emphasis on locally derived housing provision will introduce uncertainty into the sub-regional strategic planning context as local authorities may pursue housing strategies in isolation of neighbouring authorities. In such circumstances development pressures may shift from traditional areas of expansion. As such, Wiltshire Council will continue to work with other authorities to ensure that the development requirements proposed reflect the sub-regional context of Wiltshire, and that the sub-regional need is met at appropriate locations.

2.16 This section provides an overview of research into the current position of neighbouring authorities. This provides a useful context to the sub-regional position and a steer on the likely direction of travel of housing provision across the county. It is clear that the majority of Local Planning Authorities that intend to undertake a review of future housing requirements are doing so with the intention to align economic forecasts, which take account of the economic downturn, with future housing projections.

2.17 SWINDON – The status of Swindon as an important economic centre in the south west has been recognised through the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 where it was designated a Principal Urban Area, and through the RSS where it was identified as a Strategically Significant Town. Such status ensures that the town is a focus for development and as a neighbouring authority areas within Wiltshire have been expected to take some degree of growth along its border with the western edge of Swindon.

2.18 The Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 identified the potential to deliver 1,000 dwellings along the western edge of Swindon, within either or both authorities to help to address the shortfall in the Boroughs housing provision. The principle of development at the west of Swindon continued through the draft version of RSS with 1,000 dwellings, identified specifically within the former North Wiltshire District. Finally the Proposed Changes version of the RSS increased this to 3,000 dwellings. A development of 200 dwellings has already been granted on the western edge of Swindon in accordance with this policy with further applications expected before the end of 2010.

2.19 As discussed earlier in this paper Wiltshire Council has reaffirmed the status of the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 and specifically the housing requirements contained within the policies, at least until locally derived housing requirements are sufficiently advanced through the Core Strategy process. On this basis Wiltshire Council will continue to work closely with Swindon Borough Council in order to plan for housing growth at the west of Swindon.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

2.20 The Swindon Borough has taken a different position regarding the status of the development plan, confirming that the housing requirements contained within the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan to no longer be realistic or deliverable for the Borough as they do not reflect current economic circumstances.

2.21 On this basis, and reflecting the focus on locally derived housing provision, Swindon Borough Council has presented a Revised Pre-Submission Draft Core Strategy DPD to Full Council on the 13 January 2011. This document reappraises the Borough’s housing requirement to ensure that future projections are realistic, deliverable and that it achieves a balance between economic prospects and housing delivery.

2.22 Prior to this reappraisal the housing target for the Borough was for 36,000 homes over the plan period. The Revised Pre-Submission Draft document indentifies a housing requirement over the plan period of approximately 25,000 additional homes, a significant reduction over some 12,000 homes (including 3,000 to the west of Swindon). Taking into account completions the residual requirement for the Borough is approximately 19,000 homes.

2.23 The focus of future development identified through this document will be at the Eastern Development Area (EDA) with provision also planned for Tadpole Farm on the north-western edge of the town. Development at the west of Swindon in line with the RSS requirement (3,000) dwellings is no longer advanced in the Swindon Core Strategy.

Impact on Wiltshire 2.24 Swindon has traditionally been a destination point for Wiltshire’s residents for employment, leisure and retail activities. Any significant reduction in overall housing provision at Swindon will impact on the demand for housing beyond the boundary of Swindon, particularly in those locations with good access to the town. With a confirmed reduction of 12,000 homes, Wiltshire Council will need to work closely with Swindon Borough Council and be aware of potential pressures any reduction in housing at Swindon may place on Wiltshire’s towns and villages which have an established functional relation with the Borough.

2.25 B&NES – In October 2009 B&NES consulted on the Spatial Options Core Strategy document which identified locations to meet the housing requirements of the draft version of the RSS, some 15,500 homes, which was in fact short of the housing requirement of 21,300 homes identified in the Proposed Changes version of the RSS.

2.26 Throughout the latter part of 2010 B&NES has undertaken a reappraisal of the housing and employment requirements for the district. This has culminated in the release for public consultation of the B&NES Draft Core Strategy which identifies the need to provide 11,000 homes within the district. Whilst this is a significant reduction a vast bulk of this, some 3,000, is the result of the removal of a planned urban extension for the south-east of Bristol into the district. The Draft Core Strategy identifies a significant reduction of employment provision, particularly around Bath.

Impact on Wiltshire 2.27 Given the strong functional relationship between Wiltshire settlements and the B&NES district any reduction in housing provision may increase pressure on Wiltshire’s housing stock, a problem which will be more acutely felt in the towns of West Wiltshire. Such pressures may exacerbate affordability and current out-commuting from towns in west Wiltshire

2.28 TEST VALLEY - The Test Valley area is divided into two specific areas, the northern and southern areas. As an interim position, the housing proposals in the northern area (including the settlement of Andover which is an area where significant out-commuting flows from Wiltshire occur), has been reduced from 6,100 to 5,700. Given Andover’s status as the principal urban area in this part of the District, a significant proportion of the 5,700 is expected to be located to

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

this town. This reflects the significant employment commitments and regeneration aspirations of the district. In the Southern area the scale of development has been reduced from 3,920 to approximately 3,620.

Impact on Wiltshire 2.29 Given the significant out-commuting to Andover from Wiltshire the reduction of development at Andover will need to be taken into account when identifying Wiltshire future housing requirements. Any reduction in housing provision within an adjacent authority could place additional housing demands on Wiltshire as way as exacerbating out-commuting flows.

2.30 The formation of the super garrison at Salisbury Plain (whereby new units will move into the area) will increase the population and the number of jobs within the Tidworth, Ludgershall and Amesbury area. At present these areas have strong relationships with Andover. Given these relationships it should be ensured that the approach to dwelling and employment provision, and the resulting impacts on housing demand from military personnel are assessed in context and a sub-regional approach is developed to respond specifically to the military impacts in this area.

2.31 BRISTOL – Bristol is currently taking the Core Strategy through the examination process and in light of announcements on the future of Regional Strategies and the publication of the Decentralisation and Localism Bill, revised housing requirements have since been identified. This reappraisal of housing requirements concludes that a minimum housing target of 26,400 homes should be planned for over the plan period, although there is also emphasis on the need to strive to meet an aspirational supply of 30,600 homes over the plan period.

Impact on Wiltshire 2.32 From this initial review it is clear that Bristol is likely to see a very significant reduction in housing provision. This has implications for the entire sub-region and not just Wiltshire. As a traditional centre for growth, development pressures will filter out into the adjoining authorities and to those settlements which have good access to Bristol. Wiltshire Council should continue to monitor the progress of Bristol’s Core Strategy.

2.33 MENDIP – The housing provision identified in the RSS reflected the location of this area and the desire to limit the level of out-commuting to major regional centres such as Bath and Bristol. This approach was not supported by Mendip, not least because it restricted the ability to deliver development in the more rural locations of the district. It is expected that the numbers contained within the RSS will form the benchmark for future housing requirements with additional evidence, particularly employment projections, shaping any revision.

Impact on Wiltshire 2.34 Discussion with officers indicated that whilst the housing requirement in Mendip is unlikely to decrease, there is not expected to be any significant revision upwards. Development at Frome is perhaps the most significant in terms of impact on Wiltshire and in this respect development proposals are likely to consistent with the scale proposed in the Mendip draft Core Strategy.

2.35 Mendip, similarly to Wiltshire, is a rural area surrounding by large urban centres. The housing provision identified in the RSS limited development in this area to limit the out-commuting flows. A similar philosophy would also be appropriate for Wiltshire.

2.36 WEST BERKSHIRE - The West Berkshire Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on 9 July 2010 for examination. This process is continuing with a consultation on the Post Submission Schedule of minor changes. Only minor amendments to the Submission document are expected to reflect the revocation of the RSS.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Impact on Wiltshire 2.37 No significant change in housing provision is expected as West Berkshire’s Option 1 numbers are identical to those promoted in the revoked RSS. Therefore the impact on Wiltshire as compared to the previous emerging policy is likely to be minimal. However, delivery in West Berkshire will still need to be considered in relation to the proposed delivery target for Wiltshire.

Key Messages § Wiltshire has significant net out-commuting flows, resulting from an imbalance between jobs and the resident workforce. This should be addressed through the delivery of appropriate levels of housing in combination with the delivery of appropriate employment opportunities. § Those authorities with which Wiltshire experiences strong commuting flows, are likely to reduce their housing targets from those proposed in the previous emerging policy (with the possible exception of Mendip and West Berkshire). As a result if Wiltshire was to maintain the targets proposed by the emerging RSS, it would cater for the sub-regional demand rather than that within Wiltshire. This would lead to an unsustainable increase in out- commuting flows. § Wiltshire nonetheless needs to ensure that it provides enough housing to cater for local needs supporting the local economy, rather than solely for long distance commuters.

3. Other considerations

3.1 There are a number of other drivers and constraints that should be addressed through the delivery of appropriate numbers of dwellings. These are discussed separately below.

Drivers 3.2 Population growth – The need to deliver new housing is caused by a number of factors, primarily a growing population and the continuing reduction in household size. As such a number of population (and household) projections have been undertaken which seek to estimate the likely population growth and the resulting household growth. These projections will form the basis of this assessment and are presented in the following chapter.

3.3 Economy - The need to support the economy and address areas of economic vulnerability is identified in the Corporate Plan. One benefit of providing for the economy is that it will provide jobs that will enable the existing large out-commuting flows to be reduced, as residents will be able to meet their working requirements locally. This will have obvious benefits on sustainability and help to address the carbon footprint of the area. However, in order to deliver this additional employment, Wiltshire needs to make itself attractive to employers and employment growth by providing a sufficient and suitably skilled workforce. In order to achieve this sufficient housing will be required.

3.4 Housing need - The Corporate Plan recognises the affordability issues within Wiltshire. Indeed, the house price to income ratio (HPIR) within Wiltshire is 7.3 which compares to 6.3 nationally (calculated from ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings and Land Registry data). Furthermore, the lower quartile HPIR reflecting the affordability problems facing first time buyers is 8.1 as compared to 6.3 nationally. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) identifies the Government’s key housing policy goal as ensuring ‘… that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live’. As

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

such, the acute affordability issues in Wiltshire should be addressed, within the deliverability parameters identified during the course of this assessment.

3.5 Affordability Matters (National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, 2007) identifies the primary solution to tackling affordability problems is by increasing the overall housing supply, particularly so in the South of England, including the South West. This is recognised within the Wiltshire Corporate Plan 2010-2014 which identifies the need to ‘…Maximise the delivery of new affordable homes built in Wiltshire to help meet local needs..” However, the required increase may not be realistic as delivery is driven by market factors.

3.6 The West of England Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) included some sensitivity analysis considering different supply scenarios. The figures should not be taken as being definitive as they are estimates but they do provide some indication of the likely effects on affordability of various delivery scenarios. Using this model, in order to maintain the percentage of households that are able to afford to buy or rent a property in 2009 in West Wiltshire through to 2021 would require delivery in the order of 950 dwellings per annum along with a similar increase in delivery across the sub-region (or if delivery was only increased in West Wiltshire, some 3,080 dwellings would be required per annum). This figure compares to historic delivery rates of 680 dwellings per annum from 2001 to 2009, and is likely to be unattainable due to market factors. This demonstrates that maintaining the current affordability ratios, let alone addressing them does present a real challenge for Wiltshire, especially as neighbouring areas are not seeking to raise their delivery. A balance has to be struck between addressing affordability whilst both ensuring the deliverability of increased levels of housing and preventing additional commuting flows from Wiltshire.

3.7 The Corporate Plan identifies some 10,100 people as being on the waiting list for an affordable home. It goes on to propose that 2,400 additional affordable homes will be delivered between 2010 and 2014 (or 600 per year) across Wiltshire. A large number of affordable homes are delivered as part of mixed tenure developments, and in order to meet this target enough private market homes will need to be delivered to ensure the viability of these affordable properties. Emerging policy from across the country seems to require 30-40% of all housing to be affordable. Using this as a proxy would mean that Wiltshire would need to deliver between 1,500 and 2,000 dwellings per annum until 2014. This compares to historic delivery rates of 2,075 since 2001, and so would appear to be achievable.

3.8 However, the three SHMAs that cover parts of Wiltshire consistently indicate that in order to meet affordable need then delivery would have to be significantly higher than that proposed in the Corporate Plan. The Swindon SHMA states that ‘Recent housing needs surveys completed by the local authorities indicate an annual requirement in the sub-region (of Swindon, east and north Wiltshire) of around 2,100 additional affordable housing units. This is roughly the level of planned provision for all forms of housing as set out in the Adopted Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan to 2016 for this area, and cannot, therefore, realistically be delivered through the planning process.’

3.9 The current draft update to the SHMA for South Wiltshire identifies an annual need for 1,314 affordable homes in South Wiltshire alone, which compares to the average delivery of 357 dwellings of all tenure types from 2001 to 2008. Clearly, meeting this affordable need is not realistic. The West of England SHMA states that 78% of all completions should be affordable over the next ten years in order to address the current and arising need. Furthermore, there are also a number of homeless people and shared households the needs of which should be considered and addressed through an appropriate level of housing delivery. Cleary given the level of housing required to maintain current affordability and Wiltshire’s ability to deliver, affordability will decline resulting in an increase of shared and concealed households. As such, the need will have to be addressed by focussing on delivering appropriate housing solutions as well as increasing the overall delivery of housing.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

3.10 During the course of the ongoing Examination in Public for the Bristol Core Strategy the Inspector specifically asked the authority to what extent does the need for a substantial scale of 5 affordable housing support maximising the overall scale of housing provision. The response to this question from Bristol City Council was that ‘….Higher levels of provision are not considered developable within the plan period without significant harm to other policy objectives.’ Depending upon the results of this paper and the ensuing community consultation, a similar argument may be appropriate for Wiltshire.

3.11 Vacant and second homes – Wiltshire had almost 6,000 vacant properties in 2001 that should be made better use of. It is possible that these could be converted or refurbished to maximise the use of these properties (as identified in the Corporate Plan). An element of empty homes is essential to allow for natural turnover but scenarios of long-term vacancy should be addressed and indeed reversed.

3.12 There were also almost 1,300 second homes within Wiltshire in 2001. This form of ownership increases the pressure on the stretched housing stock, but there is no proposal to address this situation. This form of ownership will increase the requirement for additional housing, but the extent of how this could increase is unknown and assumed to be very small. As such, no specific allowance has been made for this form of ownership, but this will continue to be monitored and reviewed throughout the plan period.

3.13 Military changes – The formation of the Salisbury Plain Super Garrison and the closure of RAF Lyneham will both have impacts on housing supply in Wiltshire. It is known that the MOD currently undertakes a Bulk Lease Hire scheme, whereby they hire civilian housing units to cater for military personnel, which creates an additional requirement for civilian housing. As the military population within Wiltshire is set to grow, particularly in East and South Wiltshire, this may result in an additional demand for housing beyond that identified within the projections below. However, BLH is used as a short to medium term solution and it is possible that any units that are leased to the military (300 units since 2008) can be returned to civilian stock by the end of the plan period (proposed to have no BLH by 2015), creating no net additional demand for housing.

3.14 Furthermore, the Super Garrison will result in armed forces being located in one area for a longer period of time than has previously been the case. A proportion of military households may invest in the civilian dwelling stock in order to secure an asset and to meet their accommodation needs outside of the military housing stock. This once more has impacts upon the demand for the civilian housing stock, and further work to explore these impacts is under way. In general, the MOD seeks to cater for the housing needs of all its military personnel. It had planned to build in the order of 500 new dwellings in Tidworth (North East Quadrant and Area 19) to provide for this need. However, in recognition of the fact that some military personnel will chose to opt for civilian accommodation, the military is now planning to build fewer houses, and depending upon how the proposal at Area 19 progresses, could potentially deliver somewhere between 0 and 350 dwellings. This places an additional demand on the civilian stock of somewhere in the range of 150 to 500 homes provided within Tidworth Community Area. The Super Garrison development will also increase the number of personnel in Amesbury Community Area, and whilst no specific numbers have been generated by the MOD it is felt that a small allowance should be made to cater for this additional demand. Assuming a similar rate as in Tidworth, this results in a requirement for an additional 300 dwellings in this area.

3.15 Military married quarters (such as those at RAF Lyneham) may be privately sold within the plan period as the MOD release some of their estates. This will meet some of the projected dwelling

5 BCC Core Strategy EiP BCC/Overall Housing Provision and the Green Belt 20/08/10

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

requirement without the need for developing new dwellings. The contribution of this source of supply will have to be monitored.

3.16 As a general rule, the population and dwelling projections used within this paper should be used with caution when dealing with military areas, particularly Amesbury and Tidworth community areas, as the military dependent population (spouses and children of military personnel) are included in the civilian population. This results in this population ageing with the remainder of the civilian population, whereas in reality, the age structure of this population remains broadly stable due to the redeployment of the military between bases, and the migration of the older ages away from military areas as they retire from service. It is considered that this problem within the projections will result in the population figures being artificially increased in these areas. The impact at a strategic level is considered relatively small, but further evidence will need to be used to determine the distribution of properties to smaller areas.

Constraints 3.17 Market factors – Whilst Wiltshire Council can enable and encourage sustainable development through its development plan policies, the final levels of development will be driven by market factors that are beyond the control of the council. Housing delivery is unlikely to exceed certain thresholds beyond which profit margins will be compromised. This is particularly the case if the majority of potential sites are owned or optioned by a single developer without competition.

3.18 A realistic level of dwelling delivery needs to be assumed, considering historic delivery rates, and the potential capacity of sites to deliver in the future. Provisional information has been taken from the development of the Core Strategies to date, in order to provide some assurance that the proposed figures are indeed deliverable. The up to date draft SHLAA will also be used to assess the distribution of deliverable sites, when it is published.

3.19 Infrastructure provision – In order to accommodate additional housing, current infrastructure needs, as well as those likely to arise through the delivery of additional housing, will need to be identified. This constraint will be considered when developing the distributions of the strategic growth requirement, at which point it will be possible to assess the local impact on infrastructure. This will need to be considered and addressed through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Core Strategy to ensure the deliverability of policy.

3.20 A balance needs to be struck between these constraints and drivers while taking into consideration the need to promote sustainable development in line with the Community Plan and objectives of the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy (broadly supported through the Wiltshire 2026 consultation), which is both a driver and constraint. Future housing growth should therefore contribute to: supporting the self containment of settlements; helping address housing needs across Wiltshire; creating an economy that is flexible, adaptive and competitive; and safeguarding the natural and historic environment where possible by ensuring the impacts of development are capable of mitigation.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Key Messages § Housing delivery will be required in order to accommodate the future population. § Household sizes are projected to continue to decline, and so even if no population growth was to occur, additional housing would be required. § An employment aspiration has been identified that will need to be supported by the delivery of dwellings at appropriate locations. § The aspiration to address the affordability issues and the housing needs within Wiltshire cannot realistically be delivered. However, by maximising growth any negative impacts can be reduced. § Wiltshire should seek to make better use of its housing stock, which will reduce the need to provide new dwellings in undesirable locations. § Delivery in Wiltshire will ultimately be constrained by market factors. 3.21 § The changes to the military population will impact upon the requirement for

Wiltshire.

4. Developing a housing requirement

4.1 Each of the considerations listed above will be used to develop and refine a proposed housing requirement. The drivers will be considered initially in order to determine an aspirational supply, before refining this total in the light of constraints.

4.2 Since the announcement by the Secretary of State of the intention to revoke Regional Strategies (confirmed by the Decentralisation and Localism Bill) and allow local planning authorities to determine the scale of provision of housing, the need to ensure that such requirements are based on a robust and credible evidence base has been clear. The interim guidance issued by the Chief Planning Officer at the CLG states that ‘…Local authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process. They should do this in line with current policy in PPS3.’

4.3 As noted, the primary driver for housing delivery is that of population growth, and the change in average household sizes. A number of projections have been undertaken which reflect differing assumptions. Whilst, each of these projections runs from 1991 through to 2033, they incorporate actual data until 2009, and so project forward from this date. The model cannot accommodate both actual population and dwelling data without deviating from the projected headship rates, and so the dwelling completions to 2010 are not included. Rather, the requirement for dwellings from 2001 to 2026 is calculated and the actual completions from 2001 to 2006 are removed. The projections are as follows: 1) A natural change projection, which assumes that no migration will occur from 2009 onwards. Given that Wiltshire has net in-migration flows, this will equate to an absolute minimum delivery scenario, and would not support the economic aspirations of the area. Indeed, this projection is supplied for information rather than as a base from which to develop housing solutions. 2) An unconstrained adjusted subnational population projection (SNPP) run, which adjusts the populations within the SNPP to better account for the military from 2001 to 2009. Headship rates are adjusted to approximate this adjusted population to the dwelling delivery within Wiltshire to 2009 and then trends this headship rate in accordance with the 2008 based CLG household projections. This is assumed to provide a base population led projection. However, this simply replicates what has happened in the recent past and does not allow for the positive ambitions of the Community Plan (including supporting the economy and reducing

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

commuting flows). As such, this is used as a benchmark, rather than determining the absolute housing requirement. 3) An economic led projection, which requires that the economically active population grows in line with the proposed job growth (see Appendix 3). This projection reflects a scenario whereby Wiltshire delivers jobs as proposed but does not seek to address the current issue of out-commuting. This would conflict with sustainable development as it would maintain the current imbalance of jobs and housing. 4) A projection which assumes that the employment growth will be met and that the population will grow to meet the need generated by this, as above, but that the need to out- commute will be reduced as the workforce and employment opportunities are balanced. This is highly ambitious for much of Wiltshire (excluding South Wiltshire) but presents an aspirational scenario. This will be discussed further in the commentary below.

4.4 The outputs from these projections are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of population projections for Wiltshire Difference 2006-2026 Projection Population Households Dwellings (1) Natural Change from 32,800 19,600 19,200 2009 (2) Population led 65,500 42,700 43,200 (3) Economic led 96,600 56,800 57,800 (4) Job alignment led 44,600 35,800 35,900

4.5 Whilst, this sets out an initial range for dwelling requirements, this will be subsequently amended in the light of other considerations.

4.6 The population led projections (2) identify a need for some 43,200 additional dwellings from 2006 to 2026. These provide a broad indication of the scale of growth that should be considered within Wiltshire if current trends continue. However, these include no policy assumptions and therefore maintain the status quo. It is the responsibility of the Council to develop policies to address and develop solutions to any identified issues and so these projections should not be taken at face value. This projection scenario is in line with the recently published Household Projections (DCLG, 26 November 2010), which project an increase of the order of 42,900 households.

4.7 The issues as identified previously that will be considered include: • The unsustainable out-commuting flows from Wiltshire, • The comparatively low number of jobs per population, • The affordability problems in areas of Wiltshire, • The need to deliver affordable housing • The delivery constraints of the area, • The number of empty homes which could be brought back into circulation, and • The impact that the military may have on the civilian housing stock.

4.8 The population led requirement assumes that migration will continue in a similar vein to the recent past. However, this will be influenced by many factors, including the economy. Indeed, the 2008 migration statistics annual report identifies that the recent in-migration flows from the A8 accession countries has declined by 88% as a direct result of the recession, and future migration will be capped at significant reduced levels under national Government proposals. This alone, places a question mark over the realism of these projections, but it is useful to consider these as a benchmark for population driven growth.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

4.9 The Wiltshire Council Corporate Plan identifies an ambition to return 2,160 empty homes to use by 2014. Whilst this ambition is creditable, without an Empty Homes Strategy being in place, and fully resourced, with appropriate mechanisms developed to address this, it is not demonstrable that this will be achievable. As such in the base requirements no allowance is included for the contribution that bringing empty homes back into the market could make. However, in order to demonstrate the potential of this source of supply, variant projections have been undertaken. These assume that all long-term vacancy will be addressed and returned to use. The result is that the net dwelling requirement for Wiltshire reduces by 9% (or 3,800 dwellings).

4.10 The projection does include an allowance for second and vacant homes, on the assumption that these will comprise a constant proportion of the total dwelling stock.

4.11 The number of concealed households is expected to remain broadly constant over the period at around 960. It is difficult to assess the requirement for housing for this group, as they do not necessarily need or wish to find separate accommodation. Furthermore, as they are unable to find market solutions to their housing need, it is uncertain how increasing overall delivery will meet this need.

4.12 Crisis (a charity for single homeless people) assume that 15% of concealed households under the age of 25, and 99% of those aged 25 and over, should be considered as being homeless. It is this group for which the need will be assessed. This results in a concealed need of approximately 750 dwellings. Therefore, the requirement should be increased by 750 if this need is to be met across the period. It could instead be assumed the current numbers of concealed families will be maintained which would place no additional requirement.

4.13 Allowing for these adjustments this provides a population led requirement in the order of 43,200 to 43,900, depending on whether the concealed households are accounted for. As previously identified, this target could be reduced further to 39,400 to 43,900 if all long-term vacancy was addressed.

4.14 A priority for Wiltshire, and particularly for the Core Strategy, is to ensure that the area has the capacity to maximise its economy. Therefore, the employment potential (or job growth that could be met by the increase in the working population) of the proposed dwelling range needs to be considered. Indeed, the Housing, Economic Development and Productivity Literature Review (DTZ, 2006) states that ‘…policy makers may wish to consider…. the fact that regional housing projections still seem to be driven mainly by demographics when there should perhaps be more consideration of how the economy will affect the demand for housing.’ The proposed population led range above would only support the growth of somewhere in the region of 5,500 additional jobs using the resident population (although additional jobs could be supported by out-commuters changing jobs to work within the area).

4.15 The employment led projection (3) provides a forecast of the dwelling growth required to meet the estimated employment growth of Wiltshire. This estimate provides for 27,690 additional jobs (as projected by Cambridge Econometrics) in Wiltshire between 2006 and 2026, which equates 6 to 26,300 working people (assuming that 5% of jobs are accounted for by second jobs ) and assumes that the working population will grow in line with the job growth. Whilst all employment projections should be viewed with caution as they assume that recent trends will continue, these align with a number of other projections, including those produced for the South West

6 The 2002 Labour Force Survey identifies that 5.8% of all employed persons have a second job in the South West. This is higher than elsewhere in the UK. Through examination of the South West Growth Scenarios (SWO 2010) it seems as though Wiltshire has a high rate of double jobbing within the region. However, an assumption of 5% is considered to be a conservative, and therefore reasonable, estimate in the absence of more robust Wiltshire specific data.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Observatory by Oxford Econometrics (see Appendix 3). However, these projections are felt to be far less robust at a former district level, particularly in South Wiltshire, for which it is projected, that employment delivery would increase dramatically toward the end of the plan period. The Wiltshire wide employment projection is used at a strategic level only, but in order to account for the deviations at district level the delivery of housing will be distributed using more considered arguments.

4.16 Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) states that the Government’s objectives for planning include; to ‘deliver more sustainable patterns of development, reduce the need to travel, especially by car and respond to climate change’. This is reinforced in the Strategic Objective 7 of Wiltshire 2026, which seeks to reduce the need to travel.

4.17 The aspiration for Wiltshire Council should be that enough jobs are provided for the resident population, in appropriate locations, and the need to commute out of the area is negated. Therefore, a range can be developed from the economic projection, reflecting at one end of the scale, that jobs will be aligned to the resident population, and at the other end that current net out-commuting propensity will be maintained. The resulting employment led dwelling requirement is in the order of 35,900 (from projection (4)) to 57,800 (from projection (3)).

4.18 The delivery of housing, resulting in additional members of the workforce, will not only support the delivery of employment by attracting employers to the area, but will also create employment opportunities in the construction and service industries to deliver and maintain dwellings and services.

4.19 It should be noted that due to the sub-regional location of Wiltshire, neighbouring the large employment centres of Bath, Bristol and Swindon, that reducing to a zero net commuting situation is very ambitious, due to the commuting pressures exerted by these settlements. However, the flows to these settlements, whilst large are smaller than the flows to the comparatively small employment centres of Chippenham, Trowbridge and Salisbury within Wiltshire. This would suggest that there is a real appetite to work locally where there is ample provision of job opportunities. As such, by providing job opportunities appropriate to the resident workforce, it is likely that Wiltshire will be able to reduce out-commuting flows.

4.20 Delivery towards the top end of the range would conflict with objectives of national policy, and create large commuting flows, contributing to climate change and congestion on Wiltshire’s road infrastructure. The best opportunity to minimise commuting flows would be to develop towards the lower end of this range, providing that this does not compromise the development of the economy or the delivery of jobs, and that this can be demonstrated to be realistic. However, under provision could also lead to an increase in commuting, as the pay differential could favour long distance commuters being able to access the market before local workers. Indeed, during the compilation of the RSS anecdotal evidence suggested that this occurred in North Wiltshire. It was suggested that better paid Swindon employees choose to live in the market town of Chippenham whilst lower paid Chippenham workers were obliged to live in cheaper housing in Swindon. The data on commuting does not support this argument, with only approximately 230 people commuting from Swindon to Chippenham, which is substantially less than the 320 travelling from less affordable Bath.

4.21 The current pay differential should be sought to be reduced through the delivery of appropriate jobs across Wiltshire. This should minimise long distance commuting flows, and thereby increase the availability of housing for local workers. It is proposed that the delivery of jobs, the pay differential and the commuting flows should be monitored in line with the Plan, Monitor, Manage approach, in order that policies can be reviewed if required.

4.22 As identified previously, the neighbouring authorities to Wiltshire, have signalled that housing is likely to be reduced which reflects national trends since the intention to revoke the RSS has

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

been announced. Wiltshire needs to ensure that delivery is reflective of delivery in the sub- region and monitor progress on this. This will ensure that Wiltshire meets need within the area, whilst ensuring against a rise in commuting flows.

4.23 This range can be adjusted by considering the effect that making better use of empty homes could make (as above). This would result in the dwelling requirement reducing by between 3,600 and 4,000 dwellings (depending on which end of the range). However, without this being demonstrated to be achievable it is not considered further in this paper. The delivery of the empty homes strategy should at least begin to address this issue, but given that this has not yet been delivered and the results of this strategy cannot yet be estimated it is more defensible to consider the economic led range in the order of 35,900 to 57,800.

4.24 This range is still very broad and needs refinement through the consideration of additional constraints to delivery. It should be noted that this range makes no specific allowance for meeting the needs of existing concealed households, but delivery at anything other than the very minimum of this scale, allows for a level of dwellings which will be occupied by those that do not work within the area. These dwellings that are not required to support the delivery of employment could be considered to contribute to meeting the needs of concealed households, providing that appropriate housing solutions are delivered. In any case, the level of concealed households is not expected to grow over the plan period and so delivery within the range will not exacerbate this issue.

5. Refining the range

5.1 The economic led range identified above will be refined by assessing the impact of the considerations outlined in the previous paragraph. Following this, further checks will be undertaken to quantify the effects that the proposed level of housing growth is likely to have in terms of affordability, commuting flows and housing need.

Supporting the economy 5.2 In order to develop the employment base, it is necessary to make Wiltshire attractive for business start-up and as a destination for relocation. The key influences on businesses identified by The Times (http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/theory/theory--location--391.php) are as follows: • Closeness to market • Communication links • Closeness to raw materials • Availability of appropriately skilled employees • Opportunity for waste disposal • Availability of power supplies • Availability of land • Government incentives

5.3 It is the responsibility of the employment policies within the Core Strategy (and the Wiltshire economic strategy) to ensure that these are in place to encourage employment opportunities. However, the availability of the workforce is directly tied to the delivery of housing in suitable locations. Indeed, the Housing, Economic Development and Productivity Literature Review (DTZ, 2006) identifies the strong connection between housing and economic performance. It states that ‘There is evidence that the quality and range of housing available in an area is an important consideration in attracting skilled labour. As the knowledge economy grows there will be increasing competition for skills, and business location decisions will take more account of whether an area has the right environment (including housing) to attract skilled workers. Already it is clear that while high quality housing alone may not be enough to attract significant inward investment, a lack of high quality of housing may preclude it.’

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

5.4 Housing Shortages: what Councils can do (Housing Commission, November 2010) identifies the need to develop more housing nationally. It states ‘For some 20 years, household numbers have been rising by more than the number of new homes built. National projections have indicated a requirement… of between 237,800 and 290,500 additional homes per annum. But even in the best years of the property boom, the highest number of new homes built in England in recent years has been around 200,000’. Indeed, in 2009/10 only 114,000 new homes were built. This has resulted in a significant unmet need being present, creating competition for housing which in turn has inflated house prices. This problem does not only affect those on the lowest incomes, as average house prices have increased much faster than earnings. Indeed, nationally the lower quartile house price to lower quartile earnings ratio has increased from 4.8 7 in 1997 to 8.9 in 2010 . It goes on to state that ‘new households have to spend disproportionate amounts of their incomes on their accommodation which lowers their living standards (and reduces their spending power for the rest of the economy) sometimes leading to financial difficulties that ruin life chances’.

5.5 Furthermore, the report identifies the construction industry as being ‘hugely important as a source of employment. The current low level of housing output has led to substantial job losses….building 100,000 new homes generates work for nearly 150,000 people. Investment in construction….greatly affects GDP. In the second quarter of 2010 about half of GDP growth came from construction. With so much spare capacity in the system there is huge potential for generating economic recovery’.

5.6 Delivery towards the bottom end of the economic led range assumes that the number of employed residents will match the proposed level of jobs (with an allowance for double jobbing). This means that there will be limited additional available employees to encourage further employment development, other than those that are unemployed or are students. Whilst it could be assumed that any additional business development could seek to tackle unemployment, it is unreasonable to assume that unemployment will not exist. As such, this policy scenario could limit additional employment growth due to the lack of a workforce, and it is recommended that housing delivery lies above this end of the range.

5.7 New employment opportunities will be provided through business start-ups, relocation of and expansion to existing businesses. It is the intention to assess whether this could be delivered even if dwellings were delivered towards the lower end of the employment led dwelling range. The vast majority of businesses are small. Some 97.4% of businesses employ less than 50 persons in Wiltshire. Indeed, 87.2% employ ten or less. In considering new businesses alone, 97.9% of those in Wiltshire employ less than ten persons. Given this, the number of economically active persons that are not employed (or are looking to change jobs) within Wiltshire does not need to be sizeable in order to support business start-ups, or indeed to allow for incremental growth of existing businesses. However, this may have more of an impact upon larger businesses looking to relocate.

5.8 In 2006, it is estimated that Wiltshire had a labour force of 246,200 and provided employment opportunities for only 213,800 persons (although this equates to approximately 224,500 jobs), creating a buffer of 32,400 workers that could support employment growth.

5.9 By 2026 the workforce buffer (unemployed or out-commuters) is estimated to have changed to between 8,800 and 36,100 depending on the level of housing delivery. The buffer of 8,800 reflects only those that are unemployed, and so delivery at the bottom end of the dwelling range would not support any further employment delivery. However, if delivery was towards the top of the dwelling range, there would be 26,200 (36,100 – 8,800) resident workers who were unable

7 This is a different measure to house price to income ratios (as previously used) as this is proportional to the average individual earning rather than the household income (Source: CLG live tables).

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

to meet their employment needs within the area, and so would support further employment development.

5.10 The size of this workforce buffer will be dependent on dwelling delivery as well as assumptions with regard to commuting flows. If there are zero cross border commuting flows, there will by default be no employed workforce buffer. It is necessary to strike the balance between these factors. These will be considered based on the final range at the end of this paper.

5.11 The delivery of housing and employment needs to be aligned such that any employment delivery is supported by appropriate housing and vice versa. This will be key to ensuring the sustainability of Wiltshire and should be reviewed throughout the plan period.

5.12 Another key consideration is the skill base of the workforce buffer. According to the Annual Population Survey, Wiltshire has one of the highest levels of qualifications of all local authorities in the South West. Indeed, some 33.1% of the working age population have NVQ level 4 or equivalent or better which is second only to B&NES and Bristol (the national percentage is 29.6%). Furthermore, some 55.6% have NVQ level 3 or better qualifications. This is the joint highest proportion with Bristol, and compares to 48.9% nationally.

5.13 Given this brief analysis, it would appear that Wiltshire is well placed to deliver additional employment opportunities, as it currently has a highly skilled workforce whose working requirements are not met within Wiltshire. If current commuting propensities are maintained whilst providing for the employment growth then this population will continue to meet their employment requirements outside of Wiltshire. However, if the commuting flows are addressed through balancing jobs with the population, the number of people unable to meet their employment requirements within Wiltshire will reduce. This may restrict the potential for employment delivery during and beyond the plan period. Given this constraint, it would appear that forcing the jobs to match the resident workforce may need to be carefully managed to ensure that the ability to deliver further employment opportunities is not put at risk.

5.14 The result of ensuring that there is a workforce to support future employment delivery revises the minimum to in somewhere in excess of 35,900 (assuming that long-term vacancy remains static) and somewhere below 57,800. However, these figures will continue to be considered to provide the extremes of the range but it must be realised that delivery at these levels could be detrimental to either employment delivery, or sustainability (at either end of the range).

Affordability 5.15 It is an obvious result of supply and demand that the fewer dwellings that are delivered the higher the cost per unit will be. However, whilst Wiltshire has acute affordability problems it must be viewed in its sub-regional context. Indeed, many of the neighbouring authorities have higher House Price to Earnings Ratios than Wiltshire (CLG live tables).

Table 3: House Price to Income Ratios of those authorities surrounding Wiltshire Local Authority Median Rank Lower Rank house price quartile to median house price earnings to lower quartile earnings Wiltshire 7.29 8 8.09 9 Swindon 5.61 12 5.71 12 West Berkshire 7.08 10 8.25 8 Test Valley 7.88 7 8.70 5 New Forest 8.97 4 9.63 3

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

East Dorset 10.71 2 11.18 1 North Dorset 9.43 3 8.75 4 South Somerset 7.27 9 7.44 10 Mendip 8.09 5 8.53 7 B&NES 8.06 6 8.61 6 South 5.90 11 6.87 11 Gloucestershire Cotswold 11.65 1 10.88 2 England 6.27 - 6.28 -

5.16 As previously alluded to, and identified in work by the NHPAU, the primary mechanism for increasing affordability is through the delivery of further housing. However, given that some neighbouring authorities appear to be reducing their housing requirements in relation to the revoked emerging strategy, the demand across the sub-region will be acute. As a result, even if Wiltshire were to deliver 57,800 dwellings the effect on affordability would be negligible. Using the indicative tool provided with the West of England SHMA, the effects that this would have on affordability in West Wiltshire can be estimated. If this additional dwelling supply was distributed in accordance with the revoked regional strategy then West Wiltshire would receive 16,100 dwellings. This level of delivery would result in the percentage of households able to access the housing market without assistance declining from 63.6% in 2009 to an average of 51.4% from 2011-2021. Delivery towards the bottom of the range (35,800 dwellings) would result in this proportion reducing to 50.4%. No matter how many houses are built within Wiltshire the effects upon affordability will be negligible without supply being increased on a national or sub-national basis.

5.17 As previously alluded to, the SHMAs covering Wiltshire consistently identify a need for affordable housing that would be in excess of 75% of all housing delivery. Whilst this is unachievable, in order to maximise delivery of affordable housing, the total level of housing 8 should be maximised. Indeed, assuming that 35% of all dwellings delivered are affordable, the range would deliver between 12,530 and 20,230 affordable dwellings.

5.18 Given that delivery in Wiltshire has limited effect on overall affordability, this cannot be seen as a driver. Indeed, all that the Council can aspire to is that the affordability of dwellings within Wiltshire remains competitive with neighbouring authorities, and in both delivery scenarios Wiltshire remains the authority with the second highest proportion of households that are able to access the market. However, through the development of appropriate affordable housing policies and the delivery of housing at an ambitious level, both the overall affordability and the provision of affordable homes will begin to be addressed.

Deliverability 5.19 It is the intention to consider the potential delivery capacity of Wiltshire by considering the output of the draft SHLAA. However, this has yet to be produced and so the deliverability of a housing requirement will have to be assessed in terms of historic delivery in the interim. This is considered to be a robust approach as the market has been less constrained in the recent past than at present, and so achieving delivery commensurate with this period is highly ambitious.

5.20 The period widely acknowledged as the housing boom from 2001-2008 saw average annual net delivery of 2,106 dwellings in Wiltshire, peaking at some 2,668 dwellings in 2007/08. During (and prior to) this period, Local Plans were adopted across the area, allocating a supply of land for residential uses. Given these favourable land availability and market circumstances, this level of delivery can be seen to be of the order of the maximum delivery rate for Wiltshire.

8 The proportion of housing that will be required to be affordable within Wiltshire has yet to be established. 35% is used only to indicate the difference that increasing overall delivery can make.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

5.21 Since the economic crash in 2008, dwelling delivery has reduced to 1,651 in 2009/10, despite the availability of housing sites. This represents the second lowest level of completions since 1996/97 despite the fact that there were more outstanding (or under construction) permitted dwellings in any previous year (back to 2001). Indeed, at April 2009 Wiltshire had 8,181 net permitted dwellings that were either under construction or not yet started. This compares to an average of 6,826 over the previous five years. This limited delivery clearly reflects current market conditions, which are likely to continue in the short-term. Assuming an annual target reflective of delivery within the housing boom, would be truly stretching in the light of these market conditions, and so it is recommended to constrain the dwelling requirement to the order of 42,100. As this figure is so close to the number of dwellings required to meet the population led projection (b), it is proposed to amend this maxima to 43,200 in order to meet this requirement. This will allow for the estimated additional requirement generated by the increase in military personnel, which should be deliverable as extra demand will be generated by this growth.

5.22 This level of delivery is still a significant increase from those proposed by the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016, which proposed 34,000 dwellings across the 20 year period. This demonstrates that the emerging range allows for a truly ambitious level of supply.

Environmental impact 5.23 During the preparation of the RSS the South West Regional Assembly commissioned consultants to undertake a Strategic Sustainability Assessment (SSA) of the emerging RSS. This assessment incorporates the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The purpose of the SSA was to assist in the preparation of the draft RSS by identifying the key sustainability issues facing the region, to determine what would be the likely effects of the draft RSS on these and issues, and to put forward recommendations to improve it. This included identifying the sustainability implications of alternative development options for the spatial distribution of housing as well as options for the level of growth to be accommodated within the region.

5.24 The housing requirements identified within this paper are below those promoted through the Wiltshire 2026 consultation document and in such circumstances the conclusions draw in previous SEA/SA reports are considered to be applicable in terms of environmental impact.

5.25 This paper sets out a range of dwelling requirements by considering the impacts of this level of delivery. A specific Sustainability Appraisal has taken place alongside the development of these figures and can be made available.

New Homes Bonus Scheme 5.26 In a letter to all local authorities (Appendix 3) Housing Minister Grant Shapps announced plans to incentivise local authorities into delivering new homes. This letter stated that ‘The Coalition Agreement makes a clear commitment to providing local authorities with real incentives to build new homes. These incentives will directly reward councils for new homes built.’ Responding to the national housing crisis which has seen annual construction of new homes fall to its lowest level since 1924, the New Homes Bonus Scheme will “shift power back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils and give local communities a direct and substantial share 9 in growth rather than just absorbing costs. In his closing remarks the Housing Minister stated, I want to send a very clear signal that local communities that chose to go for growth, both now and in the future, will receive substantial extra funding for doing so.

5.27 The New Homes Bonus Scheme will see the Government match the council tax raised on each new home for a period of six years. However this initiative by the government will be subject to the conclusions of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

9 Grant Shapps: House of Commons Written Answers 8 September 2010

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

5.28 The money paid to councils under the New Homes Bonus Scheme will come from cuts to the overall total local government grant from national Government. An assessment by the Labour Party in response to the Government’s proposals concluded; On the basis of initial cost projections for the Bonus scheme, the impact on council grants and an assessment of average council tax returns it is estimated that in order to maintain the revenue flow currently from Central Government, i.e. to break-even, Wiltshire will need to deliver 1,080 per annum.

5.29 A local authority is likely to lose money under the New Homes Bonus scheme if the total number of new homes built on an annual basis, multiplied by its average council tax is less than the top slice reduction to the local government grant. Historically Wiltshire has seen annual completions well above this ‘break-even’ threshold as shown in Table 4. Therefore delivery above this threshold could see an increase in revenue to the council which is not specifically ring-fenced.

5.30 Table 4: Net additional dwelling completions, Wiltshire 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 1899 2132 2068 2668 1867 c.1660

5.31 Maintaining rates of delivery above 1,080 per annum will result in additional revenue for the council for at least the next 6 years. It is not clear if the bonus scheme will continue after the 6 years.

5.32 Furthermore, as alluded to throughout this paper, the contribution of bringing empty homes back into use should be explored. These properties are also eligible for the incentive scheme, which could help to resource the implementation of the empty homes strategy.

Legal Considerations. 5.33 Any revised housing targets must be founded on robust evidence and collaboration with stakeholders. This will be tested through the public examination. Advice on the nature of this evidence is provided in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) on housing, re-issued by the new Government in June 2010. This includes: a. Evidence of current and future levels of need and demand for housing; b. Evidence of the availability of suitable land for housing; c. The Government’s overall ambitions for affordability across the housing market, including the need to improve affordability and increase housing supply; d. A Sustainability Appraisal of the environmental, social and economic implications; and, e. An assessment of the impact of development upon existing or planned infrastructure.

5.34 This was confirmed by the interim advice issued by DCLG which states that ‘.it is important for the process to be transparent, and for people to understand why decisions have been taken. Local authorities should continue to collect and use reliable information to justify their housing supply policies and defend them during the LDF examination process. They should do this in line with current policy PPS3.

Proposed housing requirement 5.35 From the assessment it is evident that Wiltshire should plan for net dwelling delivery in the range of 35,900 to 43,200 .

5.36 During the development of the RSS some analysis was undertaken using historic and projected trends to establish the relationship between the delivery of new jobs and new dwellings. This indicated that 1.25 additional dwellings are required to deliver one new job in the north of the SW region (including east, north and west Wiltshire) and 1.5 dwellings were required in the south of the region (including south Wiltshire). This sought to include some allowance for net commuting flows, and so provides an appropriate benchmark against which to compare the

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

proposed housing trajectory. In order to deliver the proposed 27,690 jobs, these rates would result in a requirement of between 34,600 and 41,500 dwellings. This is broadly in line with the proposed range and adds further credibility to the proposed figures. It also suggests that delivery of the order to 35,900 may be justified and so this will continue to be considered as an option, despite the fact that it may not provide for a workforce buffer.

Key Messages § Delivery towards the bottom end of the range could stifle employment growth to some extent. § Affordability can only be addressed through regional and national strategies rather than Wiltshire acting in isolation. Increasing dwelling delivery to 57,900 will not make a significant impact on affordability while neighbouring authorities have reduced their dwelling requirements. § Setting a dwelling target towards the top end of the initial range is unlikely to be achievable, as this would result in a significant increase from the levels of delivery during a period in which the market was buoyant and land supply was not a constraint. The maximum has been revised to 43,200 as a result. 6. Options for housing delivery

6.1 In order to assess the impacts of adopting a dwelling target within this range, three delivery scenarios will be tested below. These will include: • A limited delivery scenario of 35,900 dwellings • A mid-range scenario of 39,000 dwellings • A stretching delivery scenario of 43,200 dwellings

6.2 These three scenarios shown in Table 5 are used to assess the issues and risks associated with various delivery targets.

Table 5: Delivery Scenarios Limited Mid -range Stretching delivery scenario delivery scenario scenario Population increase 46,600 52,900 61,300 Household increase 34,500 37,500 41,600 Dwelling increase 35,800 39,000 43,200 Workforce increase -1,600 2,500 7,900 Jobs increase -1,900 to 1,800 to 6,700 to 23,400 27,500 33,000

6.3 The first thing to note is that the limited delivery scenario does not actually provide for the increased number of jobs (despite this being the target of this projection). This is as a result of assuming that delivery will be constant throughout the period. The projection that led to the proposal of 35,800 had dwelling completions weighted towards the start of the period, which in turn provided a greater dwelling stock for young families to move to, who will contribute to the workforce as they age. Nevertheless, even if we were to assume that a constant level of delivery would provide for this employment growth, it would at best result in a situation whereby the excess workforce was effectively zero, which would not support future employment delivery. Delivery at this end of the range would not only stifle future employment growth, it would also have negative impacts upon affordability (although these would be minimal).

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

6.4 The table clearly demonstrates that by increasing the delivery target, the capacity to deliver further jobs increases, which would support the economy of Wiltshire. Delivery at the top end of the range would also be beneficial for the affordability of housing in Wiltshire (although only to a limited extent as demonstrated), provide for the delivery of higher numbers of affordable homes, increase the capital generated through the government’s incentive scheme, and yet is thought to be deliverable without compromising the environmental assets of Wiltshire. The only issue with delivery of this order is ensuring that this corresponds with the views of the community and is delivered in appropriate locations to reflect these. It is anticipated that delivery of the order of 35,900 to 43,200 could be accommodated in accordance with the consultation responses from Wiltshire 2026.

6.5 Whilst this requirement does not include a specific allowance for the impact on the civilian stock from the increase in the military population, which should be of the order of several hundred, it is considered that if the maximum of the range was increased it would not be deliverable. Instead, the provision of dwellings to address this issue should be delivered through the development of an appropriate distribution.

6.6 It is also worth considering the contribution that bringing empty homes back into use could make. If this is demonstrated to be achievable, the housing requirement could reduce without compromising the ability to increase sustainability.

7. Phasing

7.1 For the remainder of this paper a housing requirement of 39,000 will be considered in the light of the analysis above. This is by no means an absolute target and should be taken as being indicative only.

7.2 It is reasonable to consider phasing the delivery of housing to meet housing needs at appropriate times throughout the plan period. This will ensure that the short-term needs are met as well as providing a longer-term target and the step change in delivery required to achieve this. This will also allow reviews to be undertaken prior to the longer-term delivery policies coming into effect, which will allow any changes to be reflected.

7.3 The entire plan period runs from 2006 to 2026, and any disaggregation of this supply will need to reflect a sufficiently long time period, such that market peaks and troughs will be accounted for. As such, it is proposed to consider two ten year periods from 2006 to 2016 and from 2016 to 2026.

7.4 In the above analysis the primary driver of development is the employment delivery, and so it is prudent to ensure that dwellings are delivered at appropriate times to support the employment delivery, as a minimum. Table 6 reflects the anticipated requirement for housing from the employment led projection (assuming that current out-commuting flows will continue) over these periods and seeks to disaggregate the housing supply (of 39,000) on a similar basis. It also includes the phased delivery of employment opportunities over the two periods.

Table 6: Phasing 2006 -2016 2016 -2026 Employment delivery 4,320 23,370 Employment led 22,400 34,400 dwelling delivery Proposed phased 15,400 23,600 dwelling requirement

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

7.5 It can be clearly seen, that primarily as a result of the employment delivery being weighted towards the latter period, that dwelling delivery should increase across the period. Indeed, delivery during the second period exceeds that which is considered deliverable (according to delivery rates during the housing boom 2001-08). As such it would seem prudent to constrain this figure to this maximum rate of delivery, and provide for the remainder in the first period. The final proposed phasing target results in the following.

Table 7: Final phasing (if 39,000 dwellings is used as the target) 2006 -2016 2016 -2026 Phased dwelling 17,900 21,100 requirement

8. Monitoring

8.1 Local Development Framework Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide (DCLG, March 2005) states that ‘….Section 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires every local planning authority to publish an annual monitoring report (AMR) to the Secretary of State containing information on the implementation of the local development scheme and the extent to which the policies set out in local development documents are being achieved. Further details of this requirement are set out in Regulation 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.’ However this requirement has been removed within the Decentralisation and Localism Bill. Nevertheless, there remains a requirement to transparently monitor the effects of planning policy annually.

8.2 As such, local monitoring frameworks need to be developed to respond to the requirements of the sustainability appraisal, the strategic environmental appraisal, national core output indicators, the proposed set of national indicators and any other local indicators.

8.3 The new monitoring reports should seek to evaluate the progress of policy against a range of indicators and provide the mechanism by which the need to review current policy is identified. This is consistent with a Plan, Monitor, Manage approach. It is therefore essential to develop clear objectives and to complement these with appropriate indicators to measure the performance of policies with regard to these objectives.

8.4 As such, Table 7 proposes a number of indicators that seek to ensure that the housing requirement remains appropriate for Wiltshire. These indicators are categorised as: • Primary: the key indicators that the housing requirement relies upon. If the targets are not met, then this could trigger a review of the policy. • Contextual: these reflect objectives that are related to the housing requirement but not dependent upon it, and should be used to contextualise policy performance.

Table 8: Proposed Indicators Primary Indicator s Target Consider review if Source Net commuting flows from A net The number of out- Census Wiltshire reduction from commuters has 2001 seen % growth greater than the growth of resident workers Total population Within the Beyond the range ONS mid range set by set by the final year the final housing estimates Working age population housing requirement ONS mid requirement Beyond the range year

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Within the set by the final estimates Resident workers range set by housing ONS the final requirement Annual housing Business requirement Inquiry Total households DCLG estimates Total dwellings Wiltshire Council Total number of jobs ONS Annual Business Inquiry Contextual Indicators Target Consider review if Source Ratio of resident based and A reduction ONS employment based pay from 2008 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings House price to income ratio Lower quartile house price to income ratio Number of vacant or second A reduction Council homes from 2009 Tax Number of concealed A reduction DCLG households from 2009 estimates GVA Affordable housing delivery Wiltshire Council Affordable need – individuals Wiltshire on the housing register rated Council as silver or above

9. Disaggregating the requirement for South Wiltshire

9.1 The submitted South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) has been suspended pending a review of housing and employment figures in light of the Government’s intention to abolish RS. In the development of the SWCS the communities were consulted and a large evidence base was developed to determine appropriate policy. This will be used in order to develop an appropriate housing requirement that is consistent with the requirement elsewhere within Wiltshire.

9.2 For all areas, outside of South Wiltshire, representatives of local communities will be consulted to help inform the development of appropriate local housing targets. In particular the following aspirations should be considered to inform the generation of appropriate local housing targets: 1) That delivery seeks to provide for at least the bottom end of the employment led range where this is deliverable. 2) That delivery is below the top end of the employment led range, as the jobs are unlikely to be delivered to support this level of development. 3) That the figure can be demonstrated to be deliverable, in line with historic rates (during the buoyant economy). 4) That the figure should provide for the future population..

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

5) Where these are incompatible a balance will have to be struck between ensuring that economy can grow, that the population is catered for and that the figure is demonstrably achievable.

9.3 In South Wiltshire, owing to the fact that extensive consultations have previously been undertaken, the housing requirements that will be recommended to the Inspector, subject to Full Council resolution, has been determined without further consultation. Although if the Inspector is minded to accept the Council’s recommendations, he may require further consultation to be undertaken. Using the indicative housing requirement generated for Wiltshire, in conjunction with the evidence base it is proposed that a disaggregated requirement for South Wiltshire can be identified.

9.4 Using the same projections as above, the totals for South Wiltshire are presented in the following table. Difference 2006-2026 Projection Population Households Dwellings (1) Natural Change from 4,300 3,100 3,100 2009 (2) Population led 9,500 7,200 7,300 (3) Economic led 28,600 16,500 17,000 (4) Job alignment led 27,900 16,200 16,700

9.5 In accordance with the Wiltshire-wide method, South Wiltshire should seek to deliver a level of housing that would support the delivery of employment. However, this would result in an unrealistic requirement of between 16,700 and 17,000 dwellings. There is a clear difference between this and the population led requirement, which would require only 7,300 dwellings. Owing to this disparity, the unique circumstance in South Wiltshire needs to be explored further in order to develop an appropriate requirement.

9.6 The disparity suggests that the employment growth is not in line with the potential population growth. Indeed, employment growth could be restricted by the available workforce before it could deliver the growth anticipated by the employment projections. The workforce of South Wiltshire is anticipated to decrease by somewhere of the order of 1,900 persons from 2006 to 2026 (according to the population led projections), whilst the employment projections indicate the potential to deliver 10,500 additional jobs. A similar situation arises in both Hampshire and Dorset (which are the only areas where the situation is known) where the number of working residents and jobs are projected to diverge. Whilst the divergence of the jobs as compared to the population in South Wiltshire, infers that any shortfall would be met through greater in- commuting, this is clearly inappropriate as neighbouring areas also display the same divergence. Given this, it is proposed that the economic led projections should be considered to be undeliverable (in terms of jobs) for South Wiltshire, and so the requirement should not be aligned to these. However, it will be important to seek to deliver an ambitious supply of housing, in order to maximise the potential of South Wiltshire to support employment growth. This is discussed further below.

9.7 Through further examination of the employment projections it is clear that in South Wiltshire, only 2,830 additional jobs would be delivered between 2006 and 2016, whereas some 7,640 jobs would be delivered between 2016 and 2026. This is very ambitious for the latter period, and should be viewed with caution (as all employment forecasts should). Furthermore, it suggests that by delivering housing some way below that implied by the economic projections, it would not compromise the ability of South Wiltshire to fulfil the economic potential of the area in the short-term. If the rate of employment delivery over the first period of the plan (2006 to 2016) is considered in isolation, the number of dwellings required to deliver the jobs reduces to 12,700 from 2006 to 2026, which perhaps provides a more realistic estimate of the ability of South

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Wiltshire to deliver employment, based on its projected resident population (and more 10 specifically projected working population) .

9.8 The growth of employment in South Wiltshire is attributable to specific sectors, in particular, Professional Services, Computing, Hotels and Catering, Education and Health and Social Services. It is considered that in the light of public sector cuts that the growth of health and education is unlikely for some years. Furthermore, the growth of jobs in professional services is likely to be largely reliant upon the development of the technology and science cluster around the defence research establishments. Whilst elements of this will be supported through the Core Strategy (for example at Porton Down), the remainder of the growth is estimated to be very large and so should be considered to be truly ambitious.

9.9 In summary, the employment forecasts reflect a short-term trend and as such are sensitive to change over a limited period, and should be used with caution, as they appear to be very ambitious as compared to the employment projections for the other areas within Wiltshire, and are unlikely to be deliverable. In this context, the dwelling requirement over the short-term (12,700) is considered to provide a more reasonable estimate of employment growth. Using this short-term led employment growth scenario does not conflict with the Wiltshire wide target, as the 4,300 fewer dwellings (17,000 – 12,700) are easily accounted for by the difference between the aspirational employment led requirement and final proposed range. Taking this into account an initial range of 7,300 to 12,700 is generated for South Wiltshire. Delivery at both ends of the range would cater for the predicted population growth. However, in order to maximise the potential for employment delivery, the level of housing delivery should be as ambitious as possible, within the constraints identified below, to provide for potential for employment delivery.

9.10 In order to develop an employment land supply, it is proposed that sufficient sites should be identified to allow for the total growth, although with the recognition that this is very ambitious, and is unlikely to be deliverable. Providing an ample supply of sites allows for choice and will maximise employment development. Salisbury City, which provides the strategic centre for South Wiltshire, currently attracts workers from a broad hinterland, beyond the bounds of Wiltshire. In this light, it is considered that any under-supply of housing locally, will not have as detrimental an effect on the potential to deliver employment opportunities as it might elsewhere. Indeed, this policy approach is thought to present no constraint on the delivery of employment, but recognises that employment development is unlikely to be of the order implied in the employment projections. However, this will require both the delivery of jobs and that of dwellings to be constantly monitored to ensure that commuting is not promoted, and that the delivery of housing and employment is in balance.

9.11 The other consideration in order to determine an appropriate requirement is that of deliverability. In South Wiltshire from 2001 to 2008, an average of 357 dwellings was built per annum. However, uniquely among the sub-areas of Wiltshire, South Wiltshire has seen delivery increase in recent years. Indeed, from 2005, the average delivery was 445 dwellings per annum. Assuming that delivery of this order could continue South Wiltshire could deliver in the order of 8,900 dwellings across the plan period. Indeed, it may be that the level of delivery may be able to be increased in this area as the current economic slump does not seem to have affected the deliverability of housing as it has elsewhere within Wiltshire and as such the following paragraphs will seek to estimate the potential of South Wiltshire to increase supply. It is possible that the bulk buying of new housing on behalf of the MOD in the area has contributed to these increased rates of delivery.

10 Even if the remaining employment requirements could not be delivered in South Wiltshire, they could be supported elsewhere within Wiltshire, particularly in the neighbouring areas of Tidworth and Warminster Community Areas, which may be able to be supported consistently with responses to the previous consultation.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

9.12 A Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was published for South Wiltshire in May 2009, reflecting the situation in 2008. Whilst this could be considered to be out of date, it is still considered to provide a reasonable assessment of land availability within South Wiltshire. This assessment identified that South Wiltshire had the capacity to deliver of the order of 14,900 dwellings. However, SHLAAs assess sites on an individual basis rather than cumulatively and as such do not assess the capacity of the market, or the appropriateness within an area to deliver all of the proposed sites.

9.13 In order to assess the ability of the market to support increased levels of delivery, it is considered appropriate to look at historic rates of delivery nationally. Indeed, looking at 10 year periods for which data is recorded, the greatest increase in delivery from one period to another was a 19% increase from the 1950’s to the 1960’s. This reflects the change from post-war austerity to the post-war construction boom, and saw a shift in demand as family sizes increased, as well as the proliferation of housing estates. Indeed, this percentage growth is unlikely to be replicated without a radical shift in demand and/or the economy.

9.14 If these societal changes did occur, and the current delivery rate (445 dwellings per annum) was assumed to undergo a similar growth to that of the post-war boom, then this would result in a maximum deliverable figure of 10,600 dwellings, as compared to the 14,900 identified within the SHLAA. However, this is entirely unexpected and there is no reason to think that this will occur. Nevertheless, to ensure that the housing proposal for South Wiltshire is not artificially restricted, this will be assumed to provide the maximum of the range.

9.15 Considering the five aspirations listed above, there is clearly some conflict in South Wiltshire, as the employment led range ((3) and (4)) cannot be demonstrated to be and is not considered to be deliverable (even if employment delivery is maintained from the first period of plan, 2006 to 2016). Delivery of the order provided by the population led projections is not ambitious and would stifle the economic growth of the area, but should be easily achievable. In such circumstances, it is considered that a balance needs to be struck between these various factors. Furthermore, the impact of the growing military population on the civilian housing stock should be allowed for in this area.

9.16 As such, the housing requirement for South Wiltshire should be in line with that which is considered to be deliverable, namely 8,900 to 10,600 as this will at least provide for the needs of the population, and is potentially deliverable, and although this does not meet the projected employment growth, it does seek to maximise the growth within the constraints considered. The demand created by the additional military population is likely to support the housing market in this area and so further housing should be able to be delivered to meet this specific need. However, given that the maximum of the range is already so ambitious it is considered that this should be maintained. An assumption has been made that a similar level of housing is likely to be required per military employee as that estimated in Tidworth, creating demand for an additional 300 dwellings. The initial proposal for a housing requirement within South Wiltshire is therefore 9,200 to 10,600. In the development of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy a single figure will be required. It is recommended that this is certainly not towards the top of the range, as this delivery estimate is reliant upon fundamental societal changes. Rather, it is proposed that somewhere in the middle of this range would be appropriate (9,900). This level of delivery can be seen to maximise the employment potential given the delivery constraints and at least provides for the projected population increase. Delivery of housing, employment and the resulting commuting flows will be continued to be monitored to ensure that the strategy is delivering the objectives of the plan.

9.17 This proposal lies within the range proposed for Wiltshire as a whole, and the methodology is also consistent, taking into account the local considerations.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

10. Next steps

10.1 It is now proposed that communities will be engaged to develop a local housing requirement. The resulting bottom-up housing requirement will be compared to the strategic requirement to see whether these are in general conformity, before a final housing requirement with appropriate distributions can be developed for use in the Core Strategy.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Appendix 2a - 2001 commuting flows

Destinations

South Wiltshire West Wiltshire Wiltshire Swindon Remainder of Swindon Borough Bath Norton Radstock Remainder of B&NES Frome Remainder of Mendip Remainder of Test Valley North Dorset Cotswold Vale of White Horse West Berkshire Bristol Bournemouth Poole & Portsmouth Southampton London East Wiltshi North Wiltshire Andover

Swindon 650 2,690 70 150 3,560

Remainder of Swindon Borough 150 360 10 20 540

Bath 110 1,090 30 1,290 2,520

Norton Radstock 20 140 10 380 550

Remainder of B&NES 0 100 0 110 220

Frome 60 140 120 1,670 1,990

Remainder of Mendip 40 100 80 810 1,030

Andover 300 10 410 20 730

Remainder of Test Valley 370 10 900 20 1,300

North Dorset 40 20 1,490 130 1,670

Cotswold 40 1,390 20 30 1,480

Vale of White Horse 60 80 30 20 200

West Berkshire 340 90 60 10 500

Bristol 50 680 40 330 1,090

Origins Origins Bournemouth & Poole 40 30 500 60 620

Portsmouth 30 10 50 20 110

Southampton 30 10 380 10 440

London 170 170 130 80 560 0 10 20 20 10 50 20 30 50 360 360 170 540 180 180 710 2,290 2,290 1,580 1,600 East Wiltshire 23,240 1,410 1,530 1,430 27,610 40 60 30 40 40 20 10 20 20 10 290 290 350 860 North Wiltshire 8,890 1,180 2,300 1,260 1,530 1,640 39,800 230 1,820 43,490 30 80 10 10 40 50 10 50 90 110 110 840 150 100 310 880 810 South Wiltshire 1,320 1,280 1,330 140 44,960 650 47,080 0 0 60 40 40 90 50 20 30 700 700 110 210 120 640 490 120 100 480 4,15 1,06 West Wiltshire 1,920 3,620 1,240 40,250 47,030 0 270 270 190 730 610 960 560 400 170 970 12,00 1,680 6,690 3,060 1,900 1,360 2,190 2,870 2,850 Wiltshire 28,120 44,970 47,960 44,150

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Appendix 2b - 2001 migration flows

Destinations

t Wiltshire t Wiltshire ton Radstock ton Radstock

South Wiltshire Wes Wiltshire Swindon Remainder of Swindon Borough Bath Nor Remainder of B&NES Frome Remainder of Mendip Remainder of Valley Test North Dorset Cotswold Vale of White Horse West Berkshire Bristol Bournemouth Poole & Portsmouth Southampton London East Wiltshire North Wiltshire Andover

Swindon 180 920 30 70 1,190

Remainder of Swindon Borough 40 90 0 10 140

Bath 30 220 30 480 760

Norton Radstock 0 10 0 70 80

Remainder of B&NES 0 30 0 30 70

Frome 0 30 20 160 210

Remainder of Mendip 20 30 40 130 210

Andover 150 30 140 0 330

Remainder of Test Valley 130 20 300 20 460

North Dorset 40 60 410 40 550

Cotswold 50 240 20 20 320

Vale of White Horse 90 60 70 20 240

West Berkshire 230 120 50 40 440

Bristol 60 100 50 100 310

Origins Origins Bournemouth & Poole 30 20 100 70 210

Portsmouth 30 20 30 20 90

Southampton 30 10 90 50 190

London 290 410 560 380 1,640 0 50 80 10 20 20 30 30 30 40 30 30 80 220 220 150 110 140 370 East Wiltshire 3,830 270 360 310 4,770 0 90 10 20 10 30 10 50 60 80 50 40 50 710 710 250 350 170 430 North Wiltshire 250 6,720 90 550 7,610 0 0 0 50 40 10 40 90 20 70 20 70 40 130 130 390 130 140 420 South Wiltshire 270 60 7,590 270 8,190 0 0 40 10 20 40 60 20 60 40 40 10 90 20 110 110 310 240 240 130 West Wiltshire 180 280 180 8,160 8,800 50 30 150 150 600 180 180 270 250 510 400 190 280 390 270 120 330 Wiltshire 1,020 1,530 4,530 7,340 8,210 9,300

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

Appendix 3 – Economic projections The proposed job growth figures originate from a set of economic projections supplied by Cambridge Econometrics using their Local Economy Forecasting Model (LEFM). The resulting figures have been verified by comparison with other recent economic projections, namely those generated by Oxford Econometrics for the South West Observatory entitled South West Growth Scenarios (June 2010).

These comparative projections consist of a strong, central and weak economic growth scenario, and so provide some sensitivity to test the robustness of the LEFM projections. The following table presents the growth in the number persons working in Wiltshire.

Projection Increase in persons working in Wiltshire 2006- 2026* Cambridge Econometrics LEFM projection 26,306 Oxford Econometrics weak scenario 16,200 Oxford Econometrics central scenario 22,400 Oxford Econometrics strong scenario 32,800 *The number of persons working in an area correlates to the number of jobs, with an allowance for double jobbing.

The LEFM projection forecasts higher job growth than the central Oxford Econometrics scenario, but significantly below the strong growth scenario. It is reasonable to plan for growth somewhere towards the middle of this range, and to monitor progress to account for any divergence from this trend. As such, either the LEFM or the central growth scenario would provide the most appropriate targets.

If these employment projections are translated into dwelling requirements (as within the main body of the report), then the figures in the following table are generated. This presents two scenarios; the first assumes that commuting flows will continue in much the same way as at present, and the second seeks to align the workforce to the number of jobs.

Projection Job alignment led dwelling Economic led dwelling requirement 2006-2026 requirement 2006-2026 Cambridge Econometrics LEFM 35,900 57,800 projection Oxford Econometrics weak 23,000 41,900 scenario Oxford Econometrics central 28,000 47,400 scenario Oxford Econometrics strong 36,800 57,100 scenario

The dwelling requirement resulting from the central growth scenario largely overlaps the range generated from the LEFM projection. However, the LEFM projection is more ambitious. As such, the range generated by the LEFM projection will be used as the base economic projection in order to determine an ambitious economic led dwelling requirement.

Housing requirement technical paper draft – January 2011

COUNCIL

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 22 FEBRUARY 2011 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER - COUNTY HALL, TROWBRIDGE

Present :

Cllr Desna Allen, Cllr Richard Beattie, Cllr Chuck Berry, Cllr John Brady, Cllr Richard Britton, Cllr Rosemary Brown, Cllr Liz Bryant, Cllr Allison Bucknell, Cllr Jane Burton, Cllr Trevor Carbin, Cllr Nigel Carter, Cllr Chris Caswill, Cllr Ernie Clark, Cllr Richard Clewer, Cllr Christopher Cochrane, Cllr Peter Colmer, Cllr Linda Conley, Cllr Mark Connolly, Cllr Christine Crisp (Vice-Chair), Cllr Michael Cuthbert-Murray, Cllr Brian Dalton, Cllr Paul Darby, Cllr Andrew Davis, Cllr Peter Davis, Cllr Tony Deane, Cllr Bill Douglas, Cllr Peggy Dow, Cllr Peter Doyle, Cllr Rod Eaton, Cllr Nick Fogg, Cllr Peter Fuller, Cllr Richard Gamble, Cllr Jose Green, Cllr Mark Griffiths, Cllr Mollie Groom, Cllr Lionel Grundy OBE, Cllr Brigadier Robert Hall (Chairman), Cllr Mike Hewitt, Cllr Malcolm Hewson, Cllr Alan Hill, Cllr Charles Howard, Cllr Jon Hubbard, Cllr Chris Humphries, Cllr George Jeans, Cllr David Jenkins, Cllr Julian Johnson, Cllr Simon Killane, Cllr John Knight, Cllr Jerry Kunkler, Cllr Jacqui Lay, Cllr Alan Macrae, Cllr Howard Marshall, Cllr Laura Mayes, Cllr Ian McLennan, Cllr Jemima Milton, Cllr Francis Morland, Cllr Bill Moss, Cllr Christopher Newbury, Cllr John Noeken, Cllr Stephen Oldrieve, Cllr Helen Osborn, Cllr Jeff Osborn, Cllr Mark Packard, Cllr Sheila Parker, Cllr Graham Payne, Cllr Stephen Petty, Cllr Leo Randall, Cllr Fleur de Rhe-Philipe, Cllr Pip Ridout, Cllr Bill Roberts, Cllr Ricky Rogers, Cllr Judy Rooke, Cllr Paul Sample, Cllr Jane Scott OBE, Cllr Jonathon Seed, Cllr John Smale, Cllr Carole Soden, Cllr Toby Sturgis, Cllr Julie Swabey, Cllr John Thomson, Cllr Dick Tonge, Cllr Anthony Trotman, Cllr Bridget Wayman, Cllr Ian West, Cllr Fred Westmoreland, Cllr Stuart Wheeler, Cllr Roy While, Cllr Christopher Williams and Cllr Graham Wright

78. Apologies

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Jeff Ody, Cllr Russell Hawker, Cllr Howard Greenman, Cllr Mary Douglas, Cllr Tom James, Cllr Peter Hutton, Cllr Keith Humphries and Cllr Nina Phillips.

79. Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes of the Meeting held on 9 November 2010 were presented.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the last Council meeting held on 9 November 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

80. Declarations of Interest

The Chairman reminded Councillors of the Monitoring Officer’s advice previously circulated to them on declaring interests as necessary in respect of: • proposals to set the budget and Council tax levels and agreeing garage rents as part of the item on the Wiltshire Council’s Business Plan and 20112/12 Budget (minute no. 85 refers) and • any landholdings affected by proposals contained in the item on the South Wiltshire Core Strategy – Review of Housing and Employment Requirements (minute no. 86 refers).

Declarations of interests made during the meeting are referred to at minute nos. 85, 87 and 89)

81. Announcements by the Chairman

a) Meeting Information Particularly for the benefit of the members of the public present, the Chairman confirmed advice previously circulated to Councillors over arrangements for this meeting. Given that the item on the Budget (minute no.85 refers) was likely to take a long time, Council would not commence with its consideration of the item on the South Wiltshire Core Strategy (minute no.86 refers) until approximately 4pm. This would then be followed by the item on the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan (minute no. 87 refers). He invited the members of the public present for these items to stay to hear the Budget debate or alternatively to return at 4pm. It was noted that those who had previously contacted the Council on these two items had been advised of this arrangement.

b) New Year’s honours On behalf of Council, the Chairman congratulated the Wiltshire residents who received national recognition in the New Year’s Honours list details of which he read out. Of particular note, it was reported that the High Sheriff for Wiltshire for the period 2003-04 David Newbigging from Fyfield had received a Knighthood for services to cancer research. c) Total Respect Training The Chairman reminded Councillors of their role as “corporate parents” of Wiltshire’s Looked After Children and young people. He explained that the total respect training programme would be held on Wednesday 16 March at County Hall. The programme sought to develop knowledge and understanding of young people’s views, rights and issues, and was aimed at improving individual practice and producing strategic recommendations to improve the quality of care for looked after children and young people. All Councillors were urged to attend.

82. Petitions

a) Petitions Received

The Chairman reported receipt of three petitions for presentation to this meeting on parking charges in respect of Devizes, Marlborough and Bradford on Avon. Given their relevance to the item on the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan to be considered later in the meeting, which incorporated the Car Parking Strategy, the Chairman advised that the petitions would be considered at that item (please refer to minute no. 87 for details of the petitions received.)

b) Petitions Update

A report by the Head of Democratic Services was presented which gave details of 11 petitions received for the period since the last Council meeting.

In response to a query, the Chairman reassured Council that as well as the statutory petition scheme, the Council also continued to operate a more accommodating discretionary petition scheme as evidenced by the petitions presented at this meeting as referred to in (a) above.

Resolved:

That Council note the report, the petitions received and the actions being taken, as set out in the Appendix to the report presented.

83. Public Participation

Question

The Chairman reported receipt of two questions from Mr Phil Matthews of the Wiltshire Involvement Network which questioned the decision to suspend the Network and its funding. He also sought an assurance that funding would be available to continue it work up until Healthwatch was set up. Details of the questions and responses from the Leader were presented and are reproduced at Appendix A to these minutes.

Statements

The Chairman reported receipt of written statements on the following areas as circulated:

• From Godshill Parish Council in respect of the item on the South Wiltshire Core Strategy (minute no.86 refers) • From Mrs Margaret Taylor on behalf of Devizes Town Council in respect of car parking in Devizes as referred to in the Car Parking Strategy of the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan (minute no. 87 refers).

Please refer to individual minutes for details of verbal representations made at this meeting (minute nos. 85, 86 and 87 refer).

84. By Election - Bromham, Rowde and Potterne

Council noted the report of the Deputy Returning Officer on the results of the Bromham, Rowde and Potterne By-election held on 21 December 2010. The Chairman congratulated the successful candidate Cllr Liz Bryant and on behalf of all Councillors, welcomed her to this her first meeting of Council.

85. Wiltshire Council's Business Plan and 2011/12 Budget

Declarations of interest

Cllr Dalton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item in so far as it related to the setting of garage rents as referred to in the proposals concerning the Housing Revenue Account by virtue of the fact that he held a garage tenancy. Cllr Dalton left the meeting during consideration of that element of the budget.

The following Councillors declared personal interests by virtue of their membership of the undermentioned Housing Associations:

• Selwood Housing Association - Cllrs Rod Eaton, Graham Payne, Jon Hubbard and Ernie Clark.

• Sarsen Housing Association - Cllr Nigel Carter

• Westleigh Housing Association - Cllr Allison Bucknell

• Jephson Housing Association – Cllr Peter Fuller

Cllr Tony Trotman declared a personal interest in the leisure review proposals by virtue of his professional capacity.

Cllr Richard Beattie declared a personal interest by virtue of his membership of the Visit Wiltshire Partnership.

Cllrs Steve Oldrieve and Howard Marshall declared an interest by virtue of their respective wives being employed by the Council.

CllrJulie Swabey, declared a personal interest by virtue of being related to an officer of the Council.

------

Public Participation

Mr Kevin Wells on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Calne Leisure Centre sought reassurance over continued funding of the Leisure Centre by the Council to ensure its continued success. Cllr Stuart Wheeler, Cabinet member for Leisure, Sport and Culture confirmed that subject to the budget being approved at this meeting as presented, funding for Calne Leisure Centre would be continued.

------

The Chairman invited Council to consider the Business Plan and Financial Plan for 2011-15 and to agree the Council’s Budget and the Council Tax levels for 2011-12. He reminded Council that it had a legal obligation to set a budget.

The Chairman explained how he intended to manage the debate on the budget item as summarised by the previously circulated paper on the Budget Process.

The Chairman drew Councillors’ attention to the various budget papers which had been previously circulated, including the Council’s Business Plan and Financial Plan as revised. He also referred to the following budget reports as previously considered and recommended by Cabinet as circulated on the:

• Capital programme 2011-12 to 2014-2015 • Housing Revenue Account Budget and Rent Setting 2011-12 • Schools Budget Proposals 2011-12 • Fees and Charges 2011-2012 • Council Tax Resolution 2011-2012

All as recommended by Cabinet at its meeting on 15 February 2011.

• Treasury Management Strategy 2011-12

As recommended by Cabinet at its meeting on 25 January 2011.

The Chairman also drew attention to the report of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee held on 10 February 2011.

The Chairman explained the order in which he would invite Councillors to speak on the budget and the time allowed for group leaders and other members of the Council.

The Chairman invited Cllr Scott, Leader of the Council to present her budget speech which was circulated at the meeting and attached as Appendix B to these minutes.

The Leader explained that in her opinion, the proposed budget for the year ahead was sound, and one which would maintain front line services in better shape than other similar sized councils as well as provide significant investment in the future of Wiltshire.

The Leader further emphasised that far reaching changes to the concept of Local Government and its responsibilities were underway, at a time when unprecedented savings were required by the Government’s 4 year plan for Local Government.

The intentions of the Council were to continue:

• to provide high quality, low cost, customer focused services • to ensure local, open and honest decision-making and • to work with our partners to support Wiltshire’s communities. The Leader moved the recommendations of Cabinet on adoption of the Business Plan, Financial Plan and budget proposals and this was duly seconded by Cllr Thomson, the Deputy Leader.

At the Chairman’s invitation, Cllr Jeff Osborn presented the report of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee held on 10 February 2011. He considered this was a unique budget and noted there was no proposal to increase Council tax due to Government funding to ensure zero tax increases. He welcomed the proposed capital investments in leisure and the campus projects.

Group leaders were then invited to respond to the Leader’s motion or move an amendment to the Leader’s motion.

Cllr Jon Hubbard, leader of the Liberal Democrat Group responded to the Leader’s motion and questioned the merit of having a Business Plan and Financial Plan which covered a 4 year period set against a budget for one year. He considered there were so many legislative and other changes affecting Local Government not least of all, the Localism Bill that would need to be addressed which would make it difficult to predict how the Authority would work for the majority of the 4 year period.

Cllr Hubbard gave notice that he intended to propose a series of 9 amendments to the budget, details of which were circulated together with the comments of the Interim Chief Finance Officer in his capacity as the S.151 Officer. The Chief Finance Officer stated that the amendments had been reviewed by him in consultation with other statutory officers. His comments included the risk element of the proposed amendments but also pointed out that overall the proposed amendments when taken together as one amendment, still maintained the robustness of the budget.

The Leader acknowledged the right of a political group to propose amendments to the budget. However, she considered that in the interests of transparency, details of proposed amendments should have been made available earlier for consultation and open to scrutiny as had the Cabinet’s proposals. In the circumstances, she moved that the meeting be adjourned to allow each political group time to consider and form a view on the proposed amendments. On being seconded and put to the vote, it was

Resolved:

That the meeting be adjourned for a period of at least two hours after which a view to be taken by the Chairman, following consultation with a representative of each political group on whether a further period of adjournment was required.

MEETING ADJOURNED

Note: The meeting adjourned at 11.50am.

MEETING RECONVENED

Note: The meeting reconvened at 2.00pm.

AMENDMENTS

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed 9 amendments which were taken individually as detailed below and seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer:

Amendment 1 The introduction of a charging scheme for car parking permits for council premises.

‘£0.175m to be raised annually through the introduction of a progressive charging scheme for council employees to park at council premises. This scheme, similar to the one successfully introduced at the RUH in Bath, would see employees paying a small charge, the amount of which is directly linked to their salary, for the privilege of parking their cars at council premises.

Many people see it as hypocritical of this council to be providing over 1400 free parking spaces to staff, highly paid senior officers and councillors whilst at the same time massively increasing the cost to the residents of Wiltshire to park in their towns and villages.

In year one of this scheme £0.100m of the revenue gained would be invested in promoting and providing alternative staff transport schemes, such as encouraging car sharing, investment in providing adequate

facilities for cycle storage and the availability of subsidised cycle safety equipment.

This amendment would provide a net increase in revenue to the council of £0.075m’.

Cllr John Noeken as Cabinet member for Resources responded to the amendment and in so doing referred to proposals for an alternative staff transport scheme and that all of the four hubs provided facilities to encourage cycling. He also explained that the amendment proposed would require a change to the contracts of employment for staff and that priority was being given to dealing with pay harmonisation. Cllr Noeken added that whilst the amendment was a commendable thought, it was not possible to take it forward at this point in time.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to amendment No. 1 before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, Amendment No. 1 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 1 (22)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Peter Colmer, Paul Darby, Bill Douglas, Peggy Dow, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Judy Rooke, Ian West and Graham Wright.

Against Amendment No. 1 (58)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Rod Eaton, Nick Fogg, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Ian McLennan, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Graham Payne, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Ricky Rogers, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

Abstentions Amendment No. 1 (5)

Cllrs Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Ernie Clark, Michael Cuthbert-Murray and Francis Morland.

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 2 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer:

Amendment 2 Fixing Wiltshire’s Broken Road Network

‘An additional £0.500m investment in Highways revenue for 2011/12 allowing for vital County-wide repairs to road infrastructure. Pothole, kerb and pavement repair removes potential deterrents to walking and cycling, and improves motor vehicle efficiency.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group). Cllr Dick Tonge, Cabinet member for Highways and Transport responded to the amendment and on seeking clarification on exactly where this would be funded from was advised it was proposed to fund this from savings from the Policy and Communications budget.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, Amendment No. 2 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 2 (28)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Ernie Clark, Peter Colmer, Michael Cuthbert-Murray, Paul Darby, Bill Douglas, Peggy Dow, Nick Fogg, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Ian McLennan, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Ricky Rogers, Judy Rooke, Ian West and Graham Wright.

Against Amendment No. 2 (57)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Rod Eaton, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Graham Payne, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill

Roberts, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams. Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 3 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer.

Amendment 3 Investing in Wiltshire Road Network Infrastructure

‘£0.500m investment in Highways capital; allowing £5.00m for major resurfacing and improvement works. Prevents vehicle damage and improves efficiency, reducing vehicular carbon emissions

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group identified at the meeting as being funded from the Policy and Communications budget).

The Leader of the Council questioned the targeting of the Policy and Communications budget as a means of funding the proposed amendments. She explained that the Policy and Communications budget was to provide for internal and external communications with its primary role to communicate with the public and allow for public engagement. She emphasised that it was not therefore a designated resource for the administration.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, Amendment No. 3 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 3 (25)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Ernie Clark, Peter Colmer, Paul Darby, Bill Douglas, Peggy Dow, Nick Fogg, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Judy Rooke, Ian West and Graham Wright.

Against Amendment No. 3 (60)

Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Ian McLennan, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Graham Payne, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Ricky Rogers, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 4 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer:

Amendment 4 Working towards a Healthier Wiltshire for All

‘£0.561m annually to re-introduce Free Swimming for under-16s and over- 65s; As part of the Olympic preparations, and to meet Wiltshire Area Board commitments in the 2014 Leading by Example initiative. This investment emphasises the importance of health in a good quality of life in Wiltshire.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group).

This was identified at the meeting as being funded from the ICT budget by withdrawing the use of smart phones across the Council with an exception for staff who were required to work late or mainly worked off site.

Cllr Stuart Wheeler, Cabinet member for Leisure, Sport and Culture explained that free swimming had been a Government funded scheme. Unfortunately, when considered against other Council priorities and the financial pressures on the Council, continuation of the scheme could not be funded by the Council following withdrawal of Government funding. Officers were however looking to develop healthier for all proposals which would include provision for access to leisure centres and swimming pools for the most vulnerable.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, amendment No. 4 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 4 (27)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Ernie Clark, Peter Colmer, Paul Darby, Bill Douglas, Peggy Dow, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Ian McLennan, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark

Packard, Stephen Petty, Ricky Rogers, Judy Rooke, Paul Sample, Ian West and Graham Wright.

Against Amendment No. 4 (59)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Michael Cuthbert-Murray, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Rod Eaton, Nick Fogg, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Graham Payne, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

Abstention Amendment No. 4 (1)

Cllr George Jeans

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 5 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer.

Amendment 5 Supporting Economic Growth and Helping Prevent Youth Unemployment in Wiltshire

‘£0.250m investment in 2011/12 to support employers to increase the number of Apprentices in Wiltshire. This is an investment in future growth and young people in Wiltshire. Enabling small and medium business to train apprentices without taking on the burden of additional training fees.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group).

This was identified at the meeting as being funded from the Policy and Communications budget. Cllr John Brady as Cabinet member for Economic Development, Planning and Housing commented that he had explained this at the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee. The intention was to use the proposed budget to fund various skills programmes with partner agencies. Funding would be made available by the Government for apprenticeships.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council. Cllr

Jeff Osborn commented that 1 in 5 16-24 year olds were now out of work and should the amendment be lost, he hoped that work could be undertaken with Cllr Brady to provide assistance to this particular category.

On being put to the vote, amendment No. 5 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 5 (26)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Ernie Clark, Peter Colmer, Paul Darby, Bill Douglas, Peggy Dow, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, George Jeans, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Judy Rooke, Paul Sample, Ian West and Graham Wright.

Against Amendment No. 5 (58)

Abstentions Amendment No. 5 (2)

Cllrs Jane Burton and Nigel Carter.

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 6 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer.

Amendment 6 Keeping Wiltshire Safe

‘£0.125 million investment in Special Constables for 2011/12 ; providing the investment necessary to support 100 new Special Constables, a value-for- money method of maintaining strong police presence in Wiltshire through offering 100% Council-tax relief inducement for Specials for one year.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group). The Leader reported that adoption of this amendment would result in financial implications for the Police in funding the cost of additional uniforms and other incidental costs. She would not be supporting the amendment given that there had been no prior consultation with the Police on such a proposal. Cllr Carole Soden, Vice-Chairman of the Police Authority agreed that this was not something the Council should impose on the Police.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, amendment No. 6 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 6 (22)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Peter Colmer, Peggy Dow, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, George Jeans, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Judy Rooke, Paul Sample, Ian West and Graham Wright.

Against Amendment No. 6 (62)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Ernie Clark, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Michael Cuthbert- Murray, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Nick Fogg, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, Geoge Jeans, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Ian McLennan, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Graham Payne, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Ricky Rogers, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmorland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

Abstention Amendment No. 6 (1)

Cllr Francis Morland

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 7 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer.

Amendment 7 Protecting our Youth Service

‘Reverse the proposed new cuts of £0.225m across the Youth Service. The work undertaken by our Youth Service helps reduce the levels of perceived and actual anti-social behaviour by young people in our communities. The cost benefits of this are obvious and this improves the opportunities for our young people in these difficult times. This will particularly benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged young people across the county.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group)

Cllr Grundy, Cabinet member for Children’s Services confirmed there were no proposals to cut frontline services in this area. At his request, Cllr Clewer, Portfolio Holder for Youth and Skills updated Council on initiatives concerning youth service provision.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, amendment No. 7 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 7 (23)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Peter Colmer, Peggy Dow, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Ian McLennan, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Ricky Rogers, Judy Rooke, Paul Sample, and Ian West.

Against Amendment No. 7 (56)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Michael Cuthbert-Murrray, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis,

Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

Abstentions Amendment No. 7 (3)

Cllrs Ernie Clark, Nick Fogg and George Jeans.

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 8 which was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer.

Amendment 8 Improving Learning and Teaching in our Schools

‘Reduce the savage proposed cuts in spending on School Improvement through a reduction in the proposed spending on £0.191m. In line with national policy, including the Pupil premium, evidence shows focusing investment on the early years creates savings in the future. This funding allows for extra school advisers, further teacher training, facilitating enhanced learning experiences for young people in the context of total budget reductions.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group).

Cllr Grundy, Cabinet member for Children’s Services confirmed that the proposed budget included provision for investing £4.3 million in 2011-12. Some of this money would be used to provide a core team of officers to support schools as necessary linking into children’s attainment and early intervention programmes. At his request, Cllr Alan Macrae, Portfolio Holder for Schools explained these initiatives in more detail.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, amendment No. 8 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 8 (21)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Peter Colmer, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Ian McLennan, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Ricky Rogers, Judy Rooke, Paul Sample, and Ian West.

Against Amendment No. 8 (57)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Michael Cuthbert-Murrray, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, George Jeans, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

Cllr Jon Hubbard proposed the following amendment No. 9 and in so doing, paid tribute to the hard work and dedication of officers who worked in this particular area. The amendment was seconded by Cllr Peter Colmer.

Amendment 9 Protecting our most Vulnerable Children

‘Whilst there are opportunities for considerable savings on previous expenditure on Children’s Social Care, we feel that the level of cuts proposed will result in a reduced service for the most vulnerable of our young people in care and therefore would reduce these cuts by £0.254m. Investing properly in their futures at an early stage can save considerable amounts in the future.

To be funded through drawing on the list of savings identified at the head of’ (the report presented by the Liberal Democrat group).

Cllr Lionel Grundy, Cabinet member for Children’s Services reported that social services provision was adequately funded and that the service had recently undergone transformation. The last Ofsted inspection had classified the service as ‘good’ although pointed out that the service required increased administrative support which was provided immediately. Cllr Grundy commented that he would not be supporting the amendment as the service was already operating well.

Cllr Sheila Parker, Portfolio Holder for Vulnerable children explained that the service was already making savings whilst supporting vulnerable families.

The Chairman gave other Group Leaders the opportunity of responding to the amendment before opening the debate to other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, amendment No. 9 was LOST and a recorded vote having been requested by the requisite number of Councillors, the voting was recorded as follows:

For Amendment No. 9 (23)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Rosemary Brown, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Peter Colmer, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, George Jeans, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Howard Marshall, Ian McLennan, Francis Morland, Steve Oldrieve, Helen Osborn, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Stephen Petty, Ricky Rogers, Judy Rooke, Paul Sample, and Ian West.

Against Amendment No. 9 (56)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Chuck Berry, John Brady, Richard Britton, Liz Bryant, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Nigel Carter, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Michael Cuthbert-Murrray, Andrew Davis, Peter Davis, Fleur de Rhe Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Lionel Grundy, Robert Hall, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Chris Humphries, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Jemima Milton, Bill Moss, John Noeken, Sheila Parker, Leo Randall, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, John Smale, Carole Soden, Toby Sturgis, Julie Swabey, John Thomson, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Bridget Wayman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Chris Williams.

The amendments by the Liberal Democrat group having been LOST, the Chairman invited other Group Leaders to comment on the Leader’s motion or to propose amendments to it.

Cllr Nigel Carter commented on the budget proposals referring to the positive and constructive scrutiny of the budget led by Cllr Jeff Osborn. He added a note of caution that the Council should be as proactive as it could in the area of enterprise and economy to ensure the economic viability of the County. He was delighted with efforts being made in energy management but added this area needed sustained investment to ensure the right culture prevailed to maximise impact. He also referred to the self insurance fund in the context of the scale of programme for the hubs.

Cllr Ricky Rogers acknowledged it was a difficult year to set the budget. He was opposed to the proposal to join the Local Government Association preferring the £88k membership fee was used towards the reinstatement of free swimming.

With no further amendments proposed by the other Group Leaders, other members of the Council were given the opportunity to debate the Leader’s motion and or propose any further amendments.

Following a lengthy debate, the Leader of the Council responded to the points raised during debate.

Following clarification by the Chairman on what was being proposed, the Leader’s motion was put to the vote and CARRIED by a show of hands. It was therefore

Resolved:

Business Plan and Financial Plan

(a) That the Business Plan and linked Financial Plan 2011-15 as presented be adopted and that the Chief Executive be given delegated authority to make any amendments of a minor nature to ensure the Plans are accurate and clearly presented following consultation with the Leader of the Council, the S.151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer.

(b) To approve the investments and savings as set out in sections 5 and 6 respectively of the Financial Plan that provides for a net revenue budget in 2011/12 of £329.847 million.

(c) To set a Wiltshire Council Band D council tax for 2011/12 of £1,222.43 as per section 9 of the Financial Plan which represents a zero percentage increase.

(d) To agree to membership of the Local Government Association for the 2011/12 financial year and pay the fee of £87,982 to the Association from reserves set out in the Financial Plan for this period.

Capital Programme

To approve the Wiltshire Council Capital Programme for 2011/12 to 2014/15 as shown in Appendix A of the report presented.

Housing Revenue Account Budget

(a) To approve the Housing Revenue Account Budget for 2010/11 (revised) and 2011/12 (original) as presented.

(b) To approve the increase for dwelling rents in accordance with the rent restructuring. (c) To approve an increase of 4.6% for service charges.

(d) To approve that there be no increase to garage rents to avoid an adverse effect on void rates.

Schools Budget

To approve the overall Schools Budget of £274.653 million.

Fees and Charges

To approve the fees and charges as included in the revenue budget proposals for 2011/12.

Treasury Management Strategy

(a) To adopt the Prudential and Treasury Indicators (Appendix A of the report presented).

(b) To adopt the Annual Investment Strategy (Appendix B of the report presented).

(c) To delegate to the Chief Finance Officer the authority to vary the amount of borrowing and other long term liabilities within both the Treasury Indicators for the Authorised Limit and the Operational Boundary.

(d) To Authorise the Chief Finance Officer to agree the restructuring of existing long term loans where savings are achievable or to enhance the long term portfolio.

(e) To agree that short term cash surpluses and deficits continue to be managed through temporary loans and deposits.

(f) To agree that any long term surplus cash balances not required to cover borrowing are placed in authorised money-market funds, particularly where this is more cost effective than short term deposits and delegate to the Chief Finance Officer the authority to select such funds.

Council Tax Resolution a) That it be noted that at its meeting on 14th December 2010 Cabinet calculated the following amounts for the year 2011-12 in accordance with The Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (“the Act”):

i) £179,297.66 being the amount calculated by the Council, in accordance with The Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, as its council tax base for the year;

ii) Part of the Council's Area (Council Tax Base for each parish) b) That it be noted the revenue and capital budget proposals for 2011-12 are as approved within these minutes.

c) That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2011-12 in accordance with sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992:

i) £880,892,037 (Gross Revenue Expenditure including parish precepts) being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e) of the Act;

ii) £543,788,000 (Revenue Income) being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3) (a) to (c) of the Act;

iii) £337,104,037 (Net Revenue Expenditure including parish precepts) being the amount by which the aggregate at ci) above exceeds the aggregate at cii) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year;

iv) £105,191,569 (Total of Revenue Support Grant, share of National Non Domestic Rating Pool and Estimated Balance on the Collection Fund to be refunded to council tax payers) being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant and increased by the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its collection fund to its general fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) (England) Directions 1994 under section 98(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;

v) £1,293.45 (Wiltshire Council Band D tax plus average parish councils Band D Tax) being the amount at ciii) above less the amount at civ) above, all divided by the amount at ai) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 33(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year as shown below:

Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 862.30 1006.02 1149.73 1293.45 1580.88 1868.31 2155.75 2586.90

vi) £12,733,037 (Aggregate of parish and town council precepts) being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in section 34(1) of the Act;

vii) £1,222.43 (Band D tax for Wiltshire Council purposes only)

being the amount at cv) above less the result given by dividing the amount at cvi) above by the amount at ai) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special item relates as shown below:

Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 814.95 950.78 1086.60 1222.43 1494.08 1765.73 2037.38 2444.86

viii) Part of the Council's Area (List of each Parish’s Council Band D tax)

That the table at Appendix C shows the amounts relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council's area mentioned above divided in each case by the amount at aii) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate; d) That it be noted that for the year 2011-12 the Wiltshire Police Authority has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Authority, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 105.18 122.71 140.24 157.77 192.83 227.89 262.95 315.54 e) That it be noted that for the year 2011-12 the Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Authority, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2003, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 41.59 48.52 55.45 62.38 76.24 90.10 103.97 124.76 f) That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at cviii), d) and e) above, the Council, in accordance with section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the amounts shown in the table at Appendix C as the amounts of council tax for the year 2011-12 for each of the categories of dwellings shown in the table:-

Part of the Council's Area (List of total tax figures for all bands of property

for all parishes within Wiltshire – including Parish, Wiltshire Council, Wiltshire Police Authority and Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority elements).

86. South Wiltshire Core Strategy - Review of Housing and Employment Requirements

Public Participation:

The following members of the public addressed Council on this item:

Mr Roger Yeates – Downton Parish Council Mr Phillip Coward – Hillbrush Ltd Mr Ron Champion – Laverstock and Ford Parish Council Ms Sarah Champion – Bishop Down Farm Residents’ Association Mr Steve Hannath – Resident of Laverstock and Ford Parish

A written statement was circulated from Godshill Parish Council

Cllr John Brady, Cabinet member for Economic Development, Planning and Housing responded to the points made during public participation.

Cllr Brady presented a report which drew Council’s attention to the findings of a review of the housing and employment requirements included within the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) as submitted to the Secretary of State. The report sought approval of a number of amendments to the draft SWCS arising from the review. Cllr Brady drew Council’s attention to changes to the recommendations relating to the distribution of housing as circulated in a revisions paper.

Cllr Brady explained the background to the need to review the housing and employment requirements within the SWCS.

Following approval of the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) by Council in November 2009, the SWCS proceeded straight to the Examination in Public (EIP) stage. In July 2010, around the time the Inspector was due to publish his report, he suspended the EIP to allow the Council to undertake a review of the housing and employment figures in light of the Government’s stated intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). This review has now been completed, in the context of the Wiltshire-wide review of housing requirements and as a result, ‘focused changes’ to the SWCS should be put forward to the Inspector for his consideration. As a consequence of the ‘focused changes’ other changes would need to be made elsewhere in the document. These ‘consequential’ changes would also be submitted to the Inspector.

Cllr Brady moved the proposals contained in the report presented which included the proposed changes to the draft SWCS and the further revisions as circulated and this was duly seconded.

The revised housing figures considered by Council are set out in the following table:

Settlement/Area No. of Dwellings 2006 - 2026 Salisbury & Wilton (including allocations for Salisbury in Laverstock 6,060 Parish, which is part of Southern Community Area) Rest of Wilton Community Area 220 Salisbury/Wilton Community Area Sub -to tal 6,280 Amesbury 2,100 Rest of Amesbury Community Area 295 Amesbury Community Area Sub -total 2,395 Downton 190 Rest of Southern Community Area 365 Southern Community Area Sub -total 555 Mere 200 Rest of Mere Community Area 50 Mere Community Area Sub -total 250 Tisbury 200 Rest of Tisbury Community Area 220 Tisbury Community Area Sub -total 420 South Wiltshire Total 9,900

Cllr Brady explained the proposals made were to ensure that a sound planning framework was put in place as soon as possible for South Wiltshire to allow the authority to manage necessary growth. This was to ensure homes and jobs were provided in the most sustainable way that best conserved the natural environment and maximised benefits for local communities. The proposals would also ensure that progress continued to be made on preparing an up to date planning policy framework for Wiltshire.

The Chairman then opened the debate allowing Group Leaders to speak first, followed by Councillors representing the South Wiltshire area of the County before opening the debate to other Councillors. The Chairman referred Council to questions from Cllr Ian McLennan as circulated.

Cllr McLennan referred to his questions addressed to Cllr Brady who responded to the questions with details of the responses circulated at the meeting. A copy of the questions and responses are attached as Appendix D to these minutes.

During debate, Cllr McLennan proposed the following amendment which was duly seconded:

‘That given all of the information so far, that the 500 housing allocation for Hampton Park be removed from the draft SWCS and to retain the housing allocation for Long Hedge in Laverstock and Ford’.

Cllr Brady explained that he was unable to support the amendment and whilst he had sympathy with such a view, making such a change at this stage in the process had the potential to render the Strategy unsound.

Following further debate, the amendment was put to the vote and LOST.

Cllr McLennan proposed a further amendment as follows which was duly seconded.

‘To reduce the housing provision by removing any development east of Green Lane that also protects Green Lane itself and that the strategic gap should be set at two thirds of the distance from Long Hedge in Laverstock and Ford’.

However, following further debate, Cllr McLennan replaced the above amendment with the following, in part based on comments made earlier in the debate by Cllr Sample and this was duly seconded:

‘To incorporate the decision of the Strategic Planning Committee dated 16 February 2011 as part of the submission to the Inspector on the draft SWCS and that the Community Forum referred to the in the Revisions paper to include local parish councillors from Laverstock and Ford Parish Council and the local Division members’.

Cllr Brady commented that he was happy to take on board these amendments within his proposition with the proviso that details of the Strategic Planning Committee’s decision be included as an informative only and this was agreed by Cllr McLennan.

A lengthy debate ensued with Cllr Brady responding to the points made.

For the avoidance of doubt, Cllr Brady clarified the proposals before Council and on being put to the vote, it was

Resolved:

That Council:

(i) approves the proposed changes to the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy, as set out in Appendix 2 of the report presented (both focused and consequential), arising from the review of housing and employment requirements set out in the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy; and further

(ii) approves the additional amendments to the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy as follows:

i. Those amendments summarised in the revisions paper as circulated in Agenda supplement 2.

ii. The Community Forum referred to in the revisions paper to include local parish councillors from Laverstock and Ford Parish Council and the local Division members.

(iii) approves the inclusion of the minute recording the decision of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 16 February 2011 in respect of the following application as an informative item appended to the submission to the Inspector on the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy Review of Housing and Employment Requirements:

S/2009/1943 - Land North, West & South of Bishopdown Farm, Salisbury, SP1 3WS - Erection of 500 Dwellings, 4 New Vehicular Accesses off Pearce Way, Associated Landscaping & Public Open Space and Creation of a Country Park with Associated Parking, Infrastructure & Facilities

(iv) delegates to the Director for Economy and Enterprise, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Planning and Housing:

• authorisation to undertake minor amendments, in the interests of clarity and accuracy, to the review documents prior to submission to the Inspector; and

• submission of the review documents to the Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the Core Strategy, for consideration and any associated steps as directed by the Inspector in order to comply with required procedures.

87. Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011 - 2026

Declaration of Interest

Cllr Desna Allen declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being Treasurer to the Chippenham and District Transport for the Disabled Society which was partially funded by the Council by way of grant aid.

Public Participation

Verbal representations were made by the following members of the public:

Mrs Margaret Taylor Devizes Town Council and written statement as circulated Mr Rob Perks Chippenham Chamber of Trade

Mrs Margaret Willmot COGS (Cycling Opportunities Group, Salisbury) Written statement presented by Cllr Chris Cochrane

As referred to earlier in the meeting (minute No. 82 refers), the Chairman reported receipt of the following petitions received for presentation to this meeting:

Petition – Car Parking – Devizes

The Chairman reported receipt of a petition organised by the Devizes Guardians and the Devizes Chambers of Commerce. The petition presented by Cllr Nigel Carter with 4657 signatures called on the Council to retain the one hour limit for free parking in Devizes Market Place

Petition – Car Parking – Marlborough

The Chairman reported receipt of a petition submitted by Cllr Peggy Dow on behalf of the Marlborough Chamber of Commerce. The petition with 71 signatures called on the Council to lower the parking charges for Marlborough to the level defined in the New Strategy and for Hillier’s Yard and Polly Garden car parks to be redesignated as short stay car parks with a maximum stay of three hours.

Petition – Car Parking - Bradford on Avon

The Chairman reported receipt of a petition organised by the Bradford-on-Avon Chambers of Commerce. The petition with approximately 1600 signatures objected to the removal of free car parking in St Margaret’s car park and to levy only reasonable charges on other town parking.

------

The Chairman drew Council’s attention to the following previously circulated documents:

• report of the Rapid Scrutiny Exercise meeting held on 25 January 2011 together with a schedule of recommendations. Cllr Peter Doyle, lead member on the Rapid Scrutiny Exercise confirmed that all of the recommendations had been accepted by Cllr Tonge. • Question from Cllr Peggy Dow in respect of parking charges in Marlborough together with the response from Cllr Dick Tonge, Cabinet member for Highways and Transport.

At the start of this item, Councillor Dick Tonge drew Council’s attention to the related Traffic Regulations Orders, the consultation on which had expired on 21 February 2011. Cllr Tonge referred to the consultation feedback and responded to the main comments and objections received.

Cllr Tonge presented the proposed Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2026 (LTP) for adoption by Council. The document was previously considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 15 February 2011 when it resolved to recommend adoption of the LTP by Council.

Cllr Tonge explained that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) was a statutory document, of which an updated version (LTP3) had to be published by 31 March 2011. The scale and scope of the LTP3 was reduced in light of ongoing planning and funding uncertainties. Once clarity was restored, the remaining elements of the LTP3 were planned to be developed during 2011/12.

The LTP3 was currently made up of the following elements:

• Strategy • Implementation Plan • Freight Strategy • Public Transport Strategy • Road Safety Strategy • Car Parking Strategy (as approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 14 December 2010).

Cllr Tonge gave a brief synopsis of each of the above strategies and Cllr Richard Gamble provided further detail in respect of the Public Transport Strategy including the proposed transrail link.

The Chairman opened the debate starting with Group Leaders before opening the debate to other members.

Cllr Nigel Carter proposed the following amendment seconded by Cllr Jane Burton:

‘To maintain the one hour limit for free parking in Devizes Market Place and to delete reference to ticket machines and for there to be no street furniture in Market Square.’

On being put to the vote, the amendment was LOST.

Cllr Tonge responded to the points raised during debate.

Resolved:

That Council:

(i) adopts the Wiltshire Local Transport Plan (LTP3) 2011 – 2026 as presented;

(ii) notes that further LTP3 theme strategies and area strategies, and an implementation plan for 2012/13 – 2014/15 are planned to be developed in 2011/12 and

(iii) delegates authority to the Corporate Director for Neighbourhood and Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to finalise the document for publication by 31 March 2011.

88. Councillors' Questions

The Chairman reported receipt of questions from Cllrs Ernie Clark, Howard Marshall, Jon Hubbard, Jeff Osborn, Chris Caswill and Russell Hawker. Details of the questions and responses given were previously circulated and are attached as Appendix E to these minutes.

Supplementary questions were made in some cases summarised as follows:

Cllr John Hubbard – consideration of community campus proposals at Melksham Area Board – was it appropriate to debate an issue at the Area Board after the decision had been made rather than consult on the proposals?

Cllr Stuart Wheeler explained that he had consulted the Chairman of Melksham Area Board who confirmed that a special meeting of the Area Board would be convened to discuss the proposals followed by consultation. The Leader of the Council also clarified that this process had been agreed unanimously by Melksham Area Board.

Cllr Jon Hubbard – Melksham community campus proposals and siting of library – questioned whether the resiting of Melksham library following refurbishment of the Town centre library represented best value.

Cllr John Noeken explained that the Council needed to take a longterm view and consider future cost as part of the Workplace Transformation Programme.

Cllr Chris Caswill – effect of frontloading reductions in Government grant – sought clarification of the effect of frontloading rather than spreading the cuts evenly. Cllr Caswill asked if the reduction by £11.477 m was as a result of front loading? Cllr Fleur de Rhe Philipe undertook to provide a written answer.

Cllr Jeff Osborn – Future Jobs Fund Scheme – asked whether the Council had lobbied the Government over retaining the Scheme.

The Leader of the Council confirmed that she had personally lobbied the Government on this issue.

89. Notice of Motion 15 - Government Funding of the EU - from Councillors Mike Cuthbert-Murray and Russell Hawker

The Chairman referred to the notice of motion presented by Cllr Trevor Carbin at the last meeting on 9 November 2010 on the Daylight Saving Bill which was

deferred to this meeting. The Chairman explained that Cllr Carbin had since withdrawn his motion.

Declaration of Interest

Cllrs Toby Sturgis, Chris Humphries and Jane Scott declared a personal interest in this item as their respective businesses were in receipt of EU funding.

The Chairman reported receipt of the following motion from Cllrs Mike Cuthbert- Murray and Russell Hawker:

“In the light of the current and ongoing deep Government funding cuts to this council and the significant adverse effects this is causing via reduced staffing and services, we believe that the Government should ensure that its funding to the EU does not increase - or better still, is cut - so that funding to this and other principal authorities can be restored to levels where we can provide a satisfactory level of service and support to Wiltshire people. We will inform our local MPs and ask them to act accordingly in Parliament and to explain their actions in this respect to us.”

Once moved by Cllr Mike Cuthbert-Murray and seconded by Cllr Nigel Carter, Cllr Cuthbert-Murray was invited to speak to the motion.

The Chairman moved that the motion be debated and this was duly seconded by the Vice-Chairman and on being put to the vote, it was

Resolved:

That notice of motion no.15 be debated

The Chairman invited Group Leaders to speak on the motion before opening the debate to other Councillors. The Leader of the Council commented that this was a matter which if supported, should be taken up by Councillors through their MPs and not as a Council matter.

Resolved:

That the motion be NOT adopted.

90. Minutes of Cabinet and Committees

The Chairman moved that Council receive and note the under mentioned minutes as listed in the separate Minutes Book and this was duly seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Meeting Date

Cabinet 16 November & 14 December 2010 25 January & 15 February 2011

Cabinet Capital Assets Committee 10 January & 7 February 2011

Children’s Services Select Committee 25 November 2010, 27 January 2011

Environment Select Committee 2 November & 21 December 2010, 11 January 2011

Health and Adult Social Care Select 11 November 2010, 13 January 2011 Committee

Organisation and Resources Select 18 November 2010, 20 January 2011 Committee

Licensing Committee 30 November 2010, 17 January 2011

Northern Area Planning Committee 3 November, 24 November & 15 December 2010, 26 January 2011

Western Area Planning Committee 8 December 2010, 12 January & 9 February 2011

Southern Area Planning Committee 18 November & 9 December 2010, 13 January 2011

Eastern Area Planning Committee 16 December 2010, 6 January 2011

Standards Committee 24 November 2010, 12 January 2011

Officer Appointments Committee 14 December 2010

Staffing Policy Committee 24 November & 16 December 2010, 9 February 2011

Audit Committee 15 December 2010

Wiltshire Pension Fund Committee 2 December 2010

The Chairman then invited questions from Councillors on points of information or clarification on the above mentioned minutes and gave the Chairmen of those meetings the opportunity to make any important announcements on the work of their respective Committees. No questions were asked.

Resolved:

That the above mentioned minutes be received and noted.

91. Review of Allocation of Seats on Committees to Political Groups

The Chairman presented the report of the Service Director, Legal and Democratic Services. As referred to earlier in the meeting (minute no. 84 refers), Cllr Liz Bryant was elected to the Council following the by-election held on 21 December 2010. A review of the allocation of seats on committee to political groups was not required as the political balance on the Council remained unchanged.

Council was asked to confirm Cllr Bryant’s appointment to Devizes Area board and to approve any requests from Group Leaders for changes to committee membership in accordance with their previously approved allocation of seats. No changes were requested.

Resolved:

a) To note the report presented.

b) To confirm the appointment of Cllr Liz Bryant who was elected to the Bromham, Rowde and Potterne Electoral Division, to the Devizes Area Board.

92. Dates of next meetings

Resolved:

To approve the dates of Council meetings for 2011/12 as follows:

17th May 2011 (Annual) 12th July 2011 8th November 2011

21st February 2012 (Council Tax setting).

93. Wiltshire Police Authority

The minutes of the Wiltshire Police Authority meeting held on 2 December 2010 and the report of the Police Authority were received and noted. No questions on these documents had been received from Councillors.

94. Minutes of the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority

The minutes of the Wiltshire and Swindon Fire Authority meeting held on 16 December 2010 were received and noted. No questions had been raised by Councillors.

Duration of meeting 10.30am – 11.00pm (including an adjournment from 11.50am – 2.00pm)

Appendices Appendix A - Questions from Mr Phil Matthews and response Appendix B - Budget speech by Leader of the Council Appendix C - Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011-12 by Parish Appendix D - Questions from Cllr Ian McLennan (South Wiltshire Core Strategy and responses Appendix E - Councillors’ Questions and responses

The Officer who has produced these minutes is Yamina Rhouati, of Democratic & Members’ Services, direct line 01225 718024, e-mail [email protected]

Press enquiries to Communications, direct line (01225) 713114/713115

(Duration of meeting: 10.30 am - 11.00 pm)

This page is intentionally left blank Minute Item 83 Appendix A

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Public Participation

Question from Mr Phil Matthews, Wiltshire Involvement Network To Councillor Jane Scott, Leader of the Council

Question 1

The Wiltshire Involvement Networks(LINKS) is a Statutory Government organisation set up by Act of Parliament to represent patients and public in Wiltshire.

Why was the decision to recently suspend this organisation and its funding taken by Council Officers instead of the democratically elected Members of the Council?

Response

The Chief Executive has instigated a review of the process followed in connection with the investigation of a complaint arising from a meeting of Wiltshire Involvement Network (WIN) on 10 August 2010. This issue will be covered in that review. The outcome of the review will be reported to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

Question 2

At a Healthwatch Stakeholders meeting held on Feb 8th 2011 , Earl Howe made it clear that good relationships were needed with Local Authorities and that conversations were needed with them with regards to the money that they have been provided with for LINKS. Therefore can I have an assurance that funding will be available to continue the work of the Wiltshire Involvement Network up an until Healthwatch is set up?

Response

The Director of Community Services has requested a meeting with the WIN to discuss various issues including the funding arrangements for next year. The Council is committed to funding the WIN through a Host organisation for 11/12 as there is progression to the establishment of Health Watch.

Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 2 Minute Item 85

Mr Chairman

When we met at this time last year we knew that difficult times lay ahead. We knew that our government grant would be cut and that we were in for a period of enforced financial saving and we have been planning for this. However, we did not know, nor foresee, the extent of savings that the new coalition government would require us to make in the first year of their 4 year plans; and nor did we envisage that we would be affected by over 300 new pieces of legislation changing the whole concept of local government and its responsibilities.

The changes in legislation and regulation that are being proposed will alter the relationship between the public sector and our citizens and service users. We will need to change radically in how we will be organised and how we deliver services in the future.

Our resources over the next 4 years will be reduced – we will have to absorb a cut of over 28% in grant funding from the government – and manage the new pieces of legislation. This will not be easy but it would be considerably more difficult had we not combined our 5 councils into one with the appreciable financial savings that brought and continues to bring during this transformation stage.

We will have a completely new partnership landscape to deal with and will need to take account of the expected growth in the number of older people living in our county in the next few years and the increasing number of young children needing our care.

We have looked to the future and produced a business plan that sets out how we intend to meet these challenges over the next 4 years. Whilst today’s meeting will consider the budget for next year – our proposals will be in the context of the changing picture for the next few years and beyond.

There are no short-term solutions but our proposals are robust with a planned approach to managing our resources well for the future.

Page 3 1 We have openly shared and discussed our proposals with our local communities and stakeholders and we have taken their views into account in our budget planning.

Our vision is to create stronger, more resilient communities. This vision is all about people and places, fostering a sense of community belonging and self-sufficiency where communities can solve problems locally with our support.

Our communities are already becoming more self-reliant, reducing the dependency on public services.

We recognise that a new and different way of working is going to be critical for the future and with significantly diminished resources we have to empower and enable local communities to take a greater control over their futures.

Our business plan sets out what we aim to achieve between now and 2015. It highlights our business model for the next 5 to 10 years. The changes will be phased so that the first 4 years will set the foundations to make the Council as efficient as possible and well equipped for the future.

We believe we can do this because we are taking a long term, pragmatic view and we can take advantage of being a new unitary authority. Unlike many other councils across the country and our neighbouring authorities we are not stopping services or closing facilities and we are not making thousands of staff redundant.

We are different - we are ambitious – we are visionary – but we are also realistic.

We plan to use our resources to:

√ protect the most vulnerable in our communities √ invest in the future of Wiltshire by enhancing some principal service areas, and; √ keep the council tax low

Page 4 2 We will do this not only by making savings that will cover the cut in government funding but also fund the investments we wish to make.

We propose to invest an additional £34 million over the next 4 years into protecting and safeguarding vulnerable adults and this reflects the expected growth in the number of ageing adults that will need our services. We anticipate that 14% more older people will receive our services in the next few years.

We will also invest £4.7 million into protecting and safeguarding vulnerable children as we know that there is a 5% increase in the number of looked-after children that will need to receive high quality local placements either in foster care or residential placements close to family, friends and their local community.

We know that around 11% of children and young people in Wiltshire are considered to be living in poverty. We want Wiltshire schools to be outstanding whether they are academies or maintained schools, and enable pupils to fulfil their potential. We are proposing an investment of £3.2 million into improving the attainment and progress of pupils’ learning.

We will also provide support for young people to move into employment and training. Working closely with our partners we have a range of strategies in place to support young people secure employment. Whilst NEET levels in Wiltshire remain below the national level, this remains an important priority for us.

The Wiltshire Potential Future Job Fund created 495 sustainable new jobs for 18–24 year olds, and the new 100 Apprentice Campaign aims to have 100 new Wiltshire apprentices enrolled within the 100 day period. Working with Job Centre Plus – we have secured work experience placements for 300 unemployed 18–24 year olds and as part of the Action for Wiltshire initiative, the ‘Get Prepared Programme’ for 16-18 year olds supports young people moving into employment, training or further education.

We are in no doubt that the economic recession has hit Wiltshire – the claimant unemployment in the county has risen during the recession by 4,500 and the growth

Page 5 3 in unemployment has been higher than the national average. Whilst the dependency on public sector employment of 22.3% is broadly in line with national levels of 21.8% - we expect the impact on public sector cuts to result in an additional 3,000 job losses across Wiltshire over the next 4 years. Parts of the county are more vulnerable, especially those areas that are dependent on military activity. The closure of RAF Lyneham by the end of 2012 will result in a reduction in the local economy of around £90 million by 2015 and the loss of around 3,400 jobs. There is also a threat to employment at the Health Protection Agency at Porton Down, owing to proposals to relocate up to 600 staff to Essex.

We will need to build economic resilience through developing a broader sector mix and employment base. We are therefore proposing to invest £4 million into supporting the local economy helping the private sector to create 6,000 new jobs as well as safeguarding existing jobs.

We will invest a further £15 million of capital and revenue into broadband so that 85% of Wiltshire will be covered by superfast broadband in the next 4 years. This is in response in part to the business community and their requirements to compete in the market and therefore remain in the county. It is also a requirement if we are to attract new businesses to the county

The maintenance of our highways is really important to local people and businesses and was a top priority when we consulted with our communities. We have made improvements already. Our response time for repairs to non-urgent highways defects has been reduced by 95% and for urgent defects to less than one day. The condition of our roads has been improved by reducing the maintenance backlog by 16% over the last 5 years.

We have also delegated budgets to community area transport groups to prioritise road improvements locally and parish councils have been offered extra salt bags to assist communities during freezing weather and our area boards have been allocated extra grit bins at locations of their choice.

Page 6 4 In 2011-12 funding for highways maintenance will increase over and above 2010/11. In addition, it is expected that a number of invest-to-save schemes will be brought forward in our capital programme. Spend on minor repairs and highways maintenance will be looked at as part of our commercial procurement review to achieve savings so that we will be able to do more with the same budget.

The overall increased spend on highways will be £417,000 and we will achieve a further 10% reduction in the roads maintenance backlog.

One of our key priorities and proposed areas of investment is our waste collection service. We need to divert waste from landfill in the medium to long term to secure significant cost savings for residents through reductions in Landfill Tax charges. Our target is to reduce land filled waste to less than 25% of the total collected by 2014.

In addition, we need to harmonise waste collection and recycling arrangements to provide a consistent service across Wiltshire.

The average recycling rate in Wiltshire is already ahead of target - in excess of 40%. However, major investment, encouragement and education will be needed to meet an increased target of 50%.

We have a contract for the delivery of 50,000 tonnes per year of waste to the Lakeside energy waste incinerator near Slough. A second contract for the construction in Westbury of a mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) plant is being finalised. This will provide further capacity to divert waste from landfill. While we continue to put waste into landfill we are required to pay Landfill Tax at a rate of £56 per tonne in 2011/12, rising by £8 per tonne per year until reaching £80 per tonne in 2014.

We propose to invest £23 million into waste and recycling. Wiltshire residents will receive kerbside collections every week on an alternate weekly basis collecting; plastic bottles and cardboard; glass, papers, cans, foil and textiles (the existing black box service); non-chargeable optional garden waste; and remaining waste.

Page 7 5 You will be aware that the coalition government has recognised the importance of energy efficiency and introduced an Energy Bill last December. The Bill makes provision for a new ‘Green Deal’ to improve the energy efficiency of homes and businesses from autumn 2012. The details of how this will work are emerging and during 2011 we will look at how we can best take advantage of this for Wiltshire.

We spent £14 million on energy and transport in 2009/10, with an associated carbon footprint of 66,000 tonnes of CO 2. We have set a target to reduce our carbon footprint by 20% by 2013/14.

The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) means that for every tonne of carbon emitted from our buildings and streetlights we will have to pay £12 in 2011/12 and 2012/13; £16 in 2013/14 and increasing amounts thereafter. If we do not invest in energy efficiency projects our tax burden will be higher.

We are proposing a further investment of £2 million to help to reduce our carbon emissions, which will reduce the cost of our energy bills.

During 2010/11, £0.5 million was allocated in our capital programme and £0.7 million was secured as a zero per cent government loan. This funding is being invested in a range of energy efficiency projects such as LED bollards, an air source heat pump at the Shurnhold office, and building management systems at leisure centres.

In total the £1.2 million invested in 2010/11 will save £275,000 per year on energy bills, or a total of £1.37 million over 5 years.

We have a good track record of investing in our communities through grants, new ways of doing things with our area boards and in supporting community area partnerships. We propose a further investment of £3.2 million to strengthen area boards and increase the capacity for local people to influence decisions, which affect their local community and continue to involve local people in tackling projects and resolving problems to improve the quality of life in their area. We want to encourage and recognise the contribution and value of volunteering in Wiltshire as this will be vital for sustaining delivery of some services locally.

Page 8 6

We already have over 100 volunteers to help in our libraries.

We have been a leader on localism for some time and have strong foundations and relationships, which will help us to shift our role and the role of communities in the future. Our area boards have been pivotal in bringing about new ways of working and we see their role in the future as vital to building resilience in our communities.

Affordable Housing remains a top Wiltshire priority. The average Wiltshire house price is £234,000 but the average salary of £26,000 is well under the £45,000 needed to buy a 2-bedroom terraced house. We have a housing waiting list of 12,000+ of which over a quarter are in the highest need category.

Unfortunately, there are only around 45 housing association and council homes allocated each week. Whilst Wiltshire has an impressive record of creatively delivering new affordable homes, the numbers always fall short of the massive need. So at a time when it is increasingly difficult to deliver affordable homes through conventional routes, there is the reassurance that Wiltshire is on the threshold of delivering the only affordable Housing PFI scheme in the South West.

The project will see delivery of in excess of 250 new affordable homes to rent across the west of Wiltshire and we will build further new council homes in 2011. Our ambition is to enable the development of 450 affordable homes each year. Our PFI investment is primarily the provision of council land, enabling between 250 and 350 new affordable homes to rent.

Failure to deliver affordable housing puts big pressure on other services, such as homelessness, care service and health. A sharp increase in homelessness can result in increased use of bed and breakfast (B&B) with a cost running into millions.

And finally on our programme of investment, we intend to put £3.5 million into leisure. The indoor leisure facilities that we inherited as a result of the new unitary council are broadly outdated, inefficient and unsustainable.

Page 9 7 Our proposals enable us to deliver sustainable, cost effective, high quality, indoor leisure facilities that will be part of a wider service delivery project.

The local campus project will be responsible for the delivery of fewer, more efficient and better placed facilities - which as well as providing a location for a range of services will ensure the provision of high quality multi-functional indoor leisure services to all sectors of the community.

We will develop service campus in 5 pilot areas – Corsham, Melksham, Pewsey, Tisbury and Wootton Bassett and we will explore new ways to deliver services in these campus by involving local communities and giving them influence in the development and running of the community services in their area.

Successful delivery of this ambitious business plan will be based on good management and by ensuring that our business and organisational structure is fit for purpose.

We will deliver our programme of investment by reducing our management costs by £8 million – this has already been achieved with 220 managers taking voluntary redundancy.

We will make £36 million by reducing the costs of purchasing our goods and services and a further £6.7 million net through our workplace transformation programme.

By transforming our services and reviewing how we do things we will save £47 million. We will look at each service from a customer point of view, determine exactly what they need rather what we think they need and eliminate any current waste and beaucracy

I am not aware of any other council making this level of investment and transforming how they work to improve their local communities.

Wiltshire is in a unique place and our plan is ambitious, but realistic. We are confident that we are well placed to deliver a new and exciting local government that

Page 10 8 will shift the roles between public sector and community – we want to support our communities to be able to help themselves and improve the quality of life and economy of Wiltshire in these difficult times and beyond.

We know we can make Wiltshire a better place by building on the strong foundations that we have in place. We see the next few years as a real opportunity to deliver improvements and the biggest cultural change ever seen in local government.

Next year’s budget is the most difficult of the 4 years as we have to make changes quickly and, having focused on the next four years, I will now focus on the proposals for 2011/12.

Our intentions are to continue;

To provide high quality, low cost, customer focused services We must provide the services Wiltshire needs, to the standard that residents want, and give value for money. Our customers must be the starting point for our services so that we know that what we are providing is what they want and need.

To ensure local, open and honest decision-making We want people to have a real say on decisions that affect them and their communities. They must be able to influence those decisions and be part of the decision making process. Our 18 community areas have been a success and we will build on that success.

To work with our partners to support Wiltshire’s communities We will work closely with our customers and communities to resolve issues and challenges. We will also work with the voluntary sector, businesses and other public organisations such as the NHS, the homes’ and communities’ agency, emergency services and the justice system. By doing so, we can be more effective and achieve so much more.

And so what do we have in the budget we are considering today to meet these intentions.

Page 11 9

We start from knowing that the funding settlement means that we will receive a net £16.4 million less than last year. And yet with the savings we will make, we will, unlike most other authorities, make considerable investments in Wiltshire’s future. We will invest over £8 million in the protection of vulnerable adults and children. We will put £1 million into the economy.

We will invest £2.5 million into our policy for waste management and recycling, over £1 million into energy efficiency, over £300 thousand into leisure facilities and over £300 thousand into providing high speed broadband to assist the business community.

In providing a net £3 million for inflation redundancies and reserves, we will be making a total investment in Wiltshire of some £18.8 million. So we have needed to find an additional £33.1 million to fund our ambitious and bold plans for investing in Wiltshire’s future.

We are grateful to central government for recognising the difficulties all councils faced in such hard times to keep council tax low. We believe this is vital to the sustainability of our communities and intend to freeze council tax in 2011/12 and welcome the government’s funding for this

But in order to protect those services, which our residents have told us, are the most important to them and to keep council tax rises to a minimum in the future, we have had to take a number of difficult decisions. I did not enter politics to make cuts and I am proud our proposals are not as drastic as you will have seen across other parts of the country. Nevertheless, to deliver a robust and sound budget we have had to put forward £33.1 million pounds of saving proposals. These include increasing a number of charges to the less vital of the services we provide. We will reduce the opening hours of our libraries but, unlike other councils, we will not close any. We will reduce the hours our leisure centres are open but have taken notice of the hours in which they are most used; and we will only close those that are little used.

Page 12 10 Of course some charges are being raised above the current inflation rate but I believe they are not unduly burdensome. I know that residents will understand that in the present economic climate some discretionary services will have to cost more. This is the price we have to pay for 12 years of a labour government.

You will all have had the opportunity to study the administration’s budget proposals in detail and I will not waste time in going over that detail. Unlike whatever proposals the opposition have in mind, we have made ours public for all to see, and comment upon, in line with our commitment to transparency.

It has not been an easy or comfortable year. The necessary reduction in the number of posts has meant losing so many staff that have given loyal and valuable service to the council and I have personally regretted having to say goodbye to many officers that I, and my Cabinet, have worked closely with and valued their expertise and commitment.

In many cases these redundancies have placed an additional burden on the remaining staff and they are due our most grateful thanks for the manner in which they have responded in the recent difficult months.

The Corporate Management Team have been magnificent in their commitment to see Wiltshire through these difficult years ahead and my grateful thanks are due to them all. I wish to add my particular thanks to Michael Hudson and his team for unravelling the complex messages and detail that have been received from government affecting our financial position and ability to fix a sound budget. It is to his, and his team’s, credit that I can propose such a sound budget for the year ahead and one which I believe will maintain our front line services in better shape than other councils as well as provide significant investment in the future of our county and I commend it to the Council.

Jane Scott Leader, Wiltshire Council 22 February 2011

Page 13 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police A BC D EFG H Council Rescue Parish Aldbourne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.63 978.14 1,141.17 1,304.18 1,467.21 1,793.25 2,119.30 2,445.35 2,934.42 Alderbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.08 984.44 1,148.52 1,312.58 1,476.66 1,804.80 2,132.95 2,461.10 2,953.32 All Cannings 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.68 984.84 1,148.98 1,313.12 1,477.26 1,805.54 2,133.81 2,462.10 2,954.52 Allington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 41.73 989.54 1,154.47 1,319.38 1,484.31 1,814.15 2,144.00 2,473.85 2,968.62 Alton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.36 974.63 1,137.07 1,299.50 1,461.94 1,786.81 2,111.68 2,436.57 2,923.88 Alvediston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Amesbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 47.14 993.15 1,158.67 1,324.19 1,489.72 1,820.77 2,151.81 2,482.87 2,979.44 Ansty 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.49 973.38 1,135.61 1,297.84 1,460.07 1,784.53 2,108.98 2,433.45 2,920.14 Ashton Keynes 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 48.27 993.90 1,159.55 1,325.20 1,490.85 1,822.15 2,153.44 2,484.75 2,981.70 Atworth 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 28.27 980.57 1,144.00 1,307.42 1,470.85 1,797.70 2,124.55 2,451.42 2,941.70 Avebury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 47.98 993.71 1,159.33 1,324.94 1,490.56 1,821.79 2,153.02 2,484.27 2,981.12 Barford St Martin 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 33.65 984.15 1,148.18 1,312.20 1,476.23 1,804.28 2,132.33 2,460.38 2,952.46 Baydon 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.73 984.87 1,149.02 1,313.16 1,477.31 1,805.60 2,133.89 2,462.18 2,954.62

Page 15 Beechingstoke 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Berwick Bassett & W/Bourne Monkton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 6.17 965.83 1,126.81 1,287.77 1,448.75 1,770.69 2,092.63 2,414.58 2,897.50 Berwick St James 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 9.66 968.16 1,129.52 1,290.88 1,452.24 1,774.96 2,097.67 2,420.40 2,904.48 Berwick St John 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 23.40 977.32 1,140.21 1,303.09 1,465.98 1,791.75 2,117.52 2,443.30 2,931.96 Berwick St Leonard 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Biddestone 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 28.51 980.73 1,144.18 1,307.63 1,471.09 1,798.00 2,124.90 2,451.82 2,942.18 Bishops Cannings 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.71 974.86 1,137.34 1,299.81 1,462.29 1,787.24 2,112.19 2,437.15 2,924.58 Bishopstone 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.97 973.70 1,135.99 1,298.26 1,460.55 1,785.11 2,109.68 2,434.25 2,921.10 Bishopstrow 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 14.65 971.49 1,133.40 1,295.31 1,457.23 1,781.06 2,104.88 2,428.72 2,914.46 Bowerchalke 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.30 978.59 1,141.69 1,304.78 1,467.88 1,794.07 2,120.26 2,446.47 2,935.76 Box 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 76.16 1,012.49 1,181.25 1,349.99 1,518.74 1,856.23 2,193.73 2,531.23 3,037.48 Boyton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 7.01 966.39 1,127.46 1,288.52 1,449.59 1,771.72 2,093.85 2,415.98 2,899.18 Bradford On Avon 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 89.02 1,021.07 1,191.25 1,361.42 1,531.60 1,871.95 2,212.30 2,552.67 3,063.20 Bratton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 47.60 993.45 1,159.03 1,324.60 1,490.18 1,821.33 2,152.48 2,483.63 2,980.36 Braydon 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Bremhill 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 10.76 968.89 1,130.38 1,291.85 1,453.34 1,776.30 2,099.26 2,422.23 2,906.68 Brinkworth 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 27.23 979.87 1,143.19 1,306.49 1,469.81 1,796.43 2,123.05 2,449.68 2,939.62

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Britford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 2.90 963.65 1,124.27 1,284.87 1,445.48 1,766.69 2,087.91 2,409.13 2,890.96 Broad Hinton & W/Bourne Bassett 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 13.95 971.02 1,132.86 1,294.69 1,456.53 1,780.20 2,103.87 2,427.55 2,913.06 Broad Town 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 12.38 969.97 1,131.64 1,293.29 1,454.96 1,778.28 2,101.60 2,424.93 2,909.92 Broadchalke 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.59 974.11 1,136.47 1,298.81 1,461.17 1,785.87 2,110.57 2,435.28 2,922.34 Brokenborough 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 13.14 970.48 1,132.23 1,293.97 1,455.72 1,779.21 2,102.70 2,426.20 2,911.44 Bromham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 43.50 990.72 1,155.84 1,320.96 1,486.08 1,816.32 2,146.55 2,476.80 2,972.16 Broughton Gifford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.46 974.03 1,136.37 1,298.70 1,461.04 1,785.71 2,110.38 2,435.07 2,922.08 Bulford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 36.94 986.35 1,150.74 1,315.13 1,479.52 1,808.30 2,137.08 2,465.87 2,959.04 Bulkington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 36.24 985.88 1,150.20 1,314.50 1,478.82 1,807.44 2,136.07 2,464.70 2,957.64 Burbage 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 42.01 989.73 1,154.68 1,319.63 1,484.59 1,814.50 2,144.40 2,474.32 2,969.18 Burcombe 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 20.50 975.39 1,137.95 1,300.51 1,463.08 1,788.21 2,113.33 2,438.47 2,926.16 Buttermere 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16

Page 16 Calne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 201.94 1,096.35 1,279.07 1,461.79 1,644.52 2,009.97 2,375.41 2,740.87 3,289.04 Calne Without 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 5.31 965.26 1,126.14 1,287.01 1,447.89 1,769.64 2,091.39 2,413.15 2,895.78 Castle Combe 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.93 978.34 1,141.40 1,304.45 1,467.51 1,793.62 2,119.73 2,445.85 2,935.02 Chapmanslade 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.00 972.39 1,134.45 1,296.51 1,458.58 1,782.71 2,106.83 2,430.97 2,917.16 Charlton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 20.13 975.14 1,137.67 1,300.18 1,462.71 1,787.75 2,112.80 2,437.85 2,925.42 Charlton St Peter & Wilsford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 9.19 967.85 1,129.16 1,290.46 1,451.77 1,774.38 2,096.99 2,419.62 2,903.54 Cherhill 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.56 972.09 1,134.11 1,296.12 1,458.14 1,782.17 2,106.20 2,430.23 2,916.28 Cheverell Magna (Great Cheverell) 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 31.63 982.81 1,146.61 1,310.41 1,474.21 1,801.81 2,129.41 2,457.02 2,948.42 Chicklade 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Chilmark 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 26.90 979.65 1,142.93 1,306.20 1,469.48 1,796.03 2,122.58 2,449.13 2,938.96 Chilton Foliat 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.68 981.51 1,145.09 1,308.67 1,472.26 1,799.43 2,126.59 2,453.77 2,944.52 Chippenham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 131.56 1,049.43 1,224.33 1,399.23 1,574.14 1,923.95 2,273.75 2,623.57 3,148.28 Chippenham Without 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 37.72 986.87 1,151.35 1,315.82 1,480.30 1,809.25 2,138.20 2,467.17 2,960.60 Chirton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 11.36 969.29 1,130.85 1,292.39 1,453.94 1,777.03 2,100.13 2,423.23 2,907.88 Chitterne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 41.70 989.52 1,154.44 1,319.36 1,484.28 1,814.12 2,143.95 2,473.80 2,968.56 Cholderton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 39.43 988.01 1,152.68 1,317.34 1,482.01 1,811.34 2,140.67 2,470.02 2,964.02 Christian Malford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.49 978.05 1,141.06 1,304.06 1,467.07 1,793.08 2,119.09 2,445.12 2,934.14 Chute 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.90 984.99 1,149.15 1,313.31 1,477.48 1,805.81 2,134.13 2,462.47 2,954.96

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Chute Forest 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 30.29 981.91 1,145.57 1,309.21 1,472.87 1,800.17 2,127.47 2,454.78 2,945.74 Clarendon Park 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 5.36 965.29 1,126.18 1,287.05 1,447.94 1,769.70 2,091.46 2,413.23 2,895.88 Clyffe Pypard 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 8.50 967.39 1,128.62 1,289.85 1,451.08 1,773.54 2,096.00 2,418.47 2,902.16 Codford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.70 972.19 1,134.22 1,296.25 1,458.28 1,782.34 2,106.40 2,430.47 2,916.56 Colerne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 48.44 994.01 1,159.69 1,325.35 1,491.02 1,822.35 2,153.69 2,485.03 2,982.04 Collingbourne Ducis 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 44.52 991.40 1,156.64 1,321.86 1,487.10 1,817.56 2,148.03 2,478.50 2,974.20 Collingbourne Kingston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 42.26 989.89 1,154.88 1,319.85 1,484.84 1,814.80 2,144.76 2,474.73 2,969.68 Compton Bassett 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.58 972.77 1,134.91 1,297.03 1,459.16 1,783.41 2,107.67 2,431.93 2,918.32 Compton Chamberlayne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 40.78 988.91 1,153.73 1,318.54 1,483.36 1,812.99 2,142.62 2,472.27 2,966.72 Coombe Bissett 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.87 984.97 1,149.13 1,313.29 1,477.45 1,805.77 2,134.09 2,462.42 2,954.90 Corsham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 116.68 1,039.51 1,212.76 1,386.01 1,559.26 1,905.76 2,252.26 2,598.77 3,118.52 Corsley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 12.96 970.36 1,132.09 1,293.81 1,455.54 1,778.99 2,102.44 2,425.90 2,911.08 Coulston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.69 978.18 1,141.21 1,304.24 1,467.27 1,793.33 2,119.38 2,445.45 2,934.54

Page 17 Cricklade 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 146.48 1,059.37 1,235.94 1,412.49 1,589.06 1,942.18 2,295.30 2,648.43 3,178.12 Crudwell 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 28.32 980.60 1,144.04 1,307.46 1,470.90 1,797.76 2,124.63 2,451.50 2,941.80 Dauntsey 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 27.26 979.89 1,143.21 1,306.52 1,469.84 1,796.47 2,123.10 2,449.73 2,939.68 Devizes 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 104.80 1,031.59 1,203.52 1,375.45 1,547.38 1,891.24 2,235.10 2,578.97 3,094.76 Dilton Marsh 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 26.59 979.45 1,142.69 1,305.93 1,469.17 1,795.65 2,122.13 2,448.62 2,938.34 Dinton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 33.32 983.93 1,147.93 1,311.91 1,475.90 1,803.87 2,131.85 2,459.83 2,951.80 Donhead St Andrew 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.12 971.80 1,133.77 1,295.73 1,457.70 1,781.63 2,105.56 2,429.50 2,915.40 Donhead St Mary 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.13 978.47 1,141.56 1,304.63 1,467.71 1,793.86 2,120.02 2,446.18 2,935.42 Downton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 30.67 982.17 1,145.86 1,309.55 1,473.25 1,800.64 2,128.02 2,455.42 2,946.50 Durnford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 11.11 969.13 1,130.65 1,292.17 1,453.69 1,776.73 2,099.77 2,422.82 2,907.38 Durrington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 47.86 993.63 1,159.23 1,324.83 1,490.44 1,821.65 2,152.85 2,484.07 2,980.88 East Kennett 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 East Knoyle 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 20.72 975.53 1,138.13 1,300.71 1,463.30 1,788.47 2,113.65 2,438.83 2,926.60 Easterton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 52.49 996.71 1,162.84 1,328.95 1,495.07 1,827.30 2,159.54 2,491.78 2,990.14 Easton Grey 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Easton Royal 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 35.84 985.61 1,149.89 1,314.15 1,478.42 1,806.95 2,135.49 2,464.03 2,956.84 Ebbesbourne Wake 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.23 972.54 1,134.63 1,296.72 1,458.81 1,782.99 2,107.16 2,431.35 2,917.62

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Edington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.42 973.33 1,135.56 1,297.77 1,460.00 1,784.44 2,108.88 2,433.33 2,920.00 Enford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.70 981.52 1,145.11 1,308.69 1,472.28 1,799.45 2,126.62 2,453.80 2,944.56 Erlestoke 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 57.05 999.75 1,166.38 1,333.00 1,499.63 1,832.88 2,166.13 2,499.38 2,999.26 Etchilhampton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.60 974.79 1,137.25 1,299.71 1,462.18 1,787.11 2,112.03 2,436.97 2,924.36 Everleigh 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.70 984.85 1,149.00 1,313.13 1,477.28 1,805.56 2,133.84 2,462.13 2,954.56 Figheldean 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 63.00 1,003.72 1,171.01 1,338.29 1,505.58 1,840.15 2,174.72 2,509.30 3,011.16 Firsdown 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 21.44 976.01 1,138.69 1,301.35 1,464.02 1,789.35 2,114.69 2,440.03 2,928.04 Fittleton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 37.63 986.81 1,151.28 1,315.74 1,480.21 1,809.14 2,138.07 2,467.02 2,960.42 Fonthill Bishop 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Fonthill Gifford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 23.87 977.63 1,140.58 1,303.51 1,466.45 1,792.32 2,118.20 2,444.08 2,932.90 Fovant 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.79 974.91 1,137.40 1,299.88 1,462.37 1,787.34 2,112.31 2,437.28 2,924.74 Froxfield 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.80 981.59 1,145.19 1,308.78 1,472.38 1,799.57 2,126.76 2,453.97 2,944.76

Page 18 Fyfield & West Overton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 22.77 976.90 1,139.72 1,302.53 1,465.35 1,790.98 2,116.61 2,442.25 2,930.70 Grafton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.64 972.81 1,134.95 1,297.08 1,459.22 1,783.49 2,107.76 2,432.03 2,918.44 Great Bedwyn 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.27 978.57 1,141.66 1,304.75 1,467.85 1,794.04 2,120.22 2,446.42 2,935.70 Great Hinton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.10 973.79 1,136.09 1,298.38 1,460.68 1,785.27 2,109.86 2,434.47 2,921.36 Great Somerford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.28 973.91 1,136.23 1,298.54 1,460.86 1,785.49 2,110.12 2,434.77 2,921.72 Great Wishford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.36 973.29 1,135.51 1,297.72 1,459.94 1,784.37 2,108.80 2,433.23 2,919.88 Grimstead 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 12.95 970.35 1,132.08 1,293.80 1,455.53 1,778.98 2,102.43 2,425.88 2,911.06 Grittleton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 14.75 971.55 1,133.48 1,295.40 1,457.33 1,781.18 2,105.03 2,428.88 2,914.66 Ham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.64 972.15 1,134.17 1,296.19 1,458.22 1,782.27 2,106.31 2,430.37 2,916.44 Hankerton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 23.37 977.30 1,140.19 1,303.06 1,465.95 1,791.71 2,117.48 2,443.25 2,931.90 Heddington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 13.92 971.00 1,132.84 1,294.66 1,456.50 1,780.16 2,103.83 2,427.50 2,913.00 Heytesbury & Knook 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 26.08 979.11 1,142.29 1,305.47 1,468.66 1,795.03 2,121.39 2,447.77 2,937.32 Heywood 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 12.25 969.89 1,131.54 1,293.18 1,454.83 1,778.12 2,101.41 2,424.72 2,909.66 Hilmarton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.69 978.18 1,141.21 1,304.24 1,467.27 1,793.33 2,119.38 2,445.45 2,934.54 Hilperton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 11.99 969.71 1,131.34 1,292.95 1,454.57 1,777.80 2,101.04 2,424.28 2,909.14 Hindon 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 32.18 983.17 1,147.04 1,310.89 1,474.76 1,802.48 2,130.20 2,457.93 2,949.52 Holt 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.43 978.01 1,141.01 1,304.01 1,467.01 1,793.01 2,119.01 2,445.02 2,934.02 Horningsham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 53.19 997.18 1,163.38 1,329.57 1,495.77 1,828.16 2,160.55 2,492.95 2,991.54

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wi ltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Hullavington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.46 984.69 1,148.81 1,312.92 1,477.04 1,805.27 2,133.50 2,461.73 2,954.08 Idmiston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.28 977.91 1,140.89 1,303.87 1,466.86 1,792.83 2,118.79 2,444.77 2,933.72 Keevil 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.23 978.54 1,141.63 1,304.72 1,467.81 1,793.99 2,120.16 2,446.35 2,935.62 Kilmington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.88 978.97 1,142.14 1,305.29 1,468.46 1,794.78 2,121.10 2,447.43 2,936.92 Kington Langley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 52.31 996.59 1,162.70 1,328.79 1,494.89 1,827.08 2,159.28 2,491.48 2,989.78 Kington St Michael 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 37.98 987.04 1,151.55 1,316.05 1,480.56 1,809.57 2,138.58 2,467.60 2,961.12 Lacock 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 22.27 976.57 1,139.33 1,302.09 1,464.85 1,790.37 2,115.89 2,441.42 2,929.70 Landford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 31.19 982.51 1,146.27 1,310.01 1,473.77 1,801.27 2,128.77 2,456.28 2,947.54 Langley Burrell 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 30.13 981.81 1,145.44 1,309.07 1,472.71 1,799.98 2,127.24 2,454.52 2,945.42 Latton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 23.40 977.32 1,140.21 1,303.09 1,465.98 1,791.75 2,117.52 2,443.30 2,931.96 Laverstock & Ford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 10.78 968.91 1,130.39 1,291.87 1,453.36 1,776.33 2,099.29 2,422.27 2,906.72 Lea & Cleverton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 21.78 976.24 1,138.95 1,301.65 1,464.36 1,789.77 2,115.18 2,440.60 2,928.72 Leigh 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.32 977.93 1,140.93 1,303.91 1,466.90 1,792.87 2,118.85 2,444.83 2,933.80

Page 19 Limpley Stoke 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 37.29 986.58 1,151.01 1,315.44 1,479.87 1,808.73 2,137.58 2,466.45 2,959.74 Little Bedwyn 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.89 972.31 1,134.37 1,296.41 1,458.47 1,782.57 2,106.67 2,430.78 2,916.94 Little Cheverell 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 27.53 980.07 1,143.42 1,306.76 1,470.11 1,796.80 2,123.49 2,450.18 2,940.22 Little Somerford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.27 977.90 1,140.89 1,303.86 1,466.85 1,792.81 2,118.78 2,444.75 2,933.70 Longbridge Deverill 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 10.04 968.41 1,129.82 1,291.21 1,452.62 1,775.42 2,098.22 2,421.03 2,905.24 Luckington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.36 972.63 1,134.73 1,296.83 1,458.94 1,783.15 2,107.35 2,431.57 2,917.88 Ludgershall 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 66.49 1,006.05 1,173.72 1,341.39 1,509.07 1,844.42 2,179.76 2,515.12 3,018.14 Lydiard Millicent 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.74 974.21 1,136.59 1,298.95 1,461.32 1,786.05 2,110.79 2,435.53 2,922.64 Lydiard Tregoze 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 32.12 983.13 1,146.99 1,310.84 1,474.70 1,802.41 2,130.12 2,457.83 2,949.40 Lyneham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.79 974.91 1,137.40 1,299.88 1,462.37 1,787.34 2,112.31 2,437.28 2,924.74 Maiden Bradley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 72.90 1,010.32 1,178.71 1,347.09 1,515.48 1,852.25 2,189.02 2,525.80 3,030.96 Malmesbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 169.11 1,074.46 1,253.54 1,432.61 1,611.69 1,969.84 2,327.99 2,686.15 3,223.38 Manningford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.09 984.45 1,148.52 1,312.59 1,476.67 1,804.82 2,132.96 2,461.12 2,953.34 Marden 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 6.12 965.80 1,126.77 1,287.73 1,448.70 1,770.63 2,092.56 2,414.50 2,897.40 Market Lavington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 53.97 997.70 1,163.99 1,330.26 1,496.55 1,829.11 2,161.68 2,494.25 2,993.10 Marlborough 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 119.41 1,041.33 1,214.88 1,388.43 1,561.99 1,909.10 2,256.20 2,603.32 3,123.98 Marston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.34 977.95 1,140.94 1,303.93 1,466.92 1,792.90 2,118.88 2,444.87 2,933.84

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Marston Meysey 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 20.08 975.11 1,137.63 1,300.14 1,462.66 1,787.69 2,112.72 2,437.77 2,925.32 Melksham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 68.42 1,007.33 1,175.23 1,343.11 1,511.00 1,846.77 2,182.55 2,518.33 3,022.00 Melksham Without 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 37.51 986.73 1,151.18 1,315.63 1,480.09 1,809.00 2,137.90 2,466.82 2,960.18 Mere 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 72.32 1,009.93 1,178.26 1,346.57 1,514.90 1,851.54 2,188.18 2,524.83 3,029.80 Mildenhall 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.41 981.33 1,144.88 1,308.43 1,471.99 1,799.10 2,126.20 2,453.32 2,943.98 Milston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 14.37 971.30 1,133.19 1,295.06 1,456.95 1,780.71 2,104.48 2,428.25 2,913.90 Milton Lilbourne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 26.94 979.68 1,142.96 1,306.24 1,469.52 1,796.08 2,122.63 2,449.20 2,939.04 Minety 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.89 973.65 1,135.92 1,298.19 1,460.47 1,785.02 2,109.56 2,434.12 2,920.94 Monkton Farleigh 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 22.23 976.54 1,139.30 1,302.05 1,464.81 1,790.32 2,115.83 2,441.35 2,929.62 Netheravon 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 47.67 993.50 1,159.09 1,324.66 1,490.25 1,821.41 2,152.58 2,483.75 2,980.50 Netherhampton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 9.06 967.76 1,129.06 1,290.34 1,451.64 1,774.22 2,096.81 2,419.40 2,903.28 Nettleton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 10.55 968.75 1,130.22 1,291.67 1,453.13 1,776.04 2,098.96 2,421.88 2,906.26

Page 20 Newton Toney 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 39.06 987.76 1,152.39 1,317.01 1,481.64 1,810.89 2,140.14 2,469.40 2,963.28 North Bradley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 11.82 969.60 1,131.20 1,292.80 1,454.40 1,777.60 2,100.79 2,424.00 2,908.80 North Newnton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.23 971.87 1,133.86 1,295.83 1,457.81 1,781.76 2,105.72 2,429.68 2,915.62 North Wraxall 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 9.92 968.33 1,129.73 1,291.11 1,452.50 1,775.27 2,098.05 2,420.83 2,905.00 Norton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Norton Bavant 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Oaksey 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 53.26 997.23 1,163.43 1,329.63 1,495.84 1,828.25 2,160.65 2,493.07 2,991.68 Odstock 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.69 984.85 1,148.99 1,313.13 1,477.27 1,805.55 2,133.83 2,462.12 2,954.54 Ogbourne St Andrew 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.18 971.84 1,133.82 1,295.78 1,457.76 1,781.70 2,105.65 2,429.60 2,915.52 Ogbourne St George 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 22.35 976.62 1,139.39 1,302.16 1,464.93 1,790.47 2,116.00 2,441.55 2,929.86 Orcheston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.86 972.96 1,135.12 1,297.28 1,459.44 1,783.76 2,108.07 2,432.40 2,918.88 Patney 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 7.38 966.64 1,127.75 1,288.85 1,449.96 1,772.17 2,094.38 2,416.60 2,899.92 Pewsey 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 57.19 999.85 1,166.49 1,333.13 1,499.77 1,833.05 2,166.33 2,499.62 2,999.54 Pitton & Farley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.56 974.09 1,136.45 1,298.79 1,461.14 1,785.83 2,110.53 2,435.23 2,922.28 Potterne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.66 978.16 1,141.19 1,304.21 1,467.24 1,793.29 2,119.34 2,445.40 2,934.48 Poulshot 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 32.75 983.55 1,147.48 1,311.40 1,475.33 1,803.18 2,131.03 2,458.88 2,950.66 Preshute 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.01 978.39 1,141.46 1,304.52 1,467.59 1,793.72 2,119.85 2,445.98 2,935.18 Purton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 97.71 1,026.86 1,198.01 1,369.14 1,540.29 1,882.57 2,224.86 2,567.15 3,080.58

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Quidhampton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 27.13 979.81 1,143.11 1,306.41 1,469.71 1,796.31 2,122.91 2,449.52 2,939.42 Ramsbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 38.04 987.08 1,151.60 1,316.10 1,480.62 1,809.64 2,138.67 2,467.70 2,961.24 Redlynch 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.24 974.55 1,136.97 1,299.39 1,461.82 1,786.67 2,111.51 2,436.37 2,923.64 Roundway 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 30.22 981.87 1,145.51 1,309.15 1,472.80 1,800.09 2,127.37 2,454.67 2,945.60 Rowde 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 57.96 1,000.36 1,167.09 1,333.81 1,500.54 1,833.99 2,167.44 2,500.90 3,001.08 Rushall 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 27.52 980.07 1,143.41 1,306.75 1,470.10 1,796.79 2,123.47 2,450.17 2,940.20 Salisbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 85.00 1,018.39 1,188.12 1,357.85 1,527.58 1,867.04 2,206.50 2,545.97 3,055.16 Savernake 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 7.35 966.62 1,127.73 1,288.82 1,449.93 1,772.13 2,094.34 2,416.55 2,899.86 Seagry 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 52.96 997.03 1,163.20 1,329.37 1,495.54 1,827.88 2,160.22 2,492.57 2,991.08 Sedgehill & Semley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.19 973.85 1,136.16 1,298.46 1,460.77 1,785.38 2,109.99 2,434.62 2,921.54 Seend 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.30 973.92 1,136.24 1,298.56 1,460.88 1,785.52 2,110.15 2,434.80 2,921.76 Semington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.78 974.91 1,137.39 1,299.87 1,462.36 1,787.33 2,112.29 2,437.27 2,924.72 Shalbourne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16

Page 21 Sherrington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Sherston 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 31.53 982.74 1,146.53 1,310.32 1,474.11 1,801.69 2,129.26 2,456.85 2,948.22 Shrewton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 23.45 977.35 1,140.25 1,303.13 1,466.03 1,791.81 2,117.59 2,443.38 2,932.06 Sopworth 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 8.33 967.27 1,128.49 1,289.69 1,450.91 1,773.33 2,095.75 2,418.18 2,901.82 South Newton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.88 974.31 1,136.69 1,299.07 1,461.46 1,786.23 2,110.99 2,435.77 2,922.92 South Wraxall 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 14.34 971.28 1,133.16 1,295.04 1,456.92 1,780.68 2,104.43 2,428.20 2,913.84 Southwick 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.83 974.94 1,137.43 1,299.92 1,462.41 1,787.39 2,112.36 2,437.35 2,924.82 St Paul Without 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 11.57 969.43 1,131.01 1,292.57 1,454.15 1,777.29 2,100.43 2,423.58 2,908.30 Stanton St Bernard 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.70 973.52 1,135.78 1,298.02 1,460.28 1,784.78 2,109.29 2,433.80 2,920.56 Stanton St Quintin 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 16.88 972.97 1,135.14 1,297.29 1,459.46 1,783.78 2,108.10 2,432.43 2,918.92 Stapleford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 27.28 979.91 1,143.23 1,306.54 1,469.86 1,796.49 2,123.12 2,449.77 2,939.72 Staverton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.72 981.53 1,145.13 1,308.71 1,472.30 1,799.47 2,126.65 2,453.83 2,944.60 Steeple Ashton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 44.86 991.63 1,156.90 1,322.17 1,487.44 1,817.98 2,148.52 2,479.07 2,974.88 Steeple Langford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 20.06 975.09 1,137.61 1,300.12 1,462.64 1,787.67 2,112.70 2,437.73 2,925.28 Stert 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 10.00 968.39 1,129.79 1,291.18 1,452.58 1,775.37 2,098.16 2,420.97 2,905.16 Stockton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 5.04 965.08 1,125.93 1,286.77 1,447.62 1,769.31 2,091.00 2,412.70 2,895.24 Stourton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 13.74 970.88 1,132.70 1,294.50 1,456.32 1,779.94 2,103.57 2,427.20 2,912.64

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Stratford Toney 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Sutton Benger 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.95 972.35 1,134.42 1,296.47 1,458.53 1,782.64 2,106.76 2,430.88 2,917.06 Sutton Mandeville 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 6.54 966.08 1,127.10 1,288.10 1,449.12 1,771.14 2,093.17 2,415.20 2,898.24 Sutton Veny 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 31.30 982.59 1,146.35 1,310.11 1,473.88 1,801.41 2,128.93 2,456.47 2,947.76 Swallowcliffe 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 14.49 971.38 1,133.28 1,295.17 1,457.07 1,780.86 2,104.65 2,428.45 2,914.14 Teffont 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 48.62 994.13 1,159.83 1,325.51 1,491.20 1,822.57 2,153.95 2,485.33 2,982.40 Tidcombe & Fosbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 0.00 961.72 1,122.01 1,282.29 1,442.58 1,763.15 2,083.72 2,404.30 2,885.16 Tidworth 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 66.89 1,006.31 1,174.04 1,341.75 1,509.47 1,844.90 2,180.34 2,515.78 3,018.94 Tilshead 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 45.93 992.34 1,157.73 1,323.12 1,488.51 1,819.29 2,150.06 2,480.85 2,977.02 Tisbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 42.39 989.98 1,154.98 1,319.97 1,484.97 1,814.96 2,144.95 2,474.95 2,969.94 Tockenham 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.98 978.37 1,141.44 1,304.49 1,467.56 1,793.68 2,119.80 2,445.93 2,935.12 Tollard Royal 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 46.94 993.01 1,158.52 1,324.01 1,489.52 1,820.52 2,151.52 2,482.53 2,979.04

Page 22 Trowbridge 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 114.71 1,038.19 1,211.23 1,384.25 1,557.29 1,903.35 2,249.41 2,595.48 3,114.58 Upavon 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.54 981.41 1,144.99 1,308.55 1,472.12 1,799.25 2,126.39 2,453.53 2,944.24 Upper Deverills 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 34.94 985.01 1,149.19 1,313.35 1,477.52 1,805.85 2,134.19 2,462.53 2,955.04 Upton Lovell 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 28.61 980.79 1,144.26 1,307.72 1,471.19 1,798.12 2,125.05 2,451.98 2,942.38 Upton Scudamore 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.42 974.67 1,137.11 1,299.55 1,462.00 1,786.89 2,111.77 2,436.67 2,924.00 Urchfont 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 53.58 997.44 1,163.68 1,329.92 1,496.16 1,828.64 2,161.11 2,493.60 2,992.32 Warminster 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 72.06 1,009.76 1,178.06 1,346.34 1,514.64 1,851.22 2,187.81 2,524.40 3,029.28 West Ashton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 13.22 970.53 1,132.29 1,294.04 1,455.80 1,779.31 2,102.82 2,426.33 2,911.60 West Dean 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 38.83 987.61 1,152.21 1,316.81 1,481.41 1,810.61 2,139.81 2,469.02 2,962.82 West Knoyle 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 32.49 983.38 1,147.28 1,311.17 1,475.07 1,802.86 2,130.65 2,458.45 2,950.14 West Lavington 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 41.02 989.07 1,153.91 1,318.75 1,483.60 1,813.29 2,142.97 2,472.67 2,967.20 West Tisbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.52 972.07 1,134.08 1,296.09 1,458.10 1,782.12 2,106.14 2,430.17 2,916.20 Westbury 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 67.07 1,006.43 1,174.18 1,341.91 1,509.65 1,845.12 2,180.60 2,516.08 3,019.30 Westwood 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 21.02 975.73 1,138.36 1,300.97 1,463.60 1,788.84 2,114.08 2,439.33 2,927.20 Whiteparish 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 39.15 987.82 1,152.46 1,317.09 1,481.73 1,811.00 2,140.27 2,469.55 2,963.46 Wilcot & Huish 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 14.92 971.67 1,133.61 1,295.55 1,457.50 1,781.39 2,105.27 2,429.17 2,915.00 Wilsford-cum-Lake 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 6.80 966.25 1,127.30 1,288.33 1,449.38 1,771.46 2,093.54 2,415.63 2,898.76 Wilton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 76.62 1,012.80 1,181.60 1,350.40 1,519.20 1,856.80 2,194.39 2,532.00 3,038.40

Wiltshire Council Tax Levy 2011 -12 By Parish Appendix B

Band D £ Council Tax Bandings £ Wiltshire Fire & Town / Parish / Town Police AB CDEFGH Council Rescue Parish Wingfield 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 29.71 981.53 1,145.12 1,308.70 1,472.29 1,799.46 2,126.63 2,453.82 2,944.58 Winsley 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 15.34 971.95 1,133.94 1,295.93 1,457.92 1,781.90 2,105.88 2,429.87 2,915.84 Winterbourne 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 28.65 980.82 1,144.29 1,307.76 1,471.23 1,798.17 2,125.10 2,452.05 2,942.46 Winterbourne Stoke 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.99 978.38 1,141.45 1,304.50 1,467.57 1,793.69 2,119.82 2,445.95 2,935.14 Winterslow 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.19 978.51 1,141.60 1,304.68 1,467.77 1,793.94 2,120.11 2,446.28 2,935.54 Woodborough 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 8.48 967.37 1,128.61 1,289.83 1,451.06 1,773.51 2,095.97 2,418.43 2,902.12 Woodford 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 17.56 973.43 1,135.67 1,297.90 1,460.14 1,784.61 2,109.08 2,433.57 2,920.28 Wootton Bassett 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 186.78 1,086.24 1,267.28 1,448.32 1,629.36 1,991.44 2,353.51 2,715.60 3,258.72 Wootton Rivers 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 19.69 974.85 1,137.32 1,299.79 1,462.27 1,787.22 2,112.16 2,437.12 2,924.54 Worton 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 25.10 978.45 1,141.53 1,304.60 1,467.68 1,793.83 2,119.98 2,446.13 2,935.36 Wylye 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 24.30 977.92 1,140.91 1,303.89 1,466.88 1,792.85 2,118.82 2,444.80 2,933.76 Yatton Keynell 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 23.62 977.47 1,140.38 1,303.29 1,466.20 1,792.02 2,117.84 2,443.67 2,932.40 Zeals 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 18.18 973.84 1,136.15 1,298.45 1,460.76 1,785.37 2,109.98 2,434.60 2,921.52 Page 23 Averages / Totals 1,222.43 157.77 62.38 71.02 248,497.98 289,915.11 331,329.75 372,746.96 455,578.81 538,410.58 621,244.94 745,493.92

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 24 Minute Item 86 Appendix D

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

South Wiltshire Core Strategy – Review Of Housing And Employment Requirements

Questions From Councillor Ian Mclennan Laverstock, Ford & Old Sarum Division

To Councillor John Brady, Cabinet Member For Economic Development, Planning And Housing

Question 1

Page 129 of Council papers

Page 30 Strategic Objective 2

The requirements for South Wiltshire have dropped by 20%. There is a will in Government and amongst rural councillors, to permit some local building to house the young of their community.

Why does the document still insist that “Well over half the number will have been built in or around Salisbury”?

Answer

The role and function of Salisbury in terms of its level of services, employment and cultural facilities clearly indicates that it is the most sustainable location for growth within South Wiltshire, particularly when considered against the more rural nature of the other settlements within South Wiltshire.

A considerable level of growth is focused to the area outside of Salisbury (3,900 dwellings), which will enable housing development to take place in the more rural parts of the area.

Question 2

The first desired outcome states that the local character will be respected.

Why is the Parish of Laverstock & Ford not included in this desired outcome and why is a previously essential strategic gap separating two communities within the parish and part of a Conservation zone, now not worthy of retention at all?

Page 25 Appendix D

Answer

The recommended changes within the document to the Development Template for Hampton Part (SWCS, Appendix A, Page 143) place greater emphasis on the need to ensure an appropriate strategic gap between Ford and Salisbury, in order to respect the local character of Ford.

Salisbury City is a constrained environment with its administrative boundaries not covering the full extent of its urban area. Some of the future housing will need to be provided on the edge adjacent to its urban area. This means that development may need to take place in the neighbouring parish of Laverstock. The sites selected for growth have been subject to a rigorous appraisal process and are based on clear and credible evidence. These reasons must be based on sound planning reasons rather than the administrative boundary of the parish where they are located.

It is appreciated that any development could have an impact on local character but it is important that through sensitive design and landscaping local character is respected as much as possible.

Question 3

Page 130 of Council Papers

Desired outcomes – Relocation of businesses from Churchfields Estate to more unconstrained locations.

Why has the ideal relocation site for Churchfields – namely Netherhampton Road, been deleted entirely and the remote site of Longhedge – in the rural parish of Laverstock & Ford – been allocated 8 hectares of additional land, when none of the employment land allocated to Old Sarum (Next door), in the current Local Plan, has been used?

Answer

The review does not propose to change the employment land allocation of 8 hectares at Longhedge. In addition, available employment land currently exists in the Netherhampton area as well as at Old Sarum. The business community has clearly stated that a range of choice of decant sites is required, including land to the north of the City.

The ‘review’ clearly sets out the reappraisal of the sites and the rationale why the Netherhampton Road site is not the best option (see section 11 of the Topic Paper 20 review on site comparison). This process looks at a number of criteria cumulatively and there is no single reason which would explain why a site is ranked in the order it is.

Page 26 Appendix D

Question 4

Why has the ‘TOWN/ancient Capital’ Wilton been drastically cut from an allocation of 950 to 220, when representatives were calling out for development to save the town?

Answer

The review concludes that because of the strategic growth to the west of Salisbury (Fugglestone Red – 1250 dwellings, 8 hectares employment), together with the UKLF site at Wilton (450 dwellings, 3 hecatres employment), Salisbury and Wilton are best considered together (see paragraphs 9.8 to 9.14, Topic Paper 20). Simply put, Wilton and Salisbury have a special functional relationship and while it is important to recognise their individual characteristics, the relationship should be acknowledged.

There was local concern that the proposed housing numbers suggested for the Wilton CA Core Strategy and the reduction also recognises that outside of Wilton the Community Area is extremely rural in nature and with few larger villages has limited scope to accommodate modest new development.

Question 5

Why are Alderbury, Coombe Bissett, Pitton, Whiteparish and the Winterslows depicted as having Downton as a service centre, when there is no natural relationship at all? Why is Laverstock & Ford Parish not mentioned in its own right and described only as “Settlements located in the northern part of the community area”?

Answer

This is based on the established Community Areas. The functional relationship of settlements is mentioned in paragraph 9.2 of the draft Core Strategy (submission draft) which mentions the strong functional influence of Salisbury on this Community Area. It should be borne in mind that the review has a narrow focus based on assessing implications of locally derived growth figures, a remit agreed with the Inspector. The role of Downton, as a Local Service Centre, has not therefore been reconsidered through the review. However, the settlement hierarchy was discussed at EIP and the Inspector will draw his own conclusions on this matter.

Question 6

Page 132 council papers

Page 27 Appendix D

Page 49 Core Policy 2 Strategic Allocations

There are only four major greenfield sites allocated in the whole of South Wiltshire. How can having two allocated in one rural parish (Laverstock & Ford) be either fair or justifiable?

Answer

This has been justified through the objective scrutiny of the alternative options available to identify the best (least worse options) for development. Salisbury is a highly constrained environment and sound planning reasons, based on evidence, have been used to determine, which sites should come forward during this plan period (see response to question 2 above). The location of two sites in one parish is not in itself a reason that can be used to justify the reduction in the level of growth in an area.

The sites identified in Laverstock and Ford Parish will serve Salisbury. While this is unfortunate it is a consequence of the relationship between the Parish and the City. Furthermore, this strategic growth will not impact on Laverstock village itself.

Question 7

As a result of the proposed allocations Laverstock & Ford Parish – largely rural until the last Local Plan – is targeted for 950 dwellings + 8 hectares of additional Employment land and the removal of most of its green space. This is in addition to the 850 dwellings and several hectares of Employment land, absorbed in the current Local plan. Given that 474 of the dwellings are yet to be built and none of the Employment land has been used, this burden is far to great for a single parish to be allocated. Given the complete unfairness and blatant disregard for local representation, will the cabinet member explain how he is able to support this undoubted rape of a single parish and loss of its entire character?

Answer

The dwellings are planned as urban extensions to Salisbury, which has insufficient land within it restricted boundary. The site identification process has been based on an objective assessment of the landscape and constraints around Salisbury. Although two of the new sites fall within the Parish, the evidence is clear that they represent two of the best of the few options open to us. Careful design of the proposed developments and securing the planning gain (such as the large area of open space to be gifted to the community at Hampton Park), will be important to ensure that high quality outcomes can be delivered, including much needed affordable housing.

Page 28 Appendix D

Question 8

Apart from an orchestrated petitioning by people living, in many cases, miles from the site, what are the reasons that the ideal expansion of Netherhampton Road to accommodate dwellings and Churchfields relocation has been removed from the Core Strategy?

Answer

As mentioned (see response to question 3) the sites were selected using an evidence based approach and have been reviewed and ranked using objective criteria, as set out in the review document. That document sets out the reasons why Netherhampton Road was in environmental terms the least best of the sites. As the revised housing figures suggest that we do not need all of the strategic allocations at this time, it was logical to remove this one and identify it as a reserve site to come forward in the longer term if required. The evidence did not correlate with your view that the site represents an ‘ideal expansion’.

Question 9

Page 133 Council Papers

Page 145-7 Core Strategy Hampton Park Development

Place Shaping Requirements:

“Defining the Strategic Gap between the development and the settlement of Ford”

How can that statement be meaningful, whilst the numbers remain at 500 and used virtually all the existing Strategic Gap?

Answer

The review and proposed changes have reinforced the need to plan appropriately for a strategic gap. There may be some misunderstanding about this gap with the map within the draft Core Strategy making the gap look narrower than it is. By its nature a strategic gap is an area of undeveloped land between built up areas. For this purpose, the total open area that would be maintained between Ford and the built edge of the new development including the existing fields outside of the strategic allocation site would represent the strategic gap. At its narrowest this gap would provide a buffer of some 172 metres and at its maximum 208 meters. The design of the site will need to be subject to appropriate structural landscaping which will help soften

Page 29 Appendix D the impact on views from Ford. I recognise that the gap, albeit a reduced one, must be maintained into the future.

Question 10

“A community forum be established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes meet local needs”

How can the virtual elimination of the existing narrow strip of land separating Ford & Hampton Park (both in the Parish of Laverstock & Ford) permit any local needs? Surely, these needs should have been met by deleting the allocation, as local need and fair play dictate?

Answer

In addition to the answer to Question 9, I would point out that there has been a constructive dialogue with community representatives over this site. I recognise that some of the community were reluctant to accept the principle, but they also took the view that if it did happen then they would enter into engagement and seek the best outcomes for the community. This has revolved around such things as the future use of the large area of land to be given to the community as part of this application (known as the ‘country park’), and an appraisal of existing and complimentary community facilities in relation to the existing development.

We must be mindful that if we did delete a site without sound evidence on which to base that judgement, that the Inspector would not be likely to accept it.

Question 11

Given the rejection of 500 additional dwellings at Hampton Park, at the Strategic Planning meeting of 16 th February and the comments by councillors from the rest of Wiltshire, that the site was unsuitable for development, owing to the impact on Ford (due to the loss of the strategic gap) and Old Sarum Ancient Monument (development could be seen), can the will of the local people and the unanimous verdict of the councillors be upheld and the whole of the strategic gap be retained as an essential ingredient to the setting of Salisbury and the Parish of Laverstock & Ford?

Answer

The reasons for refusal by the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) generally related to the need for further information before the authority could determine the application. It is recognised that an additional reason was added, which considered the application to be contrary to the existing development plan (saved policies C7, H23 and G1 - Salisbury Local Plan). In considering this particular application, the SPC gave little weight to the emerging policies within the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Page 30 Appendix D

When making new planning policy, we must ensure that it is based on robust and credible evidence. Officers cannot find robust evidence on which to conclude that the site is unsuitable. Indeed we must bear in mind that the SWCS was originally submitted by a unanimous vote of Full Council. The Core Strategy does not seek to remove the gap and indeed the review reaffirms the importance of retaining a gap, which we will retain in the long term.

There is no wish to compromise the setting of Old Sarum. Work has been undertaken with English Heritage and their consultants on a Landscape Heritage Appraisal, to try and mitigate impacts wherever possible. The confinement of the Hampton Park development to the south east of the wider development site and the retention of the green space (‘country park’), would help mitigate any potential impacts and help ensure that future development does not encroach into the setting of Old Sarum.

Salisbury itself is visible from the ramparts of Old Sarum and to embargo new growth from its view, would prevent any growth future development taking place in this side of the City.

Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 32 Minute Item 88 Appendix E

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Councillors’ Questions

Questions From Councillor Ernie Clark Hilperton Division

To Councillor Jane Scott OBE, Leader Of The Council

Question 1

Wiltshire Council is due to relocate to the old George Ward school site soon. However, during November 2010, I noticed a number of Haven Fire vans outside the old school site including evenings and weekends.

The school had pupils in it until July and presumably had a fire alarm system that safeguarded the pupils and staff. Why, four months later, did it seem that the whole of the premises needed a new system? What work was required, why the apparent urgency and what was the cost?

Response

The school's occupation was under a fire risk assessment and management protocol in line with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which would have acknowledged the presence of a functional fire alarm system. This system was not a full fire detection system, and relied on manual call points. This system, coupled with a robust fire risk assessment, based on the school's hours of use, evacuation procedures and the like, provided adequate protection for the pupils and staff at the school up to July, and was the responsibility of the school to manage. The nature of the works carried out at the school to change its use from a school to an office, albeit for temporary use, required a full Building Regulations application to be made. This brings with it a requirement to comply with the current building regulations. The building regulations are not required to have been retrospectively applied to existing occupied school buildings. The former school is to be used on a temporary basis and so only absolutely necessary works have been specified. In order to ascertain what the legal minimum installation would be, a Pre-occupation Fire Risk Assessment (in accordance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) was undertaken early on and a fire strategy developed in support of the Building Regulation application.

The system installed provides for smoke detection to corridors and escape routes only, with heat detection to tea-points, communications rooms, boiler room and the canteen/kitchen. We have not installed a full detection system to all areas. The developed fire strategy makes allowance for the fact that the occupied areas of the building are on the ground floor and escape doors are numerous. In conjunction with active management by the Council over the next two years, this has avoided the

Page 33 Appendix E

need to install a full detection system. In addition, some works have been necessary to improve the sound level of the existing fire alarm sounders to meet current building regulations requirements for office buildings.

The cost of works to the fire alarm system is in the order of £48,000.

In summary, the works to the fire alarm system at the former George Ward School have been specified to match the requirements of the Building Regulations, and to fit with a robust fire risk assessment in line with fire safety regulations. These works have been wholly necessary in order for the use of the buildings to be changed from a school to an office.

Question 2

What progress is being made to recover the 'non-pensionable honoraria' awarded either for doing additional work or 'acting up' at Kennet District Council? Has any money actually been recovered yet?

Response

The Council is pursuing two claims amounting to a total sum of approximately £ 20,000. Both cases are being contested and one of the individuals has instructed a solicitor. The Council is considering its position in the light of the points raised in defence.

Page 34 Appendix E

To Councillor John Brady, Cabinet Member For Economic Development, Planning And Housing

Question 3

What is the likely cost to Wiltshire Council for a) the tenure reforms required by the government and b) the cost to close the housing waiting list to accept only people that WC define to be in housing need?

Response

The costs associated with the tenure reform and the potential changes to the housing waiting list are not yet known because Wiltshire has not yet decided how it would like to take advantage of these new flexibilities. Our current position is that any cost associated with this reform will be absorbed within existing budgets as we have no provision within existing budgets to incur extra expenditure for this work.

Page 35 Appendix E

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Councillors’ Questions

Question From Councillor Howard Marshall, Calne Central Division

To Councillor John Brady, Cabinet Member For Economic Development, Planning And Housing

Question 1

Following the restructuring and downsizing of the Planning Enforcement team, can the Cabinet Member assure me that we will have the capability to enforce the ever increasing digressions of the developers? Particularly in the North where we are left with one full time officer and one part time officer to do the work formerly done by a team of four plus one part time officer. Also can the cabinet member tell me the extent of the backlog of work currently not completed.

Response

Following the Management Review, the service is undergoing a number of changes as it moves from four independently managed teams, one in each each hub, to a single county wide team with one manager who took up post on the 14th Feb. The Enforcement Team is currently reviewing the way it operates, its structure, the job descriptions of officers and how it applies staff to ensure effectiveness is improved and the allocation of resources reflects demand.

The number of open enforcement cases varies across the county and is as follows: -

North Hub (Monkton Park) 280 Central Hub(The former Devizes and Bradley Rd hubs) 167 South Hub (Bourne Hill) 152

The number of open cases does not mean there is a 'backlog', all cases are being investigated but enforcement is often a slow process. Having said this, capacity to deal with cases in the north has been affected because of the absence of the former manager due to illness, but this is now in the process of being addressed as part of the service review process and a vacant post in the north hub is currently being advertised.

Page 36 Appendix E

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Councillors’ Questions

Question From Councillor Jon Hubbard Melksham South Division

To Councillor John Thomson, Cabinet Member For Adult Care, Communities And Libraries

Question 1

At the recent Area Board meeting in Melksham, attended by the Cabinet Member, the proposed new Community Campus was on the agenda. A presentation of the council’s single proposed site was given but there was no opportunity for questions or discussion. Instead a very limited number of points of clarification were permitted. From these it became clear that no economic impact assessments, transport studies or feasibility studies have taken place, and they will not take place until after the final consultation for the public has completed.

In addition, the public are being invited to participate in a consultation on the issue before the issue is debated and before councillors (and the public) have the opportunity to ask questions of officers in a public forum such as the Area Board (the consultation is due to close on the 15 th March and the Area Board scheduled for the issue to be discussed is on the 29 th March).

Could the cabinet member please tell me:

1) In his opinion does this “putting the cart before the horse” demonstrate best practice or will he confirm that, in this instance, the council have got it wrong? 2) If he does believe that the practice that has been followed is acceptable could be please explain how this demonstrates how the Council’s by-line “where everybody matters” can be justifiably used? 3) Does he intend to make it standard practice for the facts about proposals only to be disclosed only once any consultations have been completed?

Response

1) The Council has undertaken an assessment of the options for developing a community campus to serve the Melksham Community Area and following an appraisal of the audit and research work done to date a preferred option has been put forward for public consultation. The audit and research work has not included an economic impact assessment or a transport plan as this would form part of a potential future planning application. This was made very clear at the Area Board on the Wednesday 2 February 2011. An initial baseline feasibility study on the preferred site has been undertaken to determine broad deliverability

Page 37 Appendix E

and initial cost estimates. This information was made available at the Area Board and on the Council’s website.

The proposed preferred option has been presented to the community and the Council is asking that local people make their views known at a specially convened Area Board on the 29 March 2011. Detailed questions were not recommended for the Area Board on the 2 February as the intention was to give a detailed presentation and supporting information that would most likely give local people the answers to the majority of questions. Local people have been asked to consider the proposal and are invited to participate in a detailed debate, held in a public forum, on the 29 March.

In the interim period local people have an opportunity to participate in the consultation by direct contact up to the 29 th March with the Council through either a dedicated email address or by writing into the Council. In addition the Melksham Community Area Partnership are holding a series of consultation events and will be collating information to present to the specially convened Area Board on the 29 th March. The consultation is being led by the Area Board, rightly in my view.

The concept of a community campus is essentially tailoring service provision to the local community to ensure local needs are met. An extensive consultation exercise is taking place, led by the Area Board, this I understand will include opportunities for open debate, but as the only locally elected body representing the entire community area, it is only right that the elected members of Area Board shape the consultation process as I believe they have in this case.

The Council has been open and transparent about the process to date through a detailed presentation at the Area Board on the 2 February 2011. This included the rationale behind the preferred option and it is intended that any questions local people have about both the proposed option and the rationale behind it can be openly discussed at the specially convened Area Board on the 29 March 2011, I understand that is the specific purpose of the special area board meeting. Once these discussions have taken place locally elected Members will be asked to come to a view on whether they wish to support the current proposal. This ensures locally elected Members will have an opportunity to take part in, and observe the detailed debate before making a decision on how they would wish to project to proceed.

Page 38 Appendix E

To Councillor John Noeken, Cabinet Member For Resources

Question 2

At the recent Area Board meeting in Melksham the proposed new Community Campus was on the agenda. A presentation of the council’s single proposed site was given but there was no opportunity for questions or discussion. Instead a very limited number of points of clarification were permitted. From these it became clear that no economic impact assessments, transport studies or feasibility studies have taken place, and they will not take place until after the final consultation for the public has completed.

In addition, the public are being invited to participate in a consultation on the issue before the issue is debated and before councillors (and the public) have the opportunity to ask questions of officers at the Area Board (the consultation is due to close on the 15 th March and the Area Board scheduled for the issue to be discussed is on the 29 th March).

It has therefore not been possible for members or the public to ask questions in a public forum on this issue. Therefore I am asking today, and in order that they are a matter of public record, the questions that I believe I, and others, should have been permitted to ask at the meeting where the proposal was presented.

1. The library is currently used by a number of organisations that are based, or meet, in the Town Centre (such as the majority of the Town’s primary schools and voluntary groups such as the Cubs). Can the cabinet member tell me what impact assessment has been made on how these groups will be affected by the closure of the town centre library? 2. Wiltshire recently spent £288,727 refurbishing Melksham’s Town Centre Library. How does it represent best value for money to spend it and then scrap it? 3. Wiltshire Council, and it’s predecessor West Wiltshire District Council, fought the new Asda Development in Melksham on the basis that it was an ‘out-of’town’ development and this was against their policy. Could the Cabinet Member please inform me when they performed a about turn on this? 4. I, along with many others, have been asking for a copy of the proposals for the Campus for several months. Indeed in November when I presented to this council a petition signed by 2,184 local residents objecting to the proposed closure of the Town Centre Library and its relocation to the Melksham Oak site I was informed that there were, as yet, no such plans and that such documents were not yet produced. Yet now that we finally have the council’s proposals I see that the Sustainability Appraisal Report, the main document released to the public, is dated October 2010. Can the Cabinet Member please explain why this document was withheld from members, despite their requesting it, and could he say, categorically for the record, what other reports are being, will be or have been produced in relation to the Melksham Campus and provide a timeline for when they will be available to the public. 5. In the council’s own sustainability report when looking at the preferred option the report itself identifies the potential impact on the Town Centre of removing the library and says (Page 54, item 13 Community Facilities) “If a campus were built in this location, retention of some services in the town centre eg the library,

Page 39 Appendix E

should be considered” and then (Page 55, item 14 Education and Skills) “Provision of a new library may be better located within the town centre where there would be greater accessibility to a wider number of people.”

Most damaging however is the statement (Page 55, Item 16 Economy) “Directing services and facilities to town centre locations would draw people into the centre, helping to improve vitality and viability of retail and other businesses. Development of an edge-of-town campus would have the opposite effect and would be unlikely to aid regeneration – a priority for the town a dn stated in the Wiltshire LDF.”

Why is the council not following its own advice and policy? 6. Why has the council dismissed the option of a split site campus, with the Library and Youth Centre being retained at their current locations and the new development at Melksham Oak housing the remaining facilities as being hypothetical and therefore impossible to cost? These facilities are in place at their current locations and surely the cost of these buildings is know to the council?

Response

1. The current proposal for a community campus in Melksham looks at the re- provision of attractive, up to date, accessible and improved library facilities within a campus facility on the Woolmore Farm site. This facility would be designed to cater for the needs of the Melksham community area and as such a potential planning process would include the production of a sustainable transport assessment and a plan to encourage continued use of library facilities for existing users.

2. The potential savings of delivering a community campus far outweigh the historical investment made into the existing library facility, details of which were presented at the Melksham Area Board on 2 March 2011. From a value for money perspective, it is important that future costs are analysed rather than historic ones. 3. In spatial planning terms there are a variety of policies that could be seen to either support central development or edge of town development, this would be dependent on the application concerned. An example of such a policy would be the adopted Leisure & Recreation Development Plan Document that advises the replacement of indoor leisure facilities in Melksham be firstly considered on the Woolmore Farm site.

4. The proposal for the Melksham Community Campus was presented to the area board in February 2011. As the question indicates, you have been asking for a copy of the Campus proposal, which was not available until the Sustainability Assessment was completed. It must be understood the Sustainability Appraisal is not the campus proposal but part of the process of developing one. All background information and audit and research work is available. The Sustainability Appraisal, a non-statutory spatial planning tool that is one part of the background audit work, was completed firstly in October 2010. However as a first draft it needed to be reviewed before being made available. Even now for

Page 40 Appendix E

example, the Sustainability Appraisal does not include any weighting for the travel plan which will need to accommodate any planning application. Any planning application will include consideration of the development of sustainable transport arrangements that will be to the benefit of the wider Melksham Community Area. The final draft of the sustainability appraisal was made available in early 2011 and the Council has made it clear that it is a public document and available to all. Additional work that will need to be completed assuming the current proposal proceeds include an economic impact assessment and the transport plan forming part of a planning process. The timeline for this is clear within appendix b of the campus development and management proposal Cabinet paper considered on 15 February 2011 and was specifically covered in the presentation at the area board.

5. The Sustainability Appraisal is not Council policy; it is a spatial planning tool which is considered one part of the audit and research work associated with the community campus proposal. The findings of the appraisal have been assessed against the remainder of the audit work and the current proposal best meets the wider objectives of what the Council is looking to achieve from the co-location of services and consideration of the report will both shape the nature of items such as transport arrangements to any Campus.

6. The proposed option for community campus delivery in Melksham is a single site option. The benefits to the library and youth services if they remain in their present position are likely to be outweighed by the wider benefits co-location presents. This includes the potential for better quality modern services, extended opening hours, cross-service use, vastly improved fit for purpose and efficient buildings that reduce running costs, significant ongoing financial and environmental savings and the reduction of risk to the Council. It is important to emphasise that the final recommendation to Cabinet on the Melksham Campus will be made by the Area Board, which is leading the consultation process.

Page 41 Appendix E

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Councillors’ Questions

Question From Councillor Jeff Osborn Trowbridge Grove Division

To Councillor Lionel Grundy OBE, Cabinet Member For Children’s Services And Councillor John Brady, Cabinet Member For Economic Development, Planning And Housing

Question 1

Given that the Conservative led Government has terminated the Future Jobs Fund Scheme, what is this Council doing to tackle the scandal of rising youth unemployment in Wiltshire?

Response

The Wiltshire Potential Future Jobs Fund (FJF) contract with Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) is to create 495 new/additional jobs for unemployed young people aged 18-24 between October 2009 and March 2011. The contract runs until September 2011.

By 15 February 2011, all 495 jobs had been advertised with Job Centre Plus. 416 of these have been filled; another 15 are waiting on start dates. Thanks to our 21 employer partners we are confident we will fill all the vacancies giving 495 unemployed young people the chance of real work in a real job.

Our Jobcentre Plus (JCP) colleagues have indicated that as at 25 January the destinations for 209 Wiltshire Potential FJF leavers were:

• 46% found work, • 1% University • 1% travelling • 2% maternity leave • 12% unknown • 38% went back on benefit,

Given the opportunity Wiltshire Council would certainly have sought to expand its FJF programme beyond September 2011.

The FJF experience in Wiltshire has been an unqualified success for both its employees and its employers. It has also been a very positive and far reaching example of successful partnership working which has helped the development of

Page 42 Appendix E

even stronger working relationships to tackle worklessness in Wiltshire especially with Jobcentre Plus and with Wiltshire College.

The issue of young people's lack of preparedness for the world of work is of key importance for Wiltshire Works - the Worklessness sub-group of the Employment & Skills Board (ESB). At its meeting on 11 th February the Action for Wiltshire Board agreed to convene a special meeting of Wiltshire Works to look at support for 16-24 year olds.

Young People are amongst the people priorities in the Wiltshire Work & Skills Plan which outlines relevant activity aimed at increasing opportunities to help young people achieve their potential such as:

• Wiltshire Works Grant

We are working with JCP locally on a national pilot to provide 40 jobs for existing long term unemployed (2 year+). The jobs will be for at least 30 hours a week and last for 13 weeks. We are recruiting local employers as part of the Action for Wiltshire programme with 20 vacancies at the start of February 2011 and another 20 vacancies at the start of March 2011.

• Work Experience for unemployed young people

We are working with JCP on a work experience initiative for up to 300 unemployed 18-24 year olds who have been claiming JSA for 13 weeks or more to offer them work experience placements of up to 8 weeks and pay their travel costs if they live independently of family or with family in receipt of income based benefits. The aims of the initiative are to:

• Maximise the number of young people moving into employment or training through providing young unemployed people with quality work experience. If successful this will minimise the number of young people flowing onto the DWP Work Programme.

• Working with Wiltshire College, neighbouring universities, employers and sector skills councils to develop the Higher Education offer and increase access to Higher Education

• Addressing attitude/cultural barriers of employers regarding their perception of young people

• A Basic Skills project to assist those who left compulsory education without the minimum skills level required for employability

• The WSEP Basic Skills Performance Reward Grant project being delivered by Wiltshire College commenced in August 2010. The project seeks to assist those who left compulsory education without the minimum skills level required for employability. Specifically it aims to:

Page 43 Appendix E

• Increase the number of adults obtaining a Skills for Life qualification at Entry Level 3 • Increase the number of adults passing a Level 1 National Test in Adult Literacy (and/or Numeracy) from any of the accredited examining bodies • Increase number of adults who gain a Level 2 qualification in Adult Literacy (and/or Numeracy) from any of the accredited examining bodies or any other Level 2 Qualification

• Through its own Skills for Life contract with the Skills Funding Agency, Wiltshire Council has been actively raising the Basic Skills levels of its workforce to increase employability. In 2008/09 139 staff were enrolled on programme with an achievement rate of 94.2%. In 2009/10 74 staff were enrolled on programme with an achievement rate of 97.3%. The lower number of learners is due to funding changes which excluded stand alone Skills for Life provision in 2009/10 so that the numbers are only for those enrolled on NVQ courses. Through the Family Learning Skills for Life contract with the Skills Funding Agency, the Council has been actively raising the Basic Skills levels of its communities. In 2008/09 there were 138 on programme with an achievement rate of 93.5%. In 2009/10 there were 64 on programme with an achievement rate of 94%. Enrolment numbers were fewer in 2009/10 as a result of national policy changes which now embed Family Learning Skills for Life courses within longer Family Learning courses rather than deliver as additional ‘bolt-on’ courses. In the past learners on very short Family Learning programmes were able to join 6 hour ‘move on’ courses but the short delivery times only suited higher level learners who needed to brush up on their existing skills. This new, longer, integrated approach has worked well as learners working at lower levels have more time to prepare and feel less anxious about taking the test.

• Wiltshire 100 in 100 Apprentices Campaign We are working with Wiltshire College to achieve 100 new apprentices starting an apprenticeship in 100 days. This was launched on 10 th January and an event is being held on 1 st March to get as many employers as possible to pledge to take on an apprentice.

• Economy & Enterprise service is also working with HR & Organisational Development on a developing an Apprenticeship Action Plan in regard to Wiltshire Council employing apprentices and maximising the opportunities arising from apprenticeships to up skill its existing workforce.

• A recent decision has been taken by the Wiltshire Strategic Economic Partnership (WSEP) Employment & Skills Board for the Apprenticeships MoU Group between relevant Wiltshire Council services and National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) to formally become a sub-group of the ESB.

Assisting young people with the transition from education to employment is featuring as a priority in the emerging Employment & Skills Strategy for Wiltshire as well as the Wiltshire Assembly’s Action for Wiltshire Programme – Support for Recovery (phase 2) , which has areas of focus on:

Page 44 Appendix E

• A programme of employability and informal skills development for young people and new labour market entrants

• Establishing a network of local entrepreneurs/business owners to be engaged as role models and provide placements or projects for young people to gain a practical context for skills application and practice

• Young Entrepreneur Society pilot to provide the right environment that will help prepare young people to start their own businesses. We ran this course for FJF employees in during the autumn and it was very well received.

• ESF Response to Redundancy

This is a programme of training and skills development for those at risk of redundancy or recently made redundant across Wiltshire & Swindon which only has until March 2011 to run. The Accountable Body is New College Swindon but both Wiltshire Council and Wiltshire College are partners. Overall the project is doing really well and the partnership is on target. So much so that we were asked by the SFA if we wanted to increase our allocation and extend the project to end March 2011 (otherwise would have ended in December 2010). We secured a further £100K approximately. With the project ending at the end of March we are focusing our efforts on building further links with employers.

Keeping NEET levels below the national average is another important priority and is being achieved by:

• The ‘Get Prepared Programme’ an Action for Wiltshire Initiative to support 16 to 18 year old young people move into employment, training or further education.

• Ensuring that vulnerable groups have access to additional support and guidance, for example an intensive personal adviser is co-located with the Looked After Children team.

Page 45 Appendix E

Wiltshire Council Council

22 February 2011

Councillors’ Questions

Question From Councillor Chris Caswill Chippenham Monkton Division

To Councillor John Thomson, Cabinet Member For Adult Care, Communities And Libraries

Question 1

a. Have any representations being made to the government on the Council's behalf in respect of the deeply regrettable proposals to cut the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance?

b. Will he take this opportunity to make clear this Council's concern about the effects of this proposed reduction of the living standards and working opportunities of Wiltshire citizens?

c. What would be the cost to this Council of restoring this cut for the citizens of Wiltshire were going to be otherwise affected?

d. If this policy is implemented, would he consider proposing to the Cabinet that the restoration of this allowance be included in the 2012 – 2013 budget?

Response

a. The council has written to our local MPs.

b. We have written to MPs. We have also suggested that if this were to be implemented then a ringfenced grant could be made available to Local councils to help provide some alternative support.

c. we estimate that there are approx 400 people in residential homes in Wiltshire who we fund that may claim DLA, and the total loss to them would be estimated at approx £1m.a year. In addition there will be some people under 65 in residential care who fund themselves, whom we are unaware of.

d. As part of our regular reviews of people’s services in our care we would always discuss all their care and support needs and together with them, their families and the providers try to find ways of helping their needs be met. This will continue.

Page 46 Appendix E

Question 2

Will he take this opportunity to give a public assurance that it is the intention to reverse the cuts in public library opening hours and the services which have been removed from other libraries as soon as the Council’s financial circumstances permit?

Response

There is no provision in the 4 year plan to reverse the cuts in public library opening hours. Wiltshire Council is facing a budget reduction of 28.4% over the coming years. To help the council meet this target, the library service will need to reduce its budget.

Following comprehensive consultation, including with area boards and customer focus groups, proposals for how the library service will be managed were approved by Wiltshire Council’s Cabinet on 25 January 2011. This will be made in part by introducing rationalised core library opening hours and by working with volunteers to operate our smallest libraries and to extend opening hours at other locations. We are pleased that the proposals for the library service in Wiltshire unlike those of neighbouring authorities will avoid the need for any library to close.

• All 31 of Wiltshire’s libraries will be retained • All five of Wiltshire’s mobile libraries will be retained • All libraries will still receive funding from Wiltshire council for premises costs, power, cleaning and computer systems • Library stock would continue to be provided to all library branches • Self service technology will be introduced to all libraries to improve efficiency and help communities extend library opening hours through support from volunteers who will be trained and supported by Wiltshire library staff

The proposals come into effect September 2011 allowing time for volunteers to be recruited and trained. Officers are currently attending Area Boards and Parish Councils to outline the proposals and discuss ways of working with communities to extend the library opening beyond the new core opening hours and how communities can make better use of their library buildings.

The response from communities has so far been positive. To date 156 volunteers have come forward, before we have started a recruitment campaign. We are optimistic that ultimately that the new ways of working with communities and volunteers could result in longer opening times for smaller rural libraries.

Page 47 Appendix E

To Councillor Dick Tonge, Cabinet Member For Highways And Transport

Question 3

a. What is the full cost of installing pedestrian refuges on the A 4 on either side of the Beckhampton roundabout?

b. How many accidents involving death or serious injury have occurred within the close vicinity of this roundabout in the last five years?

Response

a. £21,541.41

b. Fatal Accidents 0 Serious Injury 0 Slight Collisions 9

Works have been undertaken following a meeting between George Batten and the then MP Mr Michael Ancram in 2009 after concerns had been raised by local residents about speed of vehicles, difficulty of crossing the road, difficulty of access from side roads, and the dangers caused by motorcyclists using the area as a drag strip.

Page 48 Appendix E

To Councillor Jane Scott OBE, Leader Of The Council

Question 4

How many charitable, voluntary and arts organisations have already had their grants from Wiltshire Council reduced in the financial year 2010 – 2011?

How many more of these organisations will have their grants reduced in FY 2011 – 2012 and FY 2012 – 2013?

Will she arrange for a list of the affected organisations, and the size of the reductions, to be sent round to all members?

Response

In the financial year 2010/11 The total grants allocation to the Voluntary sector from the VCS Unit is £2.4m. In this year 12 organisations have had their grants reduced although the overall spend in the voluntary sector did not reduce. The total amount of this movement was £470,000. Some of this reduction came from projects ending, some from merging 4 ex-district funded VCS support services into one countywide service, some from moving services to another provider, or from bringing projects in house . The savings have provided new services, including a volunteering data base which matches potential volunteers with current volunteering opportunities - which has helped over 1,000 volunteers this year, and the Wiltshire Good Neighbours .

In the financial year 2011/12 8 organisations will have their funding reduced (2 of these are also counted in 2010/11 above). Four of them are merging into one organisation (for carers) making efficiency savings to cover the reduced funding. A further 5 organisations who provide support services to the VCS will have reduced funding. This is a very slight reduction since savings have been identified elsewhere, including grant aid from external funders. Efficiency savings here are expected to come from groups collaborating and sharing back office functions to reduce core costs.

In the financial year 2012/13 The total is unknown since discussions on this will take place in 2011. However we have negotiated other support and funding for 17 lunch clubs to continue the services they provide . A report detailing all the organisations affected, with details of the financial reductions, will be circulated to Members .

Page 49 Appendix E

To Councillor Fleur De Rhe-Philipe, Cabinet Member For Finance, Performance And Risk

Question 5

a. In cash terms, what is the effect on this Council's 2012 – 13 budget of the decision by the Government to frontload reductions in the local authority grant for the coming year?

b. What representations did this Authority make to the government in respect of the scheduling of the budget reductions?

Response a. In cash terms formula grant will reduce by £11.477 million.

b. None, as we did not feel it would be of any added benefit.

Question 6

With respect to the Government funding allocations to Wiltshire Council for FY 2011- 12, how much was attributable to additional money Intended (but not ring fenced) for adult social care from the Department of Health?

Response

At this time we are finalising negotiations with the PCT around this money and how it will be used. To that end we have assumed 88% of the monies within our base budget.

Page 50 Appendix E

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Councillors’ Questions

Question From Councillor Russell Hawker Westbury West Division

To Councillor Jane Scott OBE, Leader Of The Council And Councillor John Thomson, Cabinet Member For Adult Care, Communities And Libraries

Question 1

I refer to the Confidential "Complaint Investigation Report" dated 31st August 2010 which was circulated to members by email on 11 February this year and which purports to exercise power to judge whether an alleged racist comment is actually racist.

Exactly what Law (specifying, please, the precise legislation and/or regulations and/or statutory guidance, including clause numbers and quoting the parts that apply in this matter, or common law, including citation and basic decision summaries and principles that apply) applied or applies to the council in relation to racial equality in public meetings of the council and / or partners?

Where exactly in any of the Law does it say that a comment is racist just because someone asserts that it is - or any basis looking anything like this? What does it say?

Where exactly in any of the Law does it say that the usual common law test of "reasonableness" cannot be used at the discretion of any tribunal or judge in assessing the meaning of words in Law and whether a comment reasonably means what the complainant thinks and alleges?

What powers and authority did the "Investigator" have to carry out an investigation and also judge what is relevant and choose what is fact or not and then also decide and state a determination of the allegations in the report (ie. one person acting as in- house investigator, jury and judge), stating exactly who gave the investigator these powers and why?

What tribunal or judicial decisions exist that show that the phrase "jungle drums" is racist?

Why does the Investigation report not bother to explain any relevant law (ie. no reference to legislation or caselaw)?

Why does the report not bother to explain how the comment is believed to breach the law.

Page 51 Appendix E

Why does the report not bother to explain the power s of the investigator or where any powers come from.

Why would anyone receiving such a report be expected to think it actually has any status in law or be legitimate or be part of any competent activity of the council or deserves to be treated with anything but concern for its obvious and astonishing shortcomings?

Which members of the cabinet were involved in this matter? At what stage did they know the contents of the report and were they required by the constitution of the council or Law to decide on how to proceed with the matter (please specify who, dates and what was decided)? Did any cabinet member approve the report (who and when)? Which staff were involved in approving the report and actions that followed?

What legal advice was given by any properly qualified legal staff in this matter at any stage (why and to who and when, by whom, stating the qualifications of the staff)?

Do you accept that there should be a better way of handling trivial complaints and have you identified what legal possibilities exist? When will a lawful but common sense approach to trivial complaints be implemented, and how?

Response

The Chief Executive has instigated a review of the process followed in connection with the investigation of the complaint to which you refer. The outcome of the review will be reported to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity.

Page 52 Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

South Wiltshire Core Strategy Review of Housing and Employment Requirements

Summary

Following approval of the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) by Council in November 2009, the SWCS proceeded straight to the Examination in Public (EIP) stage. In July 2010, around the time the Inspector was due to publish his report, he suspended the EIP to allow the Council to undertake a review of the housing and employment figures in light of the Government’s stated intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). This review has now been completed, in the context of the Wiltshire-wide review of housing requirements, and as a result ‘focused changes’ (as defined by guidance published by the Planning Advisory Service) to the SWCS should be put forward to the Inspector for his consideration. As a consequence of the ‘focused changes’ other changes will need to be made elsewhere in the document. These ‘consequential’ changes will also be submitted to the Inspector.

At this stage, in order for the Inspector to complete the EIP, any proposed changes to the Strategy must be ‘focused’. Completion of the Examination will help ensure that there is a clear strategy in place for South Wiltshire and that sustainable, plan- led growth is delivered supported by the right infrastructure. The risk of not continuing the SWCS would be to expose the Council to speculative proposals for housing that it will not be well placed to defend or develop in a way that will maximise benefits for local communities.

The review shows that the housing and employment requirements for south Wiltshire should be reduced from the 12,400 net additional dwellings and 13,900 jobs identified within the RSS, to 9,900 homes and 10,400 jobs. In addition, it confirms that the underpinning strategy of the SWCS to focus growth at Salisbury and Amesbury and the need to bring forward new strategic site allocations early in the plan period is still sound. However, in redistributing the lower levels of housing growth, reductions are proposed to the levels at Salisbury and Amesbury (6,000 and 2,100 dwellings, respectively), which has led to the allocations at Salisbury being reviewed. As a result of the review, land at Netherhampton Road (allocated for 400 dwellings and 10 hectares of employment land) and land at Longhedge (Old Sarum) for 350 dwellings is no longer needed during the plan period but instead has been identified as a strategic reserve with development potential in the longer term. No other changes are proposed to the level of employment land in the SWCS.

Changes are also proposed to the levels of housing distributed in the rural areas to allow for more modest growth of 1,800 dwellings, with the Local Service Centres of Downton, Mere and Tisbury accommodating 300, 200 and 200 dwellings respectively. The Localism Bill in its current form will enable local communities, through neighbourhood plans and the community right to build, to consider whether further growth would be appropriate in these areas.

CM09252/F

Proposal

That Councill:

(i) approves the proposed changes to the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy, as set out in Appendix 2 (both focused and consequential), arising from the review of housing and employment requirements set out in the draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy; and

(ii) delegates to the Director for Economy and Enterprise, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Planning and Housing:

• authorisation to undertake minor amendments, in the interests of clarity and accuracy, to the review documents prior to submission to the Inspector; and

Reason for Proposal

To ensure that a sound planning framework is put in place as soon as possible for south Wiltshire to allow the authority to manage the growth necessary to ensure homes and jobs are provided in the most sustainable way that best conserves the natural environment and maximises benefits for local communities.

To ensure that progress continues to be made on preparing an up to date planning policy framework for Wiltshire.

Mark Boden Corporate Director, Neighbourhood & Planning

CM09252/F Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

South Wiltshire Core Strategy Review of Housing and Employment Requirements

Purpose of Report

1. To:

(i) Set out the findings of the review of housing and employment requirements included within the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy, as submitted to the Secretary of State.

(ii) Seek approval for the proposed amendments to the draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy arising from the review;

(iii) Delegate to the Director for Economy and Enterprise, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Planning and Housing, the submission of the review documents to the Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the Core Strategy, for consideration and any consequential actions as directed by the Inspector.

Background

2. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) has been in development since 2006 and involved considerable consultation with partner bodies and the community. Once adopted it will ensure a sufficient supply of housing land and plan led sustainable growth to be delivered, providing certainty to both local communities and those investing in the area. The SWCS will be merged into the Wiltshire Core Strategy at the appropriate time in its preparation to ensure delivery of a single Core Strategy for Wiltshire.

3. With the intended abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) through the Localism Bill, the Bill as it currently stands requires that a strategic development plan should be in place. The SWCS would satisfy this requirement. In addition, the Bill as currently drafted proposes the introduction of the statutory requirement for applicants of significant developments to undertake consultation on their proposed application and publicise this in a manner that reaches the majority of the local community affected. This would, if enacted, enable local communities to have a greater say in the design and shape of new proposals that come forward, such as the strategic sites within the SWCSy. Enactment of the Bill in its current form would also enable local communities through neighbourhood plans and community right to build to consider whether additional growth beyond that in the Core Strategy may be appropriate.

CM09252/F 4. On 10 November 2009, Council resolved that the SWCS Submission Document be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. The formal examination hearing sessions took place during March and April 2010. Prior to the Inspector issuing his report, the Government announced its intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). As a result the Inspector agreed to a suspension of the examination in order for the Council to undertake a review of the housing and employment requirements in the SWCS.

5. The SWCS was based on the housing and employment figures contained within the latest published version of the RSS for the South West (12,400 net additional dwellings and 13,900 jobs).

6. In light of guidance issued by the Government in response to the stated revocation of RSS, Cabinet on 19 October 2010 resolved to undertake a comprehensive review of the housing requirement for Wiltshire and to progress this through the Core Strategy process. This guidance, issued to all local planning authorities, stated that “Local planning authorities will be responsible for establishing the right level of housing provision in their area, and identifying long-term supply of housing land without the burden of regional housing targets” (Communities and Local Government, 6 July 2010). The Wiltshire-wide review of the housing numbers provides the context for the review within the SWCS.

7. The lawfulness of the decision to revoke RSS has been successfully challenged in the High Court since Cabinet made its decision to undertake the review. However, given that there still remains a clear intention by the Secretary of State to formally revoke RSS it is considered important that locally derived housing and employment targets, based on up to date evidence, form the basis of the SWCS.

8. Due to the time that has now lapsed since the suspension of the examination, the Inspector held a procedural meeting on 28 January 2011 to determine how the SWCS examination should proceed. The Inspector made it clear at the meeting that in order for the examination to continue, any changes to the document would need to be focused rather than extensive. In the event that he considered the changes to be extensive, the Council would be asked to withdraw the SWCS.

Main Considerations for the Council

9. As a responsible planning authority, particularly given the intention to revoke RSS and regionally imposed targets, Wiltshire Council needs to have an understanding of the level of homes and jobs that Wiltshire should plan for in order to ensure that its communities are vibrant and sustainable places in which to live and work. Wiltshire’s Community Plan ‘People, Places and Promises’ sets out three priorities, which are directly related to the need to plan for new homes and jobs:

(i) Creating an economy that is fit for the future - includes the need to ensure an appropriately skilled workforce that is less reliant on the public sector, and provide support for local business.

CM09252/F (ii) Reducing disadvantage and inequalities - includes addressing the lack of affordable housing by building new homes and bringing empty homes back into use.

(iii) Tackling the causes and effects of climate change - includes the ambition to reduce transport emissions.

10. In line with the Cabinet resolution to undertake a comprehensive review to determine a new housing requirement for Wiltshire and progress this through the core strategy process, initial work has now been undertaken. A summary of the methodology is provided in Appendix 1 and a full technical paper provided on http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=944&Ver=4 This identifies a range that can be used to determine a draft housing requirement for Wiltshire. In order to ensure the sustainable development of south Wiltshire, the level of homes to be planned for should contribute towards: supporting the self containment of settlements; helping address housing needs; create an economy that is flexible, adaptive and competitive; and safeguard the natural and historic environment where possible by ensuring the impacts of development are capable of mitigation.

11. Outside of South Wiltshire, targeted consultations with representatives of local communities are being undertaken to help develop our understanding of the appetite for growth. This information, together with other evidence, will help inform appropriate distributions of housing for each community area that can then be balanced against the Wiltshire wide range identified (35,900 to 43,200, which reduces to a level of approximately 18,800 to 26,100 new dwellings if existing completions and commitments are taken into account) to inform an overall draft housing requirement for Wiltshire. This will be widely consulted on in the spring this year.

12. For South Wiltshire, it is possible to derive a figure for the area (former Salisbury district). From the work undertaken it is clear that a reduction in figures can be justified, which results in a requirement for the SWCS to plan for 9,900 net additional dwellings in the period 2006 to 2026, rather than the 12,400 net additional dwellings required by the RSS for the South West. Paragraphs 2.17 to 2.20 of Appendix 1 set out in more detail how this figure has been derived. The distribution of this new housing requirement for south Wiltshire and implications for the draft SWCS is discussed in detail in the technical report accompanying the Agenda papers for this meeting on the website at http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=944&Ver=4 . The key findings are summarised below.

13. The review takes into account new evidence and gives further consideration to the representations that were received during the extensive consultation processes that were undertaken in the development of the SWCS. This has meant that a balance needs to be found between the growth required to meet the challenges faced by south Wiltshire with the ability of the local environment to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner. The findings of the review have been used to determine how the SWCS, as submitted to the Secretary of State, should be amended.

CM09252/F

14. The key findings of the review can be summarised as follows:

• The SWCS should be planning for 9,900 net additional homes in the period 2006 to 2026, rather than 12,400, which although lower is still challenging and ambitious compared to historic rates.

• The SWCS should be planning for 10,400 jobs, not the 13,900 within draft RSS, which means the provision of 50 hectares rather than 60 previously proposed.

• Growth should be focussed on Salisbury/Wilton and Amesbury as the most sustainable places.

• Provision should be made to allow for modest growth to take place in the smaller rural communities to support their vitality.

• The need to develop new strategic sites early in the plan period to deliver new homes and jobs, supported by the appropriate infrastructure, remains an important part of the SWCS.

• Not all of the growth proposed to be delivered through the Strategic Site Allocations (SSAs) is justified given the lower levels of growth.

• A systematic appraisal of the SSAs has identified land that should not be brought forward at this time but instead be identified as a strategic reserve with development potential in the longer term.

• In South Wiltshire, the environment is the overriding constraint to growth. The need for affordable housing and economic growth must be balanced with the environmental capacity of South Wiltshire.

15. The proposed focused changes to the SWCS, in light of the review, generally relate to Core Policies CP1 and CP2 together with consequential changes. These are set out in Appendix 2 and can be summarised as:

• 6,220 dwellings to be delivered in the Salisbury and Wilton Community Areas, with 6,000 focused at Salisbury and Wilton (of which 1,900 is already completed or committed) - compared with 8,050 dwellings in the SWCS.

• Strategic site allocations (SSAs) to deliver 3,950 dwellings at Salisbury and Wilton - compared with 4,700 in the SWCS.

• SSA at Netherhampton Road (400 dwellings and 10 hectares employment land) to be deleted from Policy CP2 and referred to as a long-term strategic reserve within the text.

• SSA at Longhedge (Old Sarum) to be retained but reduced from 800 to 450 dwellings (employment to remain unchanged) and the potential for the additional 350 dwellings to be referred to as a long term strategic reserve in the text. CM09252/F

• The development template for the Hampton Park SSA will be revised to require a larger strategic gap with Ford and flexibility over the future function of the green open space, with the establishment of a community forum to guide development.

• 2,395 dwellings to be delivered in the Amesbury Community Area with 2,100 of this focused at Amesbury - compared with 2,650 dwellings including 1,960 at Amesbury in the SWCS.

• Local Service Centres (LSCs) of Downton, Mere and Tisbury to deliver 300, 200 and 200 dwellings respectively - compared with 190, 270 and 160 dwellings respectively in the SWCS.

• Outside the LSCs in the rest of the Southern, Mere and Tisbury Community Areas 365, 0 and 220 dwellings respectively to be delivered - compared with 550, 20 and 280 dwellings respectively in the SWCS.

16. A full copy of the SWCS, incorporating proposed changes (focused and consequential), accompanying the Agenda papers for this meeting is on the website at http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=944&Ver=4 . This includes tracked changes to set out the focused changes and associated consequential changes necessary to the document in light of this review.

Environmental Impact and Climate Change Considerations

17. Spatial Planning has implications for the physical, economic and social environment. A Sustainability Appraisal (SA) incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken for the Core Strategy and its review. The SA has been undertaken iteratively at all stages of preparation and has been a key driver in appraising the options and the evolution of this Strategy. A Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) has also been undertaken. Both have helped shape this strategy significantly and will ensure that negative environmental impacts are avoided and sustainable development can be delivered. All strategic sites within the SWCS are required to deliver 10% renewable energy as detailed in the development templates of the SWCS.

Equalities Impact of the Proposal

18. The South Wiltshire Core Strategy aims to positively manage growth and development in South Wiltshire. The consultation processes and community involvement has ensured that everyone has had the opportunity to inform the preparation of the Core Strategy. The Inspector will determine the need for further consultation following submission of any proposed focused and consequential changes. An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out for the Core Strategy and is available on the Council’s website.

CM09252/F Risk Assessment and Options Considered

19. The Inspector has only agreed to the review in order to allow the Council to consider the housing and employment requirements. Council agreed to submit the SWCS in November 2009 and the proposed changes to the document are now necessary in light of new evidence on the level of housing and employment growth that south Wiltshire should plan for and the clear intention to revoke the RSS. Further changes to those proposed within the report could lead to the Inspector concluding that the proposed changes are no longer ‘focused’. In such circumstances, he could either recommend that the SWCS be withdrawn or issue his report based on the SWCS as submitted in 2009.

20. As reported to Council on 9 November 2009 it remains important, if not more so given the time that has now lapsed, that progress continues to be made on the SWCS, for a number of reasons:

(i) The Salisbury District Local Plan, originally only intended to cover the period up to 2011, is becoming increasingly out of date. It is a statutory requirement to prepare a Core Strategy.

(ii) The Core Strategy once adopted will create the right framework to deliver economic growth, ensuring South Wiltshire is well positioned to attract investment as the economy improves.

(iii) New housing land needs to be identified in order to ensure that an appropriate amount of housing supply is available, and economic growth is supported. The Core Strategy will provide a clear strategy for where, how and when new housing should be provided in South Wiltshire. Without a supply of suitable land, Salisbury is vulnerable from speculative applications and at risk of the appeal process and associated costs.

(iv) Wiltshire Council will lose the ability to ensure developers and service providers deliver the necessary infrastructure to support communities and future growth.

(v) Delay would mean that the evidence base underpinning the SWCS will become increasingly out of date, which places the risk of its policies being found unsound when it does reach examination leading to increased costs and abortive work.

21. The Localism Bill, as currently drafted, requires a strategic plan to be in place and the SWCS would fulfil this requirement in this part of the area.

Financial Implications

22. Financial provisions have been made within 2010/11 budgets for completing the examination of the SWCS. Costs associated with the adoption and publishing of the SWCS will be met from the planned 2011/12 budget.

CM09252/F 23. Any further delay in taking forward the SWCS, particularly the strategic site allocations, could affect the Council’s ability to claim the proposed New Homes Bonus on new dwellings.

Legal Implications

24. Preparation and ultimately adoption of the SWCS would meet the statutory obligations of the Council to have an up-to-date Development Plan in place.

Conclusion

25. The review of the number of homes and jobs to be planned for within South Wiltshire in the period 2006 to 2026 clearly indicates that lower levels of growth are justified. It has confirmed that the underpinning strategy to bring forward strategic sites early in the plan period is still valid and deliverable given the proposed reduction in housing numbers, although less land for strategic site delivery will be needed. It has also confirmed that the focus for growth should still be on Salisbury and Amesbury, while ensuring the more rural areas have a modest level of growth to support the vitality of rural communities.

26. Proposed changes (focused and consequential) to the SWCS should be submitted to the Inspector in light of the review. The Inspector will then consider how he wishes to respond and may require the Council to undertake further consultation before reopening the hearing sessions and finally issuing his report. Completion of the examination will help ensure that there is a clear Strategy in place for South Wiltshire at the earliest opportunity and that sustainable, plan-led growth can be delivered which is supported by the right infrastructure.

27. The risk of not continuing with the preparation of the SWCS would be to expose the Council to speculative proposals for housing that it will not be well placed to defend or develop in a way that maximises benefits for local communities.

MARK BODEN Corporate Director Department of Neighbourhood & Planning

Report Author Alistair Cunningham Director for Economy and Enterprise Tel No. 01225 713202

The following unpublished documents have been relied on in the preparation of this Report:

None

Appendices:

Appendix 1: Wiltshire Housing Requirement Appendix 2: Proposed Changes to Submission Draft South Wiltshire Core Strategy CM09252/F Wiltshire Council Agenda item no. 9

Council

22 February 2011

South Wiltshire Core Strategy Review of Housing and Employment Requirements

In order to ensure consistency of approach, consideration should be given to whether there is an unreasonable level of new housing provision to be found once existing commitments and completions have been accounted for. A change to the recommendations relating to the distribution of housing is therefore proposed.

The explanation has been provided in the new text to be inserted after paragraph 9.30 of the Review of South Wiltshire Core Strategy Topic Paper 20 that accompanies the Full Council report.

Extract from ‘Review of South Wiltshire Core Strategy Topic Paper 20 (January 2011)’:

9.30 This leaves the remaining Community Areas to accommodate 1,285 dwellings in total, of which 585 have been distributed to the rural areas outside of the Local Service Centres, as shown in Table 4 above. This means that Downton, Tisbury and Mere should accommodate 700 dwellings. Applying the Sustainable Settlement Strategy criteria from Topic Paper 3 (and addenda) and using the number of basic facilities at each of these settlements as a means to distribute growth indicates that Downton should have 300 dwellings; Mere 200 dwellings and Tisbury 200 dwellings.

Insert new paragraphs after paragraph 9.30 of Topic Paper 20:

9.31 However, an analysis of completions that have taken place since 2006 and outstanding commitments shows that this would leave a residual of in excess of 200 dwellings to be found at Downton. Taking into consideration the role and function of Downton this is considered to be an excessive level of development in relation to the character of the settlement and the capacity to accommodate further development within the existing urban form. It is therefore considered that a level commensurate with the original figure in the draft SWCS should be maintained (190 dwellings). This leaves 110 dwellings to be redistributed. 9.32 An analysis of the recent level of completions since 2006 and outstanding commitments for residential development (23 dwellings in total) in the Rest of the Mere Community Area indicates that some growth should be allowed for, rather than the 0 currently proposed. As such, a modest level of 50 dwellings should be redistributed from Downton to the Rest of Mere Community Area. The residual 60 dwellings can be accommodated at the Salisbury and Wilton,

Page 23 as the main location for growth in the South Wiltshire area, which represents a marginal increase to the Salisbury and Wilton figure. The revised recommendation to Policy CP1 is shown in the final column of the table:

Draft SWCS Recommendation Revised to Full Council Recommendation Downton 190 300 190 Salisbury/Wilton 8,100 1 6,000 6,060 Rest of Mere 20 0 50 Community Area Total 8310 6300 6300

Consequential amendments will also be needed within Topic Paper 20 to reflect these changes.

ERRATUM

The following typo errors have been identified within 19 of Topic Paper 20 , Review of the South Wiltshire Core Strategy: • Table 19 - the final column for Salisbury/Wilton should have read 313 and not 363 dwellings.

Appendix 2, Council Report : ‘Appendix A (Page 143), Hampton Park development template’

Replace bullet points three to five with: • The layout and utility of the Country Park to be agreed with the local community forum. • Any master plan must ensure the delivery of a significant Defining the strategic gap between the development and the settlement of Ford, the size of which is to be agreed with the local planning authority in discussion with the community forum prior to submission of a planning application. • A community forum be established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes best meet local aspirations.

For consistency, changes are also required to Page 92 of Topic Paper 20.

1 In the submitted SWCS, Core Policy 1, Salisbury was allocated 7480 dwellings and Wilton 620.

Page 24 Agenda Item 9

Wiltshire Council

Council

22 February 2011

Public Participation – Item No. 9

Question from Godshill Parish Council To Council

As a Parish Council which has taken a full part in the extended consultation on the South Wilts Core Strategy Examination in Public, it is disappointing to find that there has been no communication with us concerning the revised housing figures for the area (Agenda Item 9 for the Full Council Meeting on 22 nd February). We have had virtually no time, since discovering the figures informally, to research the methodology used.

Godshill Parish Council therefore wishes to place the following statement before the Council:

Our main concern is to protect the New Forest National Park from light, traffic and other pollution emanating from large new developments close to its border. We had been given to understand that the new housing allocation for Downton was to be 190, and felt this was high, given the sensitivity of the National Park and the probability that most workers from the new development would travel across the Forest to Southampton to work. So when we learned that the overall figures were to be revised downwards as a result of re-evaluation after the abolition of Regional government, we looked forward to a reduction of the figure of 190.

We therefore must strongly protest that an increase of over 50% to 300 is completely unreasonable and unacceptable. If, as appears possible, this figure has been arrived at by a miscalculation, we have received no information concerning the final, corrected figure nor how it has been calculated. This should be lower than 190, to conform to the general overall reduction across the region.

Godshill Parish Council therefore asks Council to consider these figures extremely carefully, compared to the value to the nation of the integrity of the National Park’.

Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 22 Agenda Item 9

WILTSHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 9

COUNCIL 22 February 2011

SOUTH WILTSHIRE CORE STRATEGY – REVIEW OF HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR IAN MCLENNAN LAVERSTOCK, FORD & OLD SARUM DIVISION

TO COUNCILLOR JOHN BRADY, CABINET MEMBER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING AND HOUSING

Question 1

Page 129 of Council papers

Page 30 Strategic Objective 2

The requirements for South Wiltshire have dropped by 20%. There is a will in Government and amongst rural councillors, to permit some local building to house the young of their community.

Why does the document still insist that “Well over half the number will have been built in or around Salisbury”?

Question 2

The first desired outcome states that the local character will be respected.

Question 3

Page 130 of Council Papers

Desired outcomes – Relocation of businesses from Churchfields Estate to more unconstrained locations.

Page 13 Question 4

Why has the ‘TOWN/ancient Capital’ Wilton been drastically cut from an allocation of 950 to 220, when representatives were calling out for development to save the town?

Question 5

Question 6

Page 132 council papers

Page 49 Core Policy 2 Strategic Allocations

There are only four major greenfield sites allocated in the whole of South Wiltshire. How can having two allocated in one rural parish (Laverstock & Ford) be either fair or justifiable?

Question 7

As a result of the proposed allocations Laverstock & Ford Parish – largely rural until the last Local Plan – is targetted for 950 dwellings + 8 hectares of additional Employment land and the removal of most of its green space. This is in addition to the 850 dwellings and several hectares of Employment land, absorbed in the current Local plan. Given that 474 of the dwellings are yet to be built and none of the Employment land has been used, this burden is far to great for a single parish to be allocated. Given the complete unfairness and blatant disregard for local representation, will the cabinet member explain how he is able to support this undoubted rape of a single parish and loss of its entire character?

Question 8

Page 14 Question 9

Page 133 Council Papers

Page 145-7 Core Strategy Hampton Park Development

Place Shaping Requirements:

“Defining the Strategic Gap between the development and the settlement of Ford”

How can that statement be meaningful, whilst the numbers remain at 500 and used virtually all the existing Strategic Gap?

Question 10

“A community forum be established to help steer the development for the site and ensure that outcomes meet local needs”

Question 11

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16