Methodology – defining infill boundaries

This paper sets out the approach that has been undertaken in defining infill boundaries for both villages with an existing Housing Development Boundary (HDB) and villages that currently do not have a boundary defined.

1. Villages with an existing Housing Development Boundary (HDB)

1.1. Assess village boundary a. Compare with the existing criteria for defining HDBs which includes: i. Tightly defined around housing, excluding non-housing uses on the edge of the settlement ii. May be appropriate to define two or more separate boundaries – exclude small clusters of housing (less than 10 dwellings) iii. Include existing housing commitments iv. Include land within residential curtilages, except large gardens or other open areas which are visually detached from settlement v. Exclude playing fields or open space at settlement edge vi. Exclude large gardens or other areas at the settlement edge where development or intensification would harm character vii. Exclude developments which are visually detached from the settlement (including farm/agricultural buildings which relate more to the countryside) viii. Exclude holiday accommodation or other housing permitted through farm diversification schemes ix. Exclude significant employment sites at the settlement edge b. The same principles apply for infill boundaries given the similarities and need to protect the village landscape character and to prevent sprawl. 1.2 Amend some boundaries to better reflect infill opportunities, tightly bordering settlement boundaries. Please see Annex 1 for a list of villages washed over by the Green Belt with an existing HDB.

2. Settlements without an HDB

2.1 Heat mapping A. Heat mapping has been used to identify where clusters of residential housing exist within the Green Belt, which include 10 or more dwellings, and do not have a HDB. Those which are considered to be the densest in terms of the amount of residential properties have been taken into consideration as a ‘candidate village’. See Annex 2

2.2 Definition of a village A. The NPPF states the development within the Green Belt is inappropriate with the exception of limited infilling in villages. When considering other settlements within the Green Belt and whether it is appropriate for them to have an infill boundary, the first test is to see if they constitute the definition of a village. a. The planning inspectorate has considered what constitutes a village under appeal reference APP/B3438/W/18/3211000 which was for the development of two dwellings within the Green Belt. b. The inspector identified the definition of a village as: “a group of houses and associated buildings, larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town, situated in a rural area” c. A Hamlet is defined as: “a small settlement, generally one smaller than a village, and strictly (in Britain) one without a Church” d. The appeal site was among a group of 18 residential dwellings yet the settlement did not have a church and therefore did not meet the definition of a village and could not meet with the NPPF limited infilling in villages exception. B. Settlements which do not have a church are therefore considered to be a Hamlet and will not align with the NPPF to allow limited infilling in villages. C. Those with a church will continue to further assessment. D. Identified churches must be active in order to qualify.

Settlements with active churches are as follows: a. Burnett b. Chelwood c. Compton Dando d. Dunkerton e. North Stoke f. Norton Malreward g. Queen Charlton h. St Catherine i. Stanton Prior j. Wooley

2.3 Defining boundaries a. All settlements which have a church are considered to be a village and will therefore be considered as candidates for infill boundary (as defined in paragraph 1.1) b. Whether or not infill development is acceptable within the boundary will be subject to the definition of infill as stated in the Core Strategy and policy D7 of the Placemaking Plan.

Please see Annex 3 for a list of Candidate villages for infill boundaries Supporting information

Definition of infilling

The Core Strategy defines infilling as: the filling of small gaps within existing development e.g. the building of one or two houses on a small vacant plot in an otherwise extensively built up frontage, the plot generally being surrounded on at least three sides by developed sites or road

Further detail is provided by Policy D7 where Infill development is defined as the filling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage, usually consisting of frontage plots only.

The development will have to meet the requirements of infill development, as defined in the Core Strategy and Policy D7 of the Placemaking Plan. Namely the:

Filling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage

The plot will generally be surrounded on at least three sides by developed sites or roads

The update to policy GB2 will also make clear that development of previously developed land and replacement buildings are also acceptable in principle in the Green Belt (in line with the NPPF).

DCP 9.132 Definition of settlement status

• Local plans should set out criteria for determining, or define precisely, which rural settlements are suitable for additional housing development • Some plans qualify the term infilling by excluding open sites which are of significant to the form and character of the village • Some rural settlement plans set development boundaries to those communities within which some infilling could be considered to be appropriate • Important to limit fringe development that would fundamentally affect the overall character of a settlement

9.1331 within settlement limits?

• Location outside settlement limits is the most common reason for rural housing proposals to be rejected, many sites on the peripheries of villages being judged to be part of the surrounding open countryside • Decisions are generally more clear-cut where predetermined boundaries such as village envelopes have been drawn • The questions of whether a site fell within an area that was too small to rank as a settlement was raised in court • The court found that there were some 40 houses in the immediate area and that is was plain from a common sense point of view that it answered the description of a settlement

Annex 1 - Villages with HDBs (infill review)

Village Details of change

Chew Magna • Removal land to the rear of dwellings on the east of Chillyhill Lane • Removal of land to the east of Rookston House • Removal of land to the south of 22 High Street Chew Stoke • Removal of land to the north west of Mill House

Claverton • General realigning with site boundaries • Removal of site to the west of The Vinery Combe Hay • Removal of land west of Brook House

Corston • Removal of lead to the north of St Teresa’s Nursing Home • Removal of land to the north of School House and west of Greystones Englishcombe • Removal of land to the north and west of Blakes Farm • Removal of land to the south east of Nursery Views Freshford • No change

Hinton • No change Charterhouse

Kelston • No change

Limpley Stoke • No change

Marksbury • No change

Monkton • Removal of land north west of Eddystone Combe • Removal of land south east of Woodbine Cottage

Newton St Loe • Inclusion of whole site east of Newton Farm

Pensford • No change

Priston • General realigning with site boundaries • Separation into a west and eastern boundary • Inclusion of Walnut Tree Hill • Removal of land east of The Calf House Sharpstone • Removal of the Broadfields site and the Woodwyck House • Removal of north of Little Mead • Removal of land north of Tyning House • Separation to a west and east boundary Shoscombe • Inclusion of site north east of Glencoe • Inclusion of site south of Chapel House • Alignment with boundary south of properties on St Julian’s Road • Alignment with boundary of properties Tanquery, Bluebell Cottage and Wellaway • Inclusion of sites north east of Green Acres South Stoke • General realigning with site boundaries

Stanton Drew • Removal of St Mary’s Church and Church Farm

Tunley • No change Upper • General realigning with site boundaries Swainswick

Wellow • General realigning with site boundaries to south

Annex 2 – Candidate villages based on Heat Mapping of residential properties Annex 3 - Candidate villages for infill boundaries

Belluton • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Burnett • Active church – St Michael’s Church • Boundary indicated Chelwood • Active church – St Leonard’s Church • Infill boundary defined Chew Stoke • No church – considered to be a hamlet (South) • No boundary indicated Compton Dando • Active church – St Mary’s Church • Boundary indicated Dunkerton • Active church – All Saints’ Church • Boundary indicated Hunstrete • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Hursley Hill • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Inglesbatch • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Midford • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Nempnett • No church – considered to be a hamlet Thrubwell • No boundary indicated North Stoke • Active church – St Martin’s Church • Boundary indicated • Red dashed line indicates alternative option Norton • No church – considered to be a hamlet Hawkfield • No boundary indicated Norton • Active church – Holy Trinity Church Malreward • Infill boundary indicated • Red dashed line indicates alternative option – this option would not include the area to the east Queen Charlton • Active church – Church of St Margaret • Infill boundary defined St Catherine • Active church identified but settlement is dispersed • No boundary indicated Stanton Prior • Active church – Church of St Lawrence • Two boundaries defined Stanton Wick • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Stowey • Active church identified to south but not within clustered residential area • No boundary indicated Tunley (west) • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Woollard • No church – considered to be a hamlet • No boundary indicated Woolley • Active church – All Saints Church • Infill boundary identified