Report to Sedgemoor District Council
by Susan Heywood BSc(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date: 10 January 2019
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
(as amended)
Section 20
Report on the Examination of the Sedgemoor Local Plan 2011-2032
The Plan was submitted for examination on 1 August 2017
The examination hearings were held between 12 December 2017 and 22 March 2018
File Ref: PINS/V3310/429/6
Abbreviations used in this report
AA Appropriate Assessment AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty CNP Cheddar Neighbourhood Plan dpa Dwellings per annum EA Environment Agency ELR Employment Land Review FEMA Functional Economic Market Area HMA Housing Market Area HPC Hinkley Point C HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment IDS Infrastructure Delivery Strategy JSP Joint Structure Plan LDS Local Development Scheme MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government MM Main Modification OAN Objectively assessed need PPG Planning Practice Guidance PPTS Planning Policy for Traveller Sites SA Sustainability Appraisal SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment
2
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Non-Technical Summary
This report concludes that the Sedgemoor Local Plan provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the District, provided that a number of main modifications [MMs] are made to it. Sedgemoor District Council has specifically requested me to recommend any MMs necessary to enable the Plan to be adopted.
The MMs all concern matters that were discussed at the examination hearings. Following the hearings, the Council prepared schedules of the proposed modifications and carried out sustainability appraisal of them. The MMs were subject to public consultation over a six-week period. In some cases I have amended their detailed wording and/or added consequential modifications where necessary. I have recommended their inclusion in the Plan after considering all the representations made in response to consultation on them.
The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows: A modification to policy S1 to confirm the Council’s willingness to address any cross-boundary housing need issues which may emerge; Modifications to make clear that the housing figures in the Plan are minimum figures, that not all housing sites within settlements need to be previously developed land and that sites can be released in any of the settlements, from Bridgwater to Tier 2, in the event that a 5 year supply of housing cannot be demonstrated; Modifications to ensure that policies for development in the countryside are consistent with national policy; Modifications to the requirement for the support of the local community set out in some policies; Deletion of policy T11 and introduction of a new policy for ‘infill housing in the countryside’ as a consequence of the alteration of policies relating to local support; A modification to align policy T3 with policies for settlements lower down in the hierarchy to allow development outside of settlement limits to meet local need once the site allocations have been identified; A new policy setting out the mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs once the levels of growth set out in policy T3 have been met; A modification to clarify the affordable housing thresholds; Modifications to the policy for gypsies and travellers to ensure the Plan specifies the number of pitches needed and to ensure the criteria based policy complies with PPTS; Modifications to the policy for self-build development to increase flexibility and ensure that the policy does not lead to a delay in the development of allocated sites; The deletion of policies setting out objectives for development within specific settlements and the incorporation of these objectives into the supporting text to the Plan; Modifications to policies to ensure the impact on the M5 motorway is mitigated; Detailed modifications to policies to address specific soundness issues and issues of clarity and flexibility and compliance with national policy; Modifications to remove suggestions that the Council is applying the National Space Standards; Modifications to introduce specific monitoring measures and actions. 3
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Introduction 1. This report contains my assessment of the Sedgemoor Local Plan in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the Framework) (paragraph 182) makes it clear that in order to be sound a Local Plan should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018. It includes a transitional arrangement in paragraph 214 whereby, for the purpose of examining this Plan, the policies in the 2012 Framework will apply. Unless stated otherwise, references in this report are to the 2012 Framework.
2. Some of the consultation responses to the MMs have suggested that the policies should be modified to incorporate references to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 rather than the 2012 version. The Council would be supportive of this approach. Having carefully considered this matter I do not consider such modifications would be necessary to secure the soundness of the Plan given the transitional arrangements set out above.
3. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local planning authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The Sedgemoor Local Plan, submitted in August 2017 is the basis for my examination. It is the same document as was published for consultation in January 2017.
Main Modifications
4. In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Council requested that I should recommend any main modifications [MMs] necessary to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound and /or not legally compliant and thus incapable of being adopted. My report explains why the recommended MMs, all of which relate to matters that were discussed at the examination hearings, are necessary. The MMs are referenced in bold in the report in the form MM/1, MM/2, MM/3 etc, and are set out in full in the Appendix.
5. Following the examination hearings, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed MMs and carried out sustainability appraisal of them. The MM schedule was subject to public consultation for six weeks. I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report and in this light I have made some amendments to the detailed wording of the main modifications and added consequential modifications where these are necessary for consistency or clarity. None of the amendments significantly alters the content of the modifications as published for consultation or undermines the participatory processes and sustainability appraisal that has been undertaken. Where necessary I have highlighted these amendments in the report.
Policies Map
6. The Council must maintain an adopted policies map which illustrates geographically the application of the policies in the adopted development plan. 4
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
When submitting a local plan for examination, the Council is required to provide a submission policies map showing the changes to the adopted policies map that would result from the proposals in the submitted local plan. In this case, the submission policies map comprises the set of plans identified as the Policies Map as set out in the Proposed Submission Local Plan.
7. The policies map is not defined in statute as a development plan document and so I do not have the power to recommend main modifications to it. However, a number of the published MMs to the Plan’s policies require further corresponding changes to be made to the policies map. In addition, there are some instances where changes to the policies map are needed to ensure that the relevant policies are effective. These further changes to the policies map were published for consultation in Appendix 2 of the MMs consultation document.
8. When the Plan is adopted, in order to comply with the legislation and give effect to the Plan’s policies, the Council will need to update the adopted policies map to include all the changes proposed in the Proposed Main Modifications consultation document, dated August 2018, including Appendix 2.
Consultation
9. The Council has produced a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and a Consultation Statement under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (LP Regulations). These indicate that the Council has given the public and organisations such as Parish Councils the opportunity to be involved, and to make representations, at various stages of the Local Plan preparation process.
10. Copies of the Plan were made available digitally and in hard copy available in the Council’s offices and libraries. In addition to individual consultations, newsletters, leaflets and press releases, together with other forms of communication, the Council held a number of public exhibitions. Whilst criticisms have been made that the exhibitions were held during the day when people were at work, the majority of them held at the submission draft stage (Regulation 19) ran up to 7pm. Together with the other forms of consultation, I am satisfied that this would have ensured that people were able to engage in the process if they wished to do so. The Council have taken into account views expressed on the Plan at the consultation stages.
11. I am satisfied that the Council has complied with its SCI and satisfied the requirements of the LP Regulations. Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 12. Section 20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council complied with any duty imposed on it by section 33A in respect of the Plan’s preparation. The Council sets out the actions that it has undertaken in this regard in a Duty to Co-operate Statement and subsequent additional information. This describes the activities that it has undertaken with other bodies in order to maximise the effectiveness of the Plan’s preparation.
5
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
13. Co-operation has occurred with Somerset County Council, as Sedgemoor is a two-tier authority, and the immediate neighbouring Somerset authorities of Mendip, South Somerset, West Somerset and Taunton Deane. This has taken place in relation to a range of matters, including the homes and jobs required for the District and the infrastructure required to support the level of growth. Close working has also taken place with North Somerset, a West of England Authority, particularly in relation to housing.
14. Joint work has been commissioned by the Somerset authorities assessing the Housing Market Areas (HMA) and Functional Economic Market Areas (FEMA) and to produce a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The Council has also worked in partnership with other relevant bodies in order to address specific strategic matters. An example includes joint working in respect of flood risk through the Somerset Rivers Authority, which includes the five District Councils set out above, Somerset County Council, the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards, the Wessex Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and Natural England. The Council has also worked with the Environment Agency to update the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).
15. Co-operation has also taken place with bodies such as Natural England, the Somerset Wildlife Trust, Historic England and the County Council Education Authority with regard to specific Local Plan issues.
16. No objections have been raised in respect of any failure to meet the duty to co-operate by any of the bodies prescribed in relevant legislation for the purposes of section 33A(1)(c) of the Act. While concerns of detail remain, notably in respect of the Local Plan’s approach towards meeting housing needs arising from the Bristol HMA, the traffic impact of growth and the lack of flood protection to Burnham-on-Sea, these relate to matters of soundness rather than any failure under the duty to co-operate. I return to these matters later in this report.
17. Overall I am satisfied that where necessary the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of the Plan and that the duty to co-operate has therefore been met. Assessment of Soundness Main Issues
18. Taking account of all the representations, the written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings I have identified seven main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends. Under these headings my report deals with the main matters of soundness rather than responding to every point raised by representors.
Issue 1 – Whether the development strategy is justified, effective and consistent with national policy
19. Policy S2 deals with the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. The strategy is carried through into the Place-Making policies in the Plan which set out specific policies for each of the categories of settlement within the hierarchy.
6
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
20. The settlement hierarchy is justified by the Role and Function report, September 2015 (SD40), and the 2016 Update (SD41) which consider the services and accessibility of each settlement. Whilst there have been further changes to the services available in some settlements since the 2016 Update, the Council is satisfied that these changes do not impact on the spatial strategy set out in the Plan and I agree.
21. Bridgwater and Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge are identified as the Principal Town and Market Towns respectively. Cheddar and North Petherton are Tier 1 settlements, Axbridge, Cannington, Nether Stowey, Puriton, Wedmore and Woolavington are identified as Tier 2 settlements. Policy S2 confirms that these settlements will be the focus for accommodating the District’s strategic growth requirements in accordance with the sustainable approach to development set out in the Framework. Other, more rural, settlements in Tiers 3 – 4 are to meet local housing need. Policy S2 also sets out how development within the Countryside and Tier 5 settlements will be dealt with and this is considered in further detail below.
22. The options for the levels and distribution of growth have been tested through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Following consultation and further SA, the Council adopted a ‘middle-ground’ approach with 60% of dwellings to be provided at Bridgwater, 15% at Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, 13% at the more sustainable rural towns and villages (Tiers 1 and 2), 10% at smaller rural villages (Tiers 3 and 4) and 2% in the remainder of the District (Tier 5 and the Countryside).
23. Whilst there have been concerns expressed that there should be different levels of growth allocated to the settlements within the hierarchy, or that there should be fewer tiers, the Council’s approach is justified in the SA and the Role and Function evidence base. I am satisfied that the hierarchy and levels of growth identified for each settlement in the Plan reflect a sound approach based on proportionate evidence.
24. Policy S2 does not make clear that the housing requirement for each settlement is a minimum and the accompanying table expresses the figures as a residual requirement. As a result this will become quickly outdated and therefore less effective for development management purposes. The Council have proposed modifications to the policy (MM/6) to rectify these matters. These modifications are required to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective.
Bridgwater
25. There is no dispute that Bridgwater is the Principal Town which should take the largest proportion of housing in the District.
Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge
26. The Role and Settlement evidence base sets out that Burnham-on-Sea has an excellent range of services and facilities and good connection to the M5 motorway. Education provision is situated in Highbridge and due to their close proximity the Plan treats the two settlements as a single urban area in terms of the settlement hierarchy. This follows on from the approach in the adopted Core Strategy. 7
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
27. Whilst there is no dispute that Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge are correctly identified as Market Towns, concern has been expressed that the strategic housing allocations in the area are concentrated on Highbridge rather than Burnham-on-Sea.
28. Much of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge is located within Flood Zone (FZ) 3a, which represents areas at high risk of flooding. The SA work considered a ‘flood risk avoidance’ scenario for the District, taking into account Level 1 and Level 2 SFRA. Whilst this scenario performed well against the SA objective relating to climate change adaptation, it resulted in a major negative effect having regard to the SA objective relating to land and soil. It also resulted in a higher proportion of growth being directed to rural settlements and therefore fewer opportunities for encouraging sustainable transport. Consequently, a balanced approach has been taken in the Plan to steer development to those settlements at least flood risk, as far as possible, whilst having regard to other sustainability considerations.
29. The existing built-up area of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge is currently protected by tidal defences. However, when climate change is factored in, the majority of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge becomes inundated in the 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1000 year flood events. The Council has undertaken the sequential approach to development within these FZ3 areas and has allocated land for development in the least at risk areas of FZ3a, where development can be made safe over its lifetime. The SFRA Level 2 study and additional information subsequently provided by the Council (EX126) identifies that the allocated sites to the south of the River Brue and to the east of the railway line are at lower risk of flooding in the climate change scenarios. They are therefore sequentially preferable to other sites put forward in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge which are located on land which the SFRA Level 2 identifies to be at risk of increased depth and flood hazard under the climate change scenarios. The Environment Agency (EA) is satisfied with this approach. I deal with the District wide policy approach to flood risk, set out in policy D1, later in this report.
30. The Plan does not allocate development sites in those areas within Burnham- on-Sea and Highbridge identified as being at risk of flooding in the climate change scenarios. I have considered whether a larger proportion of the growth in the District should be directed to Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge rather than to the less sustainable settlements in Tiers 1 to 4 in order to allow for the development required to fund improvements to flood defences. Conversely, I have also considered whether a greater proportion of growth should be allocated at lower tier settlements. As set out below in relation to Tiers 2-4, the Plan takes a balanced approach to the distribution of development taking into account factors such as flood risk, agricultural land classification, the need to ensure the vitality of rural areas and the need to locate growth in areas which will maximise the use of public transport. Having regard to the proportionate evidence base, I am satisfied that the Plan represents the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. The approach of the Plan is therefore sound.
31. That part of the Plan which refers to the Potential Northern Extension explains that the option of development within this area has not been progressed in the Plan due to the need for significant technical work to establish the extent of
8
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
the flood defences required, as well as work to establish the impacts on the transport network. The Plan indicates that this area has future potential to meet housing need. The fact that the Council has not pursued this option in the Plan does not make the Plan unsound given that it is not necessary for the Council to identify further housing sites to meet the currently identified need for housing within the area, a matter I return to later in this report.
Cheddar and North Petherton – Tier 1
32. Cheddar is identified as a Tier 1 settlement. There have been calls for the village to be placed in a lower tier, with consequent lower growth, due to its infrastructure, physical and environmental constraints. The Role and Function evidence acknowledges that Cheddar has the broadest range of services and facilities of all of the villages in Sedgemoor, including education provision, financial services provision and good leisure facilities. However, the study recognises the environmental constraints in terms of its proximity to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and character as a tourist destination. It also acknowledges the limitations of its connectivity by rail, bus and increased distance from motorway junctions when compared to other settlements. On this basis the SA sets out that it should be a lower tier than Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge. Nevertheless, because of the level of services and the fact that the settlement plays a wider service centre role for neighbouring smaller communities, it has been assessed as performing the function of a Tier 1 settlement. The level of growth proposed in Cheddar was tested through the SA process.
33. The village has seen an increase in traffic as a result of quarrying activity linked to the development of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C (HPC) and the highway network within the village centre is physically constrained by existing buildings. Nevertheless, having regard to these existing constraints, the strategic housing sites identified in the Plan are located to the west of the village so that traffic avoids the village centre. Only one employment allocation lies to the south-east of the village, which would result in additional traffic traveling through the village centre. I address the detailed matters relating to these sites below. The County Council as Highway Authority has raised no objections to the Plan in highway terms. Furthermore, the Plan and the Infrastructure Delivery Strategy (IDS) highlight the improvements required to the road network to alleviate some of the existing highway problems. Overall, the evidence is robust and sufficient to justify the Council’s approach of identifying Cheddar as a Tier 1 settlement.
34. North Petherton has a smaller range of services and facilities than Cheddar, although still good. It is identified as a Tier 1 settlement due to its proximity to the motorway network, to Bridgwater and to major employment areas to the south of Bridgwater. The evidence demonstrates that this approach is sound.
Tier 2-4 settlements
35. The number of settlements within each tier is derived from the Role and Function evidence base and the level of growth allocated to each tier has been tested through the SA. Whilst it has been pointed out that the total number of dwellings in Tier 3 settlements is higher than that in Tier 2, this reflects the
9
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
larger number of Tier 3 settlements and the need to ensure the continued vitality of smaller rural settlements.
36. It would have been possible for different housing figures to be allocated to various settlements. However, professional judgements have been taken to arrive at the position in the Plan, having regard to the SA and consultation processes. The Framework sets out that Local Plans should be based on a proportionate evidence base. The evidence in relation to the scale of development is robust and sufficient to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and justified.
Tier 5 & Countryside
37. Policy S2 sets out an overly restrictive approach to development in the countryside. It sets out the requirement for ‘very exceptional circumstances’ for limited development to be permitted within the smaller villages and hamlets, identified as Tier 5 settlements. In this respect it does not comply with the Framework in relation to development in rural areas. MM/6 includes a modification to the wording which is necessary to ensure that the policy is consistent with national policy.
38. Policy S2 also includes the requirement for development in the Tier 5 settlements to have the support of the local community. This requirement is not in accordance with the Framework in terms of the consideration of proposals for housing development and is likely to prejudice the fair and balanced consideration of the merits of a scheme. It may therefore act as a barrier to development within these areas and it goes further than the Framework’s aim to encourage developers to engage with the local community before submitting an application. The Council has proposed modification MM/6 to remove this requirement from policy S2 and this is necessary to ensure that the policy is consistent with national policy.
39. This requirement for community support follows through into other policies in the Place-Making section of the Plan, in particular policies T5 (relating to Tier 3 settlements), T10 (relating to Tier 4 settlements) and T11 (relating to Tier 5 settlements). Each of these policies also has requirements for consultation with the community, stipulating that impacts must have been fully addressed for development to be considered acceptable. I set out below the modifications required to these policies to ensure that they are consistent with national policy.
40. Policy T11 deals with small scale housing development in Tier 5 settlements. It requires there to be ‘clear and demonstrable local support’, ‘meaningful and robust consultation’ and for any planning impacts to have been fully addressed for small scale housing development to be exceptionally supported. Tier 5 settlements are small villages and hamlets which have very limited facilities, services and access to public transport. They are not therefore considered sustainable locations for growth having regard to the Role and Function evidence base. Their inclusion as Tier 5 settlements was as a result of discussions with Parish Councils indicating that some development could be accommodated subject to local support. However, the approach is not sound as it does not accord with the Framework and is not justified by the Role and Function evidence base. A modification is therefore required to the Plan to
10
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
ensure its soundness. This is achieved by MM/2, MM/6 and MM/7 which remove Tier 5 settlements from the hierarchy and alter the wording of policy S2 to enable small scale infill developments within smaller villages and hamlets in the countryside to meet local need. These modifications include a number of changes to policy S2 and the supporting text / tables. Consequential changes to other policies are set out below. These modifications are required to ensure that the policies are consistent with national policy and to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared.
Miscellaneous matters in relation to policy S2 and the settlement hierarchy
41. In order to provide clarity in the policies, further modifications are required to the text of policy S2, and consequential amendments to the justification (MM/3, MM/6). These will provide further explanation that the policies within the Plan allow for the release of sites for housing and employment development outside but well related to settlement boundaries, in addition to maximising development within settlement boundaries. These modifications will also explain how local housing need will be identified and that allocated sites will be included within settlement boundaries once built out (MM/3). These modifications will ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective.
42. I have considered whether the boundaries of various settlements should be altered. The settlement boundaries in the Plan are based on the Settlement Boundary Review (SD44) which sets out a number of criteria for defining boundaries. An element of professional judgement inevitably occurs in applying the criteria. Some development outside settlement boundaries may be considered acceptable under various other policies in the Plan. There are also policies to ensure the protection of heritage assets. Overall, based on the evidence, there is no soundness reason for the alteration to any of the settlement boundaries to either encompass or exclude particular land or sites.
Place-making policies relating to the spatial strategy
Policy T3 – Tier 2 settlements
43. The Plan does not allocate sites in Tier 2 settlements as this will be the role of neighbourhood plans or a subsequent allocations document. Policy T3 contains a number of criteria for development to be considered acceptable outside of settlement limits in the interim prior to identification of sites. In addition to the need for a modification, as set out above, regarding the requirement for local support, modifications are required to increase the flexibility of a number of the criteria in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective. These are set out in MM/38. Following the consultation on the MMs the Council has suggested strengthening the policy wording to prevent speculative development in excess of the indicative development levels in a settlement causing significant adverse impacts. Such a modification would not have been consulted upon. Furthermore, the policy and justification already contain sufficient safeguards and the guidance in the Framework would also be a material consideration for development proposals. Further modifications to this policy would therefore be unnecessary at this stage.
11
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
44. Unlike policies for settlements lower down the hierarchy, policy T3 does not allow for the release of sites outside settlement limits to meet an identified local need once sufficient sites to meet the minimum levels of growth are identified either in a neighbourhood plan or site allocations document. In order to ensure that the policies in the Plan are consistent and therefore effective, and to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared to meet identified local need, a modification is required. The modification (MM/39) proposes a new policy setting out the mechanism for the delivery of affordable housing to meet local needs once the levels of growth set out in policy T3 have been allocated or committed. I have altered the wording of this modification to reflect the fact that some of the Tier 2 settlements are represented by Town Councils not Parish Councils. I have considered whether the policy should allow sites to meet local affordable housing need to come forward outside the settlement boundary prior to site allocations or commitment of the minimum level of growth set out in policy T3. However, the proposed new policy is in accordance with the plan-led approach and is sound as drafted.
Policy T5 – Tier 3 settlements
45. The policy has been redrafted to increase the flexibility of its criteria for development outside settlement boundaries, to remove the requirement for local support whilst retaining an encouragement to engage and consult the local community in accordance with paragraph 189 of the Framework. The modification also removes a requirement for developers to assess the deliverability of alternative sites identified in the SHLAA, as this is within the Council’s remit, and to improve the consistency of wording with other policies in the Plan. MM/41 would appropriately modify the policy and its justification. This is necessary in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
Policy T10 – Tier 4 settlements
46. The policy has been redrafted to increase the flexibility of its criteria for development outside settlement boundaries and to remove the requirement for local support, whilst retaining an encouragement to engage and consult the local community in accordance with paragraph 189 of the Framework. The modification also removes a requirement for developers to assess the deliverability of alternative sites identified in the SHLAA, as this is within the Council’s remit, and improves the consistency of wording with other policies in the Plan. MM/44 would appropriately modify the policy and its justification. This is necessary in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
Policy T11 – Tier 5 settlements and policy T12 - Countryside
47. MM/45 deletes policy T11, due to the reconsideration of Tier 5 settlements for the reasons set out above. The modification also explains the approach to development within the countryside. Policy T12 is modified by MM/45 to ensure that criteria for development within the countryside are consistent with national policy. Finally, in order to allow some development within very small villages and hamlets in the countryside a new policy, ‘Infill Housing in the Countryside’, is also set out in modification MM/45 together with its justification. A consequential modification is required to policy D38 (MM/80)
12
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
to reflect this modified approach. These modifications are required to ensure that the Plan is justified, effective, consistent with national policy and positively prepared.
Policy T13 – Rural Brownfield Sites
48. The policy sets out the approach to the re-use of brownfield sites for employment uses. Modifications are required, MM/46, to increase flexibility, to ensure that the policy is not overly restrictive and to clarify that it applies to sites within the countryside, outside of settlements. The modifications are required in order to ensure that the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy.
Conclusion on issue 1
49. With the main modifications set out above, I conclude that the development strategy is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Issue 2 - Whether the Local Plan has been positively prepared and whether it is justified, effective and consistent with national policy in relation to the overall provision for housing.
50. The Plan seeks to meet in full the objectively assessed need for housing (OAN) of 13,530 dwellings over the plan period (2011-32), equating to 644 dwellings per annum (dpa). This is set out in policy S2. I consider below the derivation of this figure and whether that is appropriate to meet housing needs in the District.
Housing Market Area
51. The Council, together with the other Somerset authorities (Mendip, South Somerset, Taunton Deane and West Somerset) commissioned a report on HMAs and FEMAs in Somerset, published September 2015. Having analysed information relating to commuting flows, migration flows and house prices, in accordance with PPG advice, the study concluded that commuting zones are the most appropriate basis for defining HMAs for Somerset. Further, individual HMAs based on the administrative boundaries of the Somerset authorities, including Sedgemoor, would be a reasonable approximation of the commuting zones. The evidence in this regard is robust and, other than the matters raised below with regard to the Bristol HMA, I consider that it is appropriate to align the HMA with the administrative boundary.
52. The concurrent work on defining the West of England HMAs, undertaken by the same research company thus ensuring consistency, came to similar conclusions in relation to the alignment between the HMAs and local authority boundaries. Nevertheless, the Somerset report recognises that the proximity of Bristol and Bath has an influence on the Somerset HMA. Based on commuting zones, the north eastern section of Sedgemoor is considered to fall within the Bristol HMA. Sedgemoor has subsequently maintained dialogue with North Somerset Council.
53. The West of England Joint Structure Plan (JSP) is currently being progressed and at the present time North Somerset Council does not seek to 13
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
accommodate a proportion of its housing need within Sedgemoor District. Nevertheless, there are constraints to housing delivery in North Somerset and, prior to the adoption of the JSP, North Somerset Council has indicated that it may find itself in the position where it needs to seek agreement with Sedgemoor in relation to accommodating some of its housing need. As a result of engagement between the two Councils therefore, the Local Plan specifies that an area of land to the north of the District, identified as a Potential Northern Extension, could provide an opportunity for accommodating any unmet need from the West of England (subject to further technical work, in particular relating to flooding and transport).
54. It is not necessary for the Plan to go further than this and identify a specific area of land to be developed, as has been suggested, because at this stage the Council has not been asked to provide for any specific level of unmet housing need from the West of England. Nevertheless, as set out above, the OAN for Sedgemoor is based on a HMA aligned with the local authority boundary. It does not therefore take account of the overlap from the Bristol HMA. Consequently, in order to comply with the Framework’s policy to ensure that the Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed need in the housing market area the Council propose a modification to policy S1 (MM/1) and to the part of the Plan which sets out the Potential Northern Extension (MM/22) to enshrine in policy the Council’s willingness to address any cross-boundary housing need issues that may emerge. The modification also sets out that this may necessitate an early or partial review of the Local Plan. This modification is required in order to ensure that the Plan complies with the Framework and to ensure that it is positively prepared.
Household Projections
55. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) indicates that household projections should provide the starting point for the estimate of overall housing need. The Council’s SHMA uses the 2014- based CLG household projections which are derived from the 2014-based Sub-National Population Projections. This suggests a need for around 612 dwellings per annum to be provided. This figure was sensitivity tested using alternative projections. Overall, the demographic based need was assessed to be between 609 and 635 dwellings per annum; the higher figure being informed by longer-term (10 year) migration trends.
56. The 2016-based household projections were published in September 2018. The Council’s analysis of the updated projections (EX149) concludes that they would result in a drop of 804 households by the end of the plan period, which equates to 38 fewer households per annum. The Council are satisfied that this is not a meaningful change that would justify a change to the OAN in the Plan. The PPG states that new projections do not automatically mean that housing assessments are rendered out of date. As the Plan seeks to meet the higher household growth using the 2014-based household projections as the starting point, I do not consider that the revised household projections figures would justify a change to the OAN identified in the Plan for soundness purposes.
14
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Market Signals and Affordable Housing
57. Sedgemoor does show some deterioration in house price to income ratio, above the level seen nationally. Furthermore, the analysis in relation to concealed households shows an increase in 207 concealed households from 2001-2011. Analysis of other market signals demonstrates that house prices have generally tracked the national average and are lower than the regional average. Sales volumes have mirrored the national and regional average whilst rental costs are below those averages. Land values in Sedgemoor are more than 50% below the national and regional averages. Housing delivery against planned provision has been good.
58. In summary, whilst the market signals showed some affordability pressures, these do not point to a clear need to make a significant adjustment to the housing need figure. Nevertheless, an adjustment has been made of 10 dpa to reflect the rise in concealed households.
59. The SHMA identifies a need for 298 affordable dwellings per annum. The PPG states that an increase in the total housing figures should be considered where it could help to deliver the required number of affordable homes. However, there is no requirement for this to ensure that affordable housing needs are met in full. No separate adjustment to the OAN is made to account for the level of affordable housing need in the Plan. The SHMA points out that the total affordable housing figure includes existing households and newly forming households, the latter are already included within the OAN as part of the demographic projections. I consider this analysis to be robust. Any further increase in the OAN is not warranted or justified by the evidence. The Plan’s policy for affordable housing provision is considered later in this report.
60. The PPG states that “in areas where an upward adjustment to the housing need figure is required, plan makers should set this adjustment at a level that is reasonable”. Whilst other figures, in excess of a 10 dpa adjustment, have been put forward, I am satisfied that the evidence does not point to a clear worsening trend compared to regional or national averages, to justify a larger additional supply response.
Economic Growth and the impact of Hinkley Point
61. The approach of the Plan to the economy and employment is set out below. However, economic growth has an impact on housing need. An Oxford Economics (OE) forecast was used to look at past trends in job growth and to forecast future growth. This information was linked to changes in the resident labour force by assessing commuting patterns and double-jobbing. The analysis points to a forecast growth in jobs of 308 per annum or 436 additional jobs per annum based on past trends in job growth. Linking these forecasts to housing need results in a need for between 540 and 629 dwellings per annum both of which are lower than the OAN of 644 dpa. Consequently, the evidence demonstrates that there will be a good balance between the number of jobs in the district and the resident population.
62. However, in 2011 the go-ahead was given for two new reactors to be built at Hinkley Point C (HPC) which, although located within West Somerset District Council, includes significant infrastructure within Sedgemoor. It is estimated that the construction project, likely to take 10 years, will have a significant 15
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
economic effect for Sedgemoor and that the plant will create around 900 additional jobs when fully operational. Based on analysis of where those people currently working at Hinkley Point live, 578 of the 900 jobs created would be likely to be filled by people living in Sedgemoor. Added to this would be a further 130 additional resident workers as a result of extra jobs created indirectly. Consequently, an additional 708 residents in employment are estimated to be generated by HPC.
63. When added to the OE forecast set out above of 540 dwellings per annum, the additional jobs created by HPC would increase the housing need to 565 dwellings per annum. When added to the past trends forecast of 629 dwellings per annum, the figure increases to 653 dpa. The OAN is lower than this latter figure, at 644 dpa. The Council point out that neither forecast is preferable in terms of the certainty of its output and they have opted for a mid-point between the two economic forecasts. Overall, there is no evidence which would suggest that the OAN should be increased further in order to have regard to the impact of HPC.
64. The longer term impact of HPC on the housing market is unknown at present. Separate measures exist outside of the Plan to monitor its impact and mitigation funds are available. A modification is proposed to better explain these monitoring arrangements (MM/47). This process should ensure that the impact of the construction phase on the local housing market is adequately addressed. I have considered whether the impact of the permanent workforce on the housing market also needs to be monitored to ensure that the Plan is capable of adapting quickly to any increased housing need. However, a modification is proposed to the Plan (MM/82) to introduce a more specific monitoring framework. One of the matters to be monitored will be the ability to maintain a five year housing land supply. Monitoring will take place as part of the annual update and an action plan will be prepared to address the matter if the supply falls below five years. This will include the potential for an early review of the Plan. In addition, policy S2 (as modified by MM/6) sets out the procedures which will apply if at any stage the Council cannot identify a five year supply. This will include the release of additional unallocated greenfield land in accordance with the settlement strategy. The above modifications are necessary in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy. I consider that these measures should be sufficient to deal, in a plan-led way, with any unidentified impacts of HPC on the housing market.
Conclusion on OAN
65. Whilst components of the OAN are contested and could arguably be adjusted either up or down, the Council’s OAN figure of 644 dpa follows a reasonable course of assumptions in accordance with the PPG. With the modifications identified as necessary above, I am satisfied that the OAN is justified and the Plan is positively prepared in this regard.
The supply of housing
66. The components that will make up the housing supply to meet the requirement set out in policy S2 are explained in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), the Sedgemoor 5 Year Housing Land Supply
16
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Report (2018-23), updated housing trajectory (EX86) and the Further Five Year Land Supply Scenarios (EX122). The Council also produced the 5 Year Land Supply – Updated Position (4 June 2018) (EX138) which includes the monitoring of residential completions for the period 1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018. The housing trajectory sets out a total supply of 13,942 dwellings against the OAN of 13,530 over the Plan period.
67. Large sites commitments would provide in excess of 3,700 dwellings over the Plan period. A small number of these sites gained planning permission some years ago and queries have been raised as to whether the sites are deliverable. However, the sites have planning permission and there is no evidence of any insurmountable constraints to their development. The Council’s assumptions have been informed by discussions with developers of the sites. In accordance with the Framework, sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years. Some of the sites are estimated to contribute to the supply later in the Plan period. The evidence suggests that there is a reasonable prospect that the sites will be available and could be viably developed within the timescale envisaged, in accordance with the Framework.
68. Local Plan allocations add over 4,200 to the supply. I deal in detail with the allocations below. The Council’s estimates of the number of dwellings to be provided in the Plan period are based on discussions with promoters / developers and there are no insurmountable barriers to the provision of infrastructure. Many of the sites are being actively promoted, Masterplans have been prepared and planning applications have been submitted for some of the sites. For the reasons set out later in this report, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that the sites will be available and could be viably developed within the Plan period, in accordance with the Framework.
69. Concern has been expressed at the capacity of the market in some settlements, particularly around Highbridge, to accommodate the amount of development proposed later in the Plan period. Two of the site allocations in this location are projected to provide 80 dpa cumulatively for a number of years at the same time as one of the committed sites would add a further 50 dpa to the market. It is argued that Highbridge has never before seen this level of housing growth. However, the Framework requires local planning authorities to take specified actions to boost significantly the supply of housing. It is therefore inevitable that some areas will see development at levels that have not been generated in the past. The Council’s assessments are based on discussions with site promotors / developers, who will be aware of other sites proposed within the area, and the sites have no insurmountable infrastructure constraints. Accordingly, the evidence suggests that these sites are capable of providing the number of dwellings estimated at the point envisaged in the trajectory.
70. The SHLAA identifies ‘Opportunity Sites within Settlements’. These are sites within settlement boundaries which are identified as being either deliverable, thus included in the 5 year supply considered below, or developable over the Plan period. Concern has been expressed that these sites should be specifically allocated in the Plan in order to provide certainty. However, policy S2 clearly sets out the intention to maximise development opportunities within
17
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
the settlement boundaries and there is therefore no need for all of these sites to be specifically allocated in the Plan. In order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy, a modification (MM/6) is required to policy S2, and a consequential amendment to policy S4 (MM/9), to make it clear that not all sites within settlement boundaries need to be on previously developed land. The trajectory also includes sites on the Brownfield Land Register. Not all of the sites included within the SHLAA as Opportunity Sites are included within the trajectory. There is therefore some flexibility in the trajectory regarding the sites with the potential to come forward.
71. The housing supply within Tier 2 settlements is to be identified in a neighbourhood plan or in a subsequent allocation document. In the interim policy T3, as modified by MM/38, allows for sites to come forward outside settlements subject to a number of criteria. Within Tiers 3 and 4, policies T5 and T10 allow for affordable and market housing within and outside of settlement boundaries. The Council has an Affordable Housing Enabling Team which proactively supports housing growth within Tier 3 and Tier 4 settlements. The evidence demonstrates that the housing supply figures for these settlements are justified.
72. In summary, the Plan’s allocations and policies, together with known sources of supply, give confidence that the housing requirement will be met over the Plan period when conservative and optimistic estimates from the various sources are balanced.
5 year supply
73. In calculating the 5 year housing land supply, the Sedgemoor 5 Year Housing Land Supply Report (2018-23) uses a ‘current year’ method which calculates both the residual requirement and the supply up to 2022/23 but which also includes the current year (2017/18) in the calculation. Whilst this differs from the calculation in some local authority areas, it is not an inherently flawed approach.
74. A 5% buffer is brought forward from later in the Plan period in order to provide choice and competition in the market, in accordance with the Framework. Whilst the Council has not delivered against the Local Plan target of 644 dpa since the start of the Plan period in 2011, an average of 570 dpa have been completed against the Core Strategy requirement of 505 dpa since 2006. Consequently, there is no clear evidence of a persistent under-delivery of housing when considered over a longer time period and 5% is therefore a reasonable buffer to provide.
75. Nevertheless, there has been a shortfall of housing since the start of the Plan period in 2011 when assessed against the Local Plan requirement. The Housing Land Supply Report aims to deal with this over the lifetime of the Plan (the ‘Liverpool’ method). The PPG states that local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible (the ‘Sedgefield’ method) and where this is not possible it becomes an issue to be dealt with under the duty to cooperate. As set out above, the Council has not sought to accommodate any of its housing need in an adjoining local authority area. Even taking account of the revised 2016- based household projections, there is insufficient justification for spreading the
18
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
shortfall over the Plan period and this should be dealt with over the first 5 years following adoption.
76. The Further Five Year Land Supply Scenarios document sets out that in the circumstances where the current year methodology is used, with a 5% buffer and using the Sedgefield approach to the shortfall, a 5 year supply of 5.36 years can be demonstrated. The updated 5 Year Land Supply document, using actual monitoring from the period 2017-18 and considering the 5 year period from 2018/19 to 2022/23 demonstrates that there will be a supply of 5.72 years.
77. Both of these figures include commitments on small sites averaged over the 5 year period, at most using a rate of 51 dpa in the updated document. Historically, small sites have come forward at a rate between 70-185 dpa, although the rate has dropped in recent years to between 70 and 80 dpa. This does not constitute a windfall allowance, but is based on actual extant consents averaged out over the five year period. It has been argued that a lapse rate should be applied to small sites included within the supply but, given the conservative estimate of the contribution from small sites within the 5 year period, it is not necessary to apply a lapse rate.
78. Concern has been expressed regarding lead in times and annual delivery rates, particularly on some of the larger sites. However, the evidence (EX88) demonstrates that these are comparable to sites which have been developed in the District for a number of years. They are also based on discussions with promoters / site developers.
79. There have been calls for a greater flexibility in the supply to allow for sites not coming forward as envisaged in the trajectory. However, sufficient flexibility is available in relation to small sites, Opportunity Sites in the SHLAA which are not included in the supply and future potential Opportunity Sites, also identified in the SHLAA. There is therefore no need for the Council to identify further sites at this stage in order to demonstrate a supply for the Plan period or for the 5 year period.
80. The 5 year supply is reliant on some of the larger sites delivering within the timescales. In order to provide for a contingency should this not be the case, policy S2 allows for the release of unallocated greenfield land where there is a shortfall in the 5 year supply. Modifications are required to the Plan (MM/4) in order to ensure that sites can be released in any of the settlements from Bridgwater to Tier 2 in the hierarchy, rather than requiring a sequential approach to their release. This would ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and in accordance with national policy.
81. On the basis of the above, the evidence demonstrates that the Plan will provide a 5 year supply on adoption with flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The updated information shows the supply position to be improving.
Other potential housing sites
82. A number of other sites with the potential for housing development have been put forward. Given the conclusions above, there is no need for the allocation of other sites in the Plan at this stage. 19
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Conclusion on Issue 2
83. With the main modifications identified as necessary, I conclude that the Plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy in relation to the overall provision for housing.
Issue 3 - Whether the policies of the Plan address the needs for all types of housing, including affordable housing and those of different groups in the community such as Gypsies and Travellers
Affordable housing
84. As set out above, the SHMA identifies a need for 298 affordable dwellings per annum. In response to that need, and to reflect viability considerations, policy D7 sets different thresholds and targets for the provision of affordable housing. In Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, Cheddar, North Petherton and Wedmore, the policy seeks affordable housing on sites of 11 units or more, seeking a target of 15% on brownfield sites and 30% on greenfield sites. The rest of the District is listed as a designated rural area and as such the Council will seek affordable housing on developments of 6 units or more with targets of 15% on brownfield sites and 20% on greenfield sites.
85. A modification (MM/54) is proposed to the policy and supporting text to ensure that these thresholds are clear and to remove the suggestion that developers will be required to enter into negotiation on a site by site basis. The modification also seeks to increase the flexibility over the mix of tenures to be provided on different sites and to ensure that the affordable dwellings are well integrated with market housing. These modifications are required to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective. I have further amended the wording of the modification to remove Wedmore from the list of villages to which the 11 unit threshold applies. The Council have confirmed that Wedmore falls within that part of the District listed as a designated rural area.
86. In addition, the Council has a dedicated affordable housing team that is proactive in enabling delivery of both 100% and cross-subsidy schemes on land outside rural settlement boundaries across the District and this is supported by other policies in the Plan, identified above. The Plan therefore goes as far as it reasonably can in meeting the need for affordable housing in the District.
Care homes and specialist accommodation
87. Policy D8 provides for the requirements of elderly people and those with specialist care needs. Modifications are proposed to the policy and supporting text to increase flexibility in some of the criteria and to ensure that the criterion in relation to the provision of affordable housing is clear (MM/55). These modifications are required to ensure that the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy.
20
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Gypsies and travellers
88. The accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers is set out in the Somerset Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) Update (Oct 2013). There is currently a need for 45 permanent pitches, 5 transit pitches and 5 plots for travelling showpeople in the District. The Council intend to update the GTAA and prepare a site allocation plan to identify sufficient pitches to meet the need. In the interim, policy D9 sets out a criteria-based policy for the assessment of planning applications.
89. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states that planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish accommodation needs and set pitch and plot targets to address these needs. Policy D9 does not set pitch and plot targets and in this respect it does not seek to meet the need identified in the evidence base. In addition, some of the criteria which sites would need to satisfy are onerous and do not comply with PPTS. Modifications are therefore necessary to policy D9 and supporting text (MM/56). The modification identifies the level of need and sets out a timescale for the preparation of a Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document. This timescale is the same as that for the preparation of the site allocations plan for the settled population. The Local Development Scheme (LDS) has been updated in accordance with this timescale. The modification also ensures that the criteria-based policy complies with PPTS. The modification is required to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy.
Self-build Housing
90. The Government requires local authorities to keep a register of those who want to acquire serviced plots to build their own homes. Policy D10 seeks to ensure that self-build plots are provided on allocated sites and indicates that sites are appropriate in rural areas. Modifications to the policy (MM/57) are required to ensure that there is greater flexibility to ensure that the policy does not lead to delay in delivery of the allocated sites. The modification also clarifies where and in what circumstances small-scale self-build schemes in rural areas will be deemed appropriate, including infill housing in the countryside. Consistent with the spatial strategy, self-build sites in Tiers 3 and below are to meet local need. The modification sets this out. A further consequential modification (MM/7) is required to the table accompanying policy S2 to reflect these changes to policy D10. In line with the further changes to MM/6, I have made slight alterations to the wording of MM/7 in relation to small villages in the countryside to improve clarity. MM/57 also modifies the requirement for consultation with local communities in policy D10 consistent with modifications to other policies.
91. It has been argued that the Plan should specifically allocate sites for self-build. However, the policy approach in the Plan as modified is likely to be more flexible than the allocation of specific sites. The policy as modified sets out the actions to be taken if monitoring indicates that it is not effective in meeting demand for self-build. In those circumstances the Council will consider the allocation of additional sites through a site allocations plan. A trigger is included in the updated monitoring framework (MM/82). The modifications
21
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
identified above are required in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective.
Conclusion on issue 3
92. With the main modifications set out above, the policies of the Plan will address the needs for all types of housing, including affordable housing and those of different groups in the community such as gypsies and travellers.
Issue 4 - Whether the Local Plan has been positively prepared and whether it is justified, effective and consistent with national policy in relation to the approach towards the economy and employment
93. Policy S2 sets out the aim to plan for 9,795 new jobs in the District between 2011 and 2032. This translates into an employment land requirement of 33ha and was derived from the Sedgemoor Employment Land Review 2016 (the ELR).
94. The ELR considers a labour demand forecast approach as well as examining employment land trends. It considers a range of employment growth scenarios which are in line with the Heart of the South West Strategic Economic Plan, Somerset County’s Growth Plan, Sedgemoor’s existing Economic Development Strategy and the SHMA.
95. On the basis of strong levels of growth experienced over the last decade, the ELR models a trend and above trend scenario as the base scenarios. These comprise the Oxford Economics Baseline and Baseline plus 25%. In addition the ELR considers two further scenarios having regard to the potential additional growth as a result of HPC. These comprise the Baseline plus Hinkley and Baseline plus 25% plus Hinkley scenarios. The analysis provides a range of jobs growth scenarios. The Plan incorporates the jobs level from the Baseline plus 25% plus Hinkley scenario ie. 9,759 jobs. This is a reasonable and justifiable assumption based on the evidence. The evidence corresponds with that used to assess the impact of employment growth, including HPC, on housing as addressed above.
96. A number of reasonable assumptions are then made to translate the number of jobs into floorspace requirements. The ELR applies a margin of 50% to the figures to provide flexibility in the supply of sites. This results in a need for 75ha of employment land over the plan period. Following an assessment of existing sites there remains a need to identify 33ha of additional employment land. This will allow flexibility in the range and capacity of sites to meet the projected economic needs over the plan period.
97. Policy D16 sets detailed policy considerations for employment development. A modification (MM/61) is required to the policy to ensure that it is sufficiently flexible to meet specific requirements of an employment user. Modifications are also required to policy D16 (MM/61), to policy S2 and supporting text (MM/7, MM/5) to ensure that the policies are consistent in setting out the development strategy for employment development. These modifications are necessary to ensure that the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy.
22
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Conclusion on issue 4
98. Subject to the main modifications set out above, the Local Plan has been positively prepared and is justified, effective and consistent with national policy in relation to the approach towards the economy and employment.
Issue 5 - Whether the proposed site allocations and other place-making policies are justified, effective and consistent with national policy
99. Policy S2 sets out the intention to maximise the opportunities for housing development within existing settlement boundaries and on Opportunity Sites identified in the SHLAA. There is still a need to release greenfield sites to cover the plan period to meet the OAN. The Place-making section of the Plan includes housing and employment site allocations and other policies relating to each settlement / Tier. The sites have been assessed as the most appropriate locations for growth having regard to the SA.
100. For each settlement / Tier the Plan sets out a series of objectives which development proposals must meet in addition to the specific policies and allocations. It is unclear what would be required of developers in addressing these policies (B1, BH1, T1, T2, T4, T9) and they would therefore conflict with paragraph 154 of the Framework. Modifications MM/11, MM/19, MM/25, MM/37, MM/40, MM/43 delete the policies and incorporate amended objectives into the supporting text for each settlement. These modifications are required in order to ensure consistency with national policy. An additional objective for Cheddar is included (MM/26) setting out the objectives in relation to infrastructure delivery. This is required in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective. I have made a further change to that modification to reflect the fact that policy C9 has been deleted.
Sites – general issues
101. Each allocated site raises issues in terms of the potential impacts of development. Detailed matters including ecological impact and drainage issues would be dealt with during the consideration of planning applications. Detailed policy requirements and the need for the larger housing developments to be built in accordance with approved development and design principles, infrastructure delivery plan and master plan will enable such issues to be addressed. The need for education facilities is also detailed in the policies where relevant. A modification is required to policy D30 relating to education to reflect the locational requirements for new school provision reflected in the Plan (MM/72). A modification is required to the supporting text to S2 (MM/8) to explain how the master plan documents can be prepared in order to ensure that the requirement does not delay the delivery of the strategic allocations. These modifications are required in order to ensure the Plan is positively prepared and effective.
Traffic impact
102. The Plan is supported by detailed traffic modelling for Bridgwater. The Infrastructure Delivery Strategy (SD34) sets out the transport infrastructure necessary to support the development in the Plan. The Council has produced 23
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
a supplementary report (EX134) which sets out the evidence used to determine the impact of traffic in other areas of the District. In Burnham-on- Sea and Highbridge, Cheddar and North Petherton evidence is drawn from Transport Impact Assessments dealing with individual development proposals. In addition, the Council is currently preparing a long term transport strategy to cover the period to 2050.
103. Concern has been expressed regarding traffic impact in a number of locations. In Bridgwater, there is particular concern regarding the impact of allocated sites when added to the traffic from HPC construction vehicles. However, measures are being put in place to reduce HPC construction traffic over time and many of the larger developments are projected to be developed once these measures are in place. In Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge mitigation works are identified as necessary as part of the site allocations. The Plan identifies the need for longer term solutions anticipated to form part of the evidence base to support future growth to the north of Burnham. EX134 acknowledges the localised congestion in Cheddar. The Plan identifies the need for contributions to improve specified infrastructure in the village. Furthermore, allocated sites are primarily to the west of the village where traffic can avoid the village centre. The exception to this is the allocation for employment purposes under policy C4 which I address in more detail below.
104. Evidence of highway impact from development to the north of North Petherton (policies B5 and B6) is assessed under the Bridgwater traffic modelling. Within North Petherton itself, the Council relies on an individual TIA for a site adjoining policy NP1. The Plan identifies opportunities to introduce traffic management improvements through the town centre. A smaller proportion of housing growth is directed to other parts of the District. The evidence indicates that localised highway impacts will be addressed through the development management process.
105. Somerset County Council (SCC) is the highway authority for Sedgemoor District and some of the adjoining authorities. It has been involved in commissioning the evidence base for the Plan and is satisfied that the Plan is generally in accordance with its Future Transport Plan. SCC confirms that highways issues can be adequately considered through the detailed planning process.
106. Highways England is responsible for the strategic road network and, for Sedgemoor, is concerned with the impact on the M5 motorway and in particular Junctions 22 and 23. Updated modelling of the traffic impact on the M5 junctions has highlighted the need for mitigation measures to be in place in order to accommodate the scale of development proposed in the Plan. Specific modifications are required to transport policies B17 (for Bridgwater) (MM/18) and BH8 (for Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge) (MM/23), to set out the requirements in relation to the strategic road network. These modifications are required to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
107. Growth promoted through the Local Plan to meet the needs of the District will inevitably increase pressure on local highway infrastructure. However, overall, I am satisfied that the available evidence is proportionate and indicates that the highway impacts have been adequately taken into account in the Plan.
24
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Flooding
108. The Framework requires local plans to apply a sequential approach to the location of development, if necessary also applying the Exception Test. The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.
109. I have addressed the issues relating specifically to Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge above. On a District-wide level the Council’s approach to flood risk and the Sequential and Exception tests is set out in an Explanatory Note (EX136). SFRA Levels 1 & 2, have been undertaken in support of the Plan. The settlement hierarchy and allocated sites were chosen following application of the SFRA and testing through the SA. The spatial strategy in the Plan seeks as far as possible to steer development to the settlements at least flood risk, taking account of other important sustainability objectives through the SA. I am satisfied that the Sequential and Exception Tests, where relevant, are passed and the settlements and allocated sites are justifiable in flood risk terms based on robust evidence.
110. The Environment Agency questions the approach of policy D1 which sets out that the Sequential Test is deemed to be passed for development on sites located within identified settlement boundaries. In order to meet one of the aims of the Framework to boost significantly the supply of housing and to maintain a 5 year supply, the approach of the Plan is to maximise development opportunities in settlement boundaries. Consequently, all of the opportunities for development within the settlements will be required in order to meet the housing land supply requirements over the lifetime of the Plan. The vulnerability of development would still need to be compatible with the flood zone and the Exception Test would be applied where relevant. Site specific FRAs would also be needed. This is a justifiable and robust approach which accords with the Framework and PPG. MM/48 more clearly explains this approach by reference to policy S2 and policy D18, in relation to caravan and camping sites. The modification also sets out the requirements for FRA. This modification is required to ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with national policy.
Sites – specific issues
Bridgwater sites
111. Land at West Bridgwater (policy B3) and land at East Bridgwater (policy B4) allocate land for about 1,200 new homes each. Modifications are required to policy B3 (MM/13) to provide consistency with the retail hierarchy, to meet local concerns regarding traffic impacts and to ensure that the wording relating to heritage assets complies with the Framework. Modifications are required to policy B4 (MM/14) to set out the need to ensure access by walking and cycling to adequate community facilities including the need for a primary school. During the consultation on the MMs it has been suggested that site B4 could accommodate around 1,350 dwellings. Whilst the efficient use of allocated sites is to be supported, this potential increase in dwelling numbers was not put forward in representations to the Plan at earlier
25
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
consultation stages nor at the hearings. Consequently, it has not been advertised as a proposed modification to the Plan. It would not therefore be appropriate to modify the Plan in this respect at this stage. Any increase in numbers of dwellings on the site would therefore be a matter for the Council at application stage.
112. Policy B5 allocates land at Bridgwater Gateway for about 300 dwellings. Further detailed work undertaken by the site promotor, and agreed by the Council, indicates that in excess of 300 dwellings could be accommodated on the site. The Council have therefore proposed a modification (MM/15) to increase the number of dwellings set out in the policy from ‘about 300’ to ‘about 400’. This increase in the number of dwellings proposed for the site will make efficient use of an allocated site and will be a positive step towards boosting the supply of housing in the District. It has been suggested that this should be expressed as a minimum figure, but this is not necessary for soundness. This proposed modification was put forward during earlier consultation stages of the Plan and at the hearings. The modification has been subject to consultation and I have had regard to the responses. It therefore differs from the suggestion above regarding policy B4.
113. Other issues in relation to policy B5 include access arrangements which are overly restrictive, the mixed-use nature of the site is not adequately reflected and the requirement for a local centre needs to be altered to a neighbourhood centre to align with the retail hierarchy set out in the Plan. Modifications are therefore required to remedy these matters. These modifications (in MM/15) are required to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, justified and effective.
114. Land at South Bridgwater (policy B6) comprises two separate sites with a combined capacity of about 200 homes. Modifications are required to the supporting text (MM/16) to clarify that the sites can be developed independently of each other, to reflect agreed access arrangements and to clarify that the educational need is for a primary school. This modification is necessary to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and effective.
115. The Plan also allocates employment sites in Bridgwater. Policy B9, land at Huntworth, East of J.24 allocates about 32ha of land for employment purposes. Discussions have been ongoing with the Council regarding a motorway service area on this site and the Council consider this should be reflected in the policy. MM/17 reflects this approach. The proposed modification also ensures that Highways England’s agreement is sought for the highway works having regard to the potential impact on junction 24 of the M5. It would also ensure that heritage assets are protected in accordance with the Framework. These modifications are necessary to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
116. The Plan allocates other sites in Bridgwater for employment purposes, these are sound without modification. The supporting text to policy B2 requires a modification (MM/12) to ensure the protection of the River Parrett as a wildlife corridor as recommended by the HRA. This modification is required in order to ensure consistency with national policy.
26
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
117. With these main modifications I am satisfied that the proposed site allocations and other policies for Bridgwater are justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge sites
118. Land south of Brue Farm (policy BH2) allocates land for about 400 homes. A modification to the policy is required to reflect the potential need for off-site highway improvement works to mitigate cumulative impact on the strategic road network, in accordance with Highways England’s comments on the Plan. A further modification is required to reflect the need for flood risk mitigation measures in accordance with the Environment Agency’s requirements. A modification is required to the supporting text to highlight the need to address recreational disturbance on the Brue Estuary, in accordance with the recommendations in the HRA. These modifications are incorporated in MM/20.
119. Land east of Isleport Lane (policy BH3) allocates land for up to 270 homes. A modification is required to indicate that the allocation is for ‘about’ 270 homes in order to ensure consistency with other site allocations policies and to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared. A modification is required to reflect the potential need for off-site highway improvement works to mitigate cumulative impact on the strategic road network, in accordance with Highways England’s comments on the Plan. A modification is also required to highlight the need to protect the amenity of existing properties. These modifications are incorporated into MM/21.
120. The modifications to the above policies are required in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
121. The Plan allocates one further site in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge for employment purposes, this is sound without modification.
122. A modification is required to policy BH11 Tourism to ensure that regard is had to flood risk in tourism development (MM/24). This is required to ensure consistency with national policy.
123. With these main modifications I am satisfied that the proposed site allocations and other policies for Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge are justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Tier 1 Settlement: Cheddar
124. Land at Round Oak Farm (policy C1) is allocated for about 100 homes. Proposed modification (MM/27) would ensure that the access requirements are consistent with those set out in policy C2. The modification would also set out the need to protect and enhance the valuable ecological features of the existing County Wildlife Site, the AONB and the setting of Cheddar. These modifications are necessary to ensure that the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy.
125. Land north of Holwell Lane, west of Upper New Road (policy C2) is allocated for about 150 homes. The policy specifies access arrangements from a new junction on the A371. Representations were made that this could impact on 27
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
the deliverability of the site. Modifications are required (MM/28) to clarify the access arrangements and provide greater flexibility to consider an alternative access point. The wording of the modification strikes an appropriate balance between the need for increased flexibility in the access arrangements, so as not to delay delivery of the development, the need to safeguard a walking and cycling route along Holwell Lane and to ensure that regard is had to protected species. The modification also clarifies the potential for commercial use to include possible convenience shopping. The modification is necessary to ensure the Plan is positively prepared and effective.
126. Policy C3, land north of Hellier’s Lane allocates land for about 60 new homes. This policy is sound without modification.
127. Policy C4, land west of Draycott Road, allocates land for employment purposes. The site adjoins an existing business park and would provide the opportunity for existing businesses to be expanded as well as for new business enterprises. The C4 site is a relatively small site and is restricted to B1 and B2 to avoid a significant increase in HGV traffic from the site. A modification is required to policy C4 (MM/29) to highlight the need to address flood risk as the access crosses land at risk of flooding. This is necessary to ensure the Plan is consistent with national policy. I address the relationship between the Cheddar Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) and this site allocation below.
128. The Yeo Valley site is an existing employment site which may become vacant during the plan period. The Plan includes text indicating that such redevelopment should be in accordance with other policies in the Plan. Modifications are required to the text (MM/30) to correctly refer to the relevant policies and to remove unnecessarily restrictive wording. This modification is necessary to ensure that the Plan is effective. Whilst policies in the CNP) will also be relevant to any redevelopment of this site, the Plan does not need to make specific reference to those policies for soundness reasons.
129. The ELR sets out the strategic need for 7.5 hectares of employment land in Cheddar over the lifetime of the Plan. The allocation of C4 provides flexibility to meet this identified need as the other potential site at Yeo Valley is currently in active employment use. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the Steart Farm site (considered further below) is unlikely to be deliverable.
130. A number of infrastructure improvements are required by the detailed policies and in the IDS to mitigate the impact of increased traffic from the allocations. As noted above, SCC is satisfied that the development in the Plan can be adequately considered through the detailed planning process.
131. Policy C5 sets out the transport schemes to be prioritised in Cheddar. Modifications are required to ensure consistency with other transport policies and to highlight the need for improvements to the A38/A371 junction, identified as being necessary to support the growth in the Plan. This modification (MM/31) is required in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared. Policy C7 relates to the Cheddar Gorge area. A modification is required to reflect the recommendations of the HRA to ensure no adverse impact on bats (MM/32).
132. A modification is required to policy C8 to remove reference to extending Sharpham Road Playing Fields as this is unlikely to be deliverable (MM/33). 28
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Policy C9 is to be deleted by MM/34, also for deliverability reasons. A modification is required to the supporting text of policy C10 to ensure that regard is had to the Habitats Regulations in accordance with the recommendations in the HRA (MM/35).
133. The modifications to the above policies are required in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
The Cheddar Neighbourhood Plan
134. The CNP was made on 17 October 2018. It was drafted in accordance with the Core Strategy which the Local Plan will replace. Its progress to development plan status in advance of the Plan has led to some inconsistency between the two plans.
135. In relation to housing, the CNP sets a target of 200-300 homes in the period up to 2027, or such higher figure as may be appropriate in the light of any future local plan. The latter part of the policy was recommended as a modification in the Examiner’s report into the CNP to account for the fact that the housing target is below the minimum residual housing requirement set out in policy S2 for Cheddar of 515 up to 2032.
136. In terms of employment, the C4 site remains unallocated in the CNP, on the basis of the additional HGV traffic which would travel through the village from that site.
137. Land at Steart Farm is allocated for employment purposes in the CNP but remains unallocated in the Local Plan. This site was allocated for employment purposes in the Sedgemoor District Local Plan 1991-2011, but the allocation policy was not saved when the Core Strategy was later adopted. The Council notes that the site has not come forward for development for employment purposes for some 15 years, neither was it put forward in the Council’s call for employment sites for this Plan. On this basis, the Council does not consider the site to be deliverable for employment purposes. The evidence from the land owner would support this view. Furthermore, the SHLAA identifies this site as an Opportunity Site within the settlement boundary and therefore suitable for housing development. However, the Plan does not allocate sites within the settlement boundaries and I have set out above that there is no need for it to do so.
138. Whilst there have been calls for the Steart Farm site to be specifically allocated for housing purposes in the Plan in order to provide certainty that it can come forward to meet the housing requirement in the Plan, there is no soundness reason for doing so. Whilst allocated for employment purposes in the CNP, the Local Plan provides for the release of such land where it has been demonstrated that there is no prospect of the land being developed for employment purposes. Accordingly, this matter is capable of being resolved through the development management process and the policy approach would not preclude the site coming forward for housing at some point during the Plan period. Furthermore, the Council has indicated that it is likely to make up the shortfall in housing land from this site at the C2 allocation which is in an advanced pre-application stage and which it would appear has greater capacity than the indicated 150 dwellings.
29
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
139. Whilst there is therefore a level of misalignment between the Plan and the CNP, the strategic need for the level of housing and employment in Cheddar is justified in the evidence base. The Plan seeks to meet this identified need and this is in accordance with national policy in the Framework. Having regard to the needs and opportunities in the locality, national planning policy and the advice in the PPG, there is no reason to consider that the policies in the Plan are unsound.
140. Subject to the main modifications recommended, there is sufficient evidence to justify the site allocations in the Plan, including where they differ from the choices made in the CNP. With these modifications I am satisfied that the proposed site allocations and other policies for Cheddar are justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Tier 1 Settlement: North Petherton
141. Policy NP1 allocates land east of A38, west of Newton Road for about 230 homes. Policy NP2 allocates land to the east of Baymead Lane for 40 houses. Discussions are advanced with one of the site promoters of NP1 to provide access to the site, directly from the A38 and to develop a first phase of housing. A modification to policy NP1 (MM/36) is required to ensure that heritage assets are protected in accordance with the Framework. This will ensure that the policy is consistent with national policy. Concerns relating to the lack of school places are addressed by the allocation of land at Wilstock and a new through school at Queenswood Farm under policy B15. The Council indicates that it is working with Taunton Deane Borough Council on initiatives to improve public transport on the A38 corridor.
142. With this modification I am satisfied that the proposed site allocations and other policies for North Petherton are justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Conclusion on issue 5
143. Subject to the main modifications set out above, the proposed site allocations and place-making policies addressed above are justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Issue 6 - Whether the other policies in the Plan are justified, effective and consistent with national policy
144. The Plan contains other Strategic, Place-making and District-wide policies not addressed above.
145. Policy S4 and policy B2 contain wording which requires all development to meet certain criteria regardless of the size of development and its impact. Modifications are required to increase the flexibility in these policies so as not to delay or act as a barrier to development. These modifications (S4 – MM/9) (B2 – MM/12) are required in order to ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy.
146. Policy S5 relates to climate change mitigation. MM/10 is required to clarify the use of renewable and low carbon energy and to strengthen the requirements in relation to flood risk. These modifications are necessary to 30
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
ensure consistency with national policy. I have made a further amendment to the detailed wording of the modification in order to ensure consistency with the Framework.
147. Policy T7 requires modification (MM/42) to reflect a known need for school expansion in order to provide for the necessary infrastructure to support planned growth. This will ensure that the Plan is positively prepared.
148. The Council is not adopting the Nationally Described Space Standards, nevertheless a number of policies infer that the Council will seek specific space standards in developments. Modifications are required to policies and supporting text to clarify the approach (MM/49, MM/70). These modifications are required in order to ensure consistency with national policy.
149. MM/49 also proposes a modification to policy D2 and its supporting text to ensure that development has regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. The modification also ensures that policy D2 and supporting text reflects the approach of the Framework to requiring good design, to increase flexibility and to ensure development proposals have regard to landscaping and heritage. The modification is required to ensure the policy complies with national policy.
150. Policies D3, D4 and D5 relate to sustainability and renewable energy. Policy D3 seeks to apply BREEAM or similar technical assessment systems to commercial or non-residential development, it is inconsistent with policy D5, it is unclear how the Council would assess an application for development against it and it goes beyond national policy in seeking to maximise on-site low or zero carbon energy generation. D4 is inflexible in requiring any adverse impact to have been minimised and is inconsistent with national policy regarding the consideration of proposals for wind energy development. D5 is inconsistent with policy D3. Modifications are required (including the deletion of policy D5 and incorporation into the remaining policies) to ensure that they comply with national policy, to increase clarity and consistency and to reflect the findings of the SA, thus ensuring that they are justified by the evidence (MM/51, MM/52). I have made a further alteration to modification MM/50 to ensure that adverse impacts can be addressed satisfactorily in accordance with the Framework.
151. Policy D6 relates to housing mix. As drafted it is inflexible and may act as a barrier to development. Modifications are necessary to policy D6 (MM/53) to increase flexibility and ensure consistency with national policy. Policy D12, replacement dwellings in the countryside, seeks to ensure that replacement buildings are not materially larger than the one it replaces. This goes further than the Framework’s approach to housing in rural areas and the evidence does not justify this more stringent requirement. A modification is required to ensure the wording is consistent with national policy. The Council’s suggested modification also introduces wording to ensure the sustainable re-use of materials in order to reflect the SA recommendations and ensure that the policy is justified. These modifications are incorporated in MM/58 and MM/59.
152. Policy D15 relates to transport impact. In order to ensure that development has adequate regard to transport impacts and mitigating harm, in accordance
31
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
with the Framework, modifications are required (MM/60). These modifications reflect the concerns of statutory bodies and will ensure the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy.
153. Modifications are required to policy D17 relating to safeguarding existing employment sites, and to supporting text, to ensure consistency with national policy in terms of the release of sites no longer required for employment purposes. The modifications also increase clarity and therefore effectiveness (MM/62). Modifications are required to policy D18, tourism, to reflect the SA recommendations and thus ensure that the policy is justified, to reflect the type of tourism related uses in the District and to ensure regard is had to flood risk and landscape protection (MM/63). These modifications will ensure that the policy is positively prepared, justified and consistent with national policy.
154. Policy D19 sets out the retail hierarchy and retail policy. It currently does not accurately reflect the existing commercial areas or proposed commercial areas in the District and identified elsewhere in the Plan. Reference in the policy to the need for retail uses within the town centre to demonstrate the sequential test is also not in accordance with national policy. Modifications are therefore necessary to ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with national policy (MM/64).
155. Policy D20 relates to landscape issues. As drafted the wording of the policy does not comply with the Framework. Modifications are therefore required to ensure the wording is consistent with national policy and to reflect the recommendations of the SA ensuring the policy is justified (MM/65). Policy D21 relates to biodiversity and geodiversity. Modification MM/66 is required to ensure the policy complies with national policy. In particular, the modification sets out the avoidance, mitigation and compensation approach to development which causes significant harm, in compliance with the Framework. I have further modified the wording to ensure full compliance. Policy D22 relates to ecological networks. MM/67 is also required in order to set out the avoidance, mitigation and compensation approach to development which causes significant harm, in accordance with the Framework.
156. Policy D23 relates to trees and woodland. It seeks to avoid harm to ancient woodland, ancient trees, trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders and trees within Conservation Areas. It therefore goes further than the Framework which only relates to the loss of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees outside ancient woodland. The Framework also states that the need for, and benefits of, the development should be taken into account. MM/68 is required to ensure that the policy reflects this approach in national policy. Policy D25 deals with pollution. As drafted it states that development which causes harm will not be supported. This requires modification to reflect the Framework’s (para 120) to prevent ‘unacceptable’ risk and to have regard to the sensitivity of the area. MM/69 would achieve this consistency national policy.
157. Policies D27, D28 and D29 relate to the historic environment and archaeology. They conflate the impact on designated and non-designated assets and in this respect do not comply with national policy. The policies have been redrafted and combined into one policy. These modifications are necessary to ensure that the Plan is consistent with national policy (MM/71).
32
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
158. Policy D31, deal with health and social care. Modifications are necessary to make clear that financial contributions will be secured where necessary where the provision relates to a site specific impact (MM/73). This will ensure that the policy is in accordance with national policy in relation to financial contributions. The modification also reflects locational requirements for facilities in accordance with the spatial strategy and ensures safe walking and cycling. This is required to ensure that the policy is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
159. A number of policies relate to green infrastructure. It is not clear what criteria a decision maker will take into account in applying D32 and it does not therefore comply with paragraph 154 of the Framework. MM/74 will rectify this. MM/75 (policy D33) and MM/79 (policy D37) clarify the requirement for provision of green infrastructure to Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard and increase flexibility to the policies. MM/79 also introduces reference to Sport England’s Active Design Principles. A modification is necessary to policy D34 which relates to countryside around settlements. Some of the allocated sites overlap with this designation and the modification clarifies how proposals will be considered (MM/76). Policy D35 is framed in a negative manner. A modification is required (MM/77) which sets out how development can be supported. A modification is required to D36 to ensure it complies with the Framework in terms of the loss of recreational open space (MM/78). These modifications are required in order to ensure the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
Conclusion on issue 6
160. Subject to the main modifications set out above, the other policies in the Plan are justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
Issue 7 - Whether the approach to infrastructure provision, implementation and monitoring is sound
161. The Plan sets out the required infrastructure needed to support the planned growth and specific policies clearly set out the infrastructure requirements for individual site allocations. The IDS provides detailed information on estimated costs and delivery. The Council and SCC has been active in pursuing opportunities to bring forward improvements to infrastructure such as highway infrastructure at East Bridgwater and mitigation funding via the HPC S106 agreement.
162. Policy S3 sets out an appropriate approach to seeking developer contributions for infrastructure either through the Community Infrastructure Levy or through S106 agreements.
163. Modification MM/81 is required to ensure that the Indicative Plans in Appendix 1 reflect changes to the policies set out above. This is necessary to ensure the Plan is effective.
164. Modification MM/82 would amend the Monitoring Framework to ensure that there would be clear and effective mechanisms and trigger points to monitor the implementation of the Plan. This is necessary to ensure the Plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy. 33
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
Conclusion on issue 7
165. Subject to the main modifications set out above, the approach to infrastructure provision, implementation and monitoring is sound.
Public Sector Equality Duty 166. The policies of the plan, including the development strategy and design and housing policies make provision for the disabled and for other protected groups. The preparation of the plan and the examination has had due regard to its impacts on equality in accordance with the Public Sector Equality duty. Assessment of Legal Compliance 167. My examination of the legal compliance of the Plan is summarised below.
168. The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Council’s Local Development Scheme.
169. Consultation on the Local Plan and the MMs was carried out in compliance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
170. Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out and is adequate.
171. The Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment Screening Report October 2017, sets out why an Appropriate Assessment (AA) is not necessary having regard to mitigation measures proposed in the Plan. However, a recent judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17) held that mitigation measures may no longer be taken into account at the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening stage. The HRA was updated in July 2018 following this judgement and an AA (Stage 2) has been undertaken. This found that some policies have uncertainty with regard to significant effects on European sites. Mitigation measures are therefore proposed to counteract any potential significant effects. This mitigation has been secured through the Plan. The HRA concludes that with these counter-acting measures, the Plan is unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites assessed. Natural England has confirmed that it concurs with the conclusions of the revised HRA.
172. The Local Plan includes policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
173. The Local Plan complies with all relevant legal requirements, including in the 2004 Act (as amended) and the 2012 Regulations. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 174. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness for the reasons set out above, which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.
34
Sedgemoor District Council Sedgemoor Local Plan, Inspector’s Report 10 January 2019
175. The Council has requested that I recommend MMs to make the Plan sound and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix the Sedgemoor Local Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Susan Heywood
Inspector
This report is accompanied by an Appendix containing the Main Modifications.
35