Your ref: East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan Our ref: 38631 DD: 01908 25 E: [email protected] Date: 04/01/2019

East Hagbourne Submission Consultation Planning Policy South Oxfordshire District Council 135 Eastern Avenue Milton Park Milton OX14 4SB

Dear Sir/Madam

EAST HAGBOURNE NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN REGULATION 14 CONSULTATION

I write on behalf of my client Catesby Estates Ltd in response to the above consultation in order to comment on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan.

My client has a land interest at east of Park Road, Didcot. Their land interest is located within the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan Area and it is considered that, in part, it has potential to be allocated for residential development. A Constraints and Opportunities plan and a Development Framework Plan showing how the site could be developed is enclosed with this representation.

Catesby Estates Ltd has submitted previous representations which we do not consider have been given due consideration as part of the Neighbourhood Plan preparation process.

Catesby Estates Ltd has numerous concerns in relation to the Draft Neighbourhood Plan which are outlined as part of this representation. I have summarised these key issues below:

− The East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan has failed to allocate any sites for development – the site chosen is already committed;

− The pre-screening process used as part of the site allocation methodology does not factor in the relationship of the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Area to the nearby growth town of Didcot and does not properly assess the sustainability of sites;

− Coscote Fields Green Gap in its current form is not justified or appropriate ● Evidence produced by South Oxfordshire District Council, specifically the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Four Towns in South Oxfordshire (September 2017), has not been used to inform the Neighbourhood Plan. ● East Hagbourne Village Landscape Character Assessment and East Hagbourne Green Buffer Assessment (September 2018) both use broad areas to assess the landscape in the Neighbourhood Plan Area without sufficient justification, and they do not give due consideration to the location of sites in relation to Didcot.

John Ormond House, 899 Silbury Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes MK9 3XJ T: 01908 202190 E: [email protected] W: bidwells.co.uk

Bidwells is a trading name of Bidwells LLP, a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales with number OC344553. Registered office: Bidwell House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD. A list of members is available for inspection at the above address. Please ensure you’re familiar with our Privacy Notice which is available here: bidwells.co.uk/privacy − The Neighbourhood Plan fails to give due consideration to the sustainability of sites and their relationship to Didcot when giving significant weight to the protection of views.

My client does not consider that the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan in its current form meets Basic Conditions A, D and E as is required for a Neighbourhood Plan to progress to referendum. As a result, the Draft East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan needs to be amended based on the concerns raised as part of this representation and should not proceed in its current form.

1.0 Policy H1 ‘Housing Provision’ and Policy H3 ‘Housing Allocation’

1.1 Policy H1 ‘Housing Provision’ states that ‘New residential development in East Hagbourne will be focused in the housing allocation (Policy H3), which will deliver approximately 74 dwellings.’

1.2 Policy H3 ‘Housing allocation’ states that ‘Site 5, part of Western Village Plotlands, situated on Main Road adjacent to Hagbourne Village Hall, is allocated to provide approximately 74 dwellings.’

1.3 As is acknowledged in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan this site already benefits from pre-existing outline planning permission. As a result, the Neighbourhood Plan cannot be considered to be ‘allocating’ development in East Hagbourne as this is already a commitment. In this regard, the Plan adds no value.

1.4 Notwithstanding the implications of the Oxfordshire Growth Deal, as the Neighbourhood Plan is not allocating any land for residential development, it is not protected by the stipulations set out under paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whereby, if a Neighbourhood Plan is less than 2 years old, contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement, the LPA can demonstrate a 3-year housing supply and the LPA’s housing delivery test was at least 45% of that required over the previous 3 years, East Hagbourne could resist development not in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan.

1.5 It must also be noted that in our view by failing to allocate a site for development the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan fails to meet Basic Condition D of neighbourhood planning, which requires a neighbourhood plan to seek to achieve sustainable development. This is particularly relevant given the fact that the neighbourhood plan boundary abuts Didcot – the most sustainable settlement in the District and provides an opportunity to proactively plan for the sustainable growth of the town.

1.6 Paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out there are there dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 8 clarifies that these dimensions are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually beneficial ways. Through the non-allocation of land in the plan, both the economic and social objectives of sustainable development are not achieved and, as discussed in more detail later in this representation, there is insufficient evidence of landscape harm to justify the non-allocation of sites, specifically our client’s land, on environmental grounds.

Page 2 1.7 Additionally, the Plan does not meet Basic Condition D which require a Neighbourhood Plan to have regard to national policies and advice; particularly Paragraph 7 of the NPPF which states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The Neighbourhood Plan does not consider the negative impact that failing to allocate land will have on the social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability in the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan Area.

1.8 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that ‘plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change’. (our emphasis underlined). The non-allocation of any sites put forward for consideration on the edge of Didcot in favour of a previously committed site in the village does not reflect a positive approach to meeting ongoing housing need. The non-allocation of sites also means the Neighbourhood Plan does not have any flexibility built in and as set out further below, will be at risk of quickly being out of date.

1.9 Through failing to allocate a site for development Basic Condition E has also not been met which requires the Neighbourhood Plan to be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area. The South Oxfordshire Core Strategy (2012) places a significant emphasis on the growth of Didcot as a settlement, as does the emerging replacement Local Plan.

1.10 The emerging Local Plan is progressing Didcot as a Garden Town. The emerging Local Plan 2033 states in ‘Policy STRAT1: Overall Strategy’ that proposals should be ‘focusing major new development in Science Vale including Didcot Garden town and Culham so that this area can play an enhanced role in providing homes, jobs and services with improved transport connectivity.’ In this regard, although the further growth of Didcot will be planned through the development of a masterplan for the town, in line with the principles set out in the emerging Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan provides an opportunity to actively plan for the appropriate growth of the town into the Parish area.

1.11 It should be noted that we will be making representations to the upcoming consultation on the emerging Plan to the affect that more land is needed surrounding Didcot and that our client’s land should in part be allocated for development, in line with the Local Planning Authorities own evidence (discussed later in this representation).

1.12 Whilst the Planning Practice Guidance is clear that Neighbourhood Plans can be bought forward ahead of emerging Local Plans the same guidance also sets out that that the reasoning and evidence behind emerging plans is relevant to the development of Neighbourhood Plans and satisfying the basic conditions. The Planning Practice Guidance (ref 41-009-20160211) sets out:

Although a draft neighbourhood plan or Order is not tested against the policies in an emerging Local Plan the reasoning and evidence informing the Local Plan process is likely to be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested.

1.13 Should this Neighbourhood Plan be made in its current form it will be seeking to restrict housing development on the edge of a sustainable settlement such as Didcot, which is not consistent with the aspirations of Didcot as a growth town, does not represent sustainable development and also risks leaving the Neighbourhood Plan immediately out of date, should our future representations to the emerging Local Plan lead to an amendment, allocation our client’s land for development.

Page 3 1.14 In summary, we consider that policies H1 and H3 of the Draft East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan do not meet the requirements of Basic Conditions D, A and E. A change is sought which allocates our clients and to the extent shown on the enclosed plans. Such an amendment would help to overcome the issues identified above and would be consistent with other policies of the plan, as discussed further below.

2.0 Site Allocation Methodology

2.1 As has been established above, the Draft Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate a site for development given that the site selected is already a housing commitment. However, irrespective of the non-allocation of development sites, we have concerns as to the robustness and justification for the site assessment process used to consider the allocation of land.

2.2 Appendix 8 of the Neighbourhood Plan outlines the methodology used as part of the site allocation process for the Neighbourhood Plan.

2.3 On page 5 it the document states that ‘the four criteria used for the pre-screening are: ● Is the site closely related to, and well integrated with the village? ● Is the site easily accessible to EH services and facilities by both roads & footpaths? ● Does the site flood or could it create flooding /environmental issues? ● Will development impact the Conservation Area or the setting of the AONB?’

2.4 However, this approach fails to recognise that the Neighbourhood Planning Area for East Hagbourne does not just cover the village of East Hagbourne.

2.5 A significant amount of the Neighbourhood Plan Area is located around the urban edge of Didcot. By using a criterion which considers how well sites are integrated into the village of East Hagbourne or accessible to East Hagbourne, highly sustainable sites will have been unjustly ruled out of consideration as defined under paragraph 7 of the NPPF.

2.6 The exclusion of sites on the edge of Didcot is sought to be justified by the Appendix 8, where on page 1 it is stated that the development of such sites would ‘impair the open and rural nature of the parish that is appreciated by village and town alike’.

2.7 Whist this may be the case for some sites, as is discussed further in the next section, the evidence of the LPA, which should inform the Neighbourhood Plan, particularly when the Neighbourhood Plan is proceeding the Local Plan, clearly sets out that in part our client’s land could form a suitable development site. The generalisation that sites on the edge of Didcot are unsuitable for development is therefore unjustified.

2.8 In our view, this lack of consideration of the potential growth of Didcot is a serious omission and means that the site allocation process has not only fallen short of actually allocating land for development, but has also failed to properly assess all sites submitted as to their suitability for development. This methodology undermines Basic Condition D which requires a Neighbourhood Plan to contribute towards ‘sustainable development’.

Page 4

3.0 Green Gap Strategy

3.1 Policy VC1c ‘Coscote Fields Local Green Gap’ of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan states that ‘any proposals for development within the Coscote Fields Local Green Gap should conserve the open landscape character of the area and protect the identified long distance views.’

Extract of Neighbourhood Plan (figure 4) showing Proposed Green Buffer Zones

3.2 Whilst we support the inclusion of a green gap to prevent the coalescence of Coscote and Didoct, the green gap strategy in its current form is not justified or appropriate.

3.3 There is insufficient justification as to why the Buffer Zones need to be designated to the extent identified on Figure 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan, shown above. In our view the buffer zones should be focused on those areas where the development would put villages at risk of coalesce. Primarily, this would relate to land immediately north of East Hagbourne and the area immediately north and east of Coscote – there is no justification for the inclusion of the whole of Coscote Fields in the buffer area.

3.4 The below analysis looks at the evidence which should have been used to underpin policy VC1c and the failings in the evidence that was used by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group in the formation of this policy. Consideration will then be given as to why the Basic Conditions have not been met as a result of these failings.

Page 5 Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Four Towns in South Oxfordshire (September 2017)

3.5 The South Oxfordshire District Council undertook a Landscape Capacity Assessment of potential additional housing sites around the four towns in South Oxfordshire to form part of the evidence base of the Local Plan and to assist with the selection of sites in the Local Plan or in Neighbourhood Plans. 71 sites were assessed, identified by the council for further investigation following on from work on a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment.

3.6 Of particularly interest in relation to our client’s land interest is site DID7 which covers land on the Southern edge of Didcot and is located within the Coscote Fields Green Buffer which has been identified in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan.

3.7 As a whole DID7 was not considered suitable for development due to landscape sensitivity, but a ‘reduced area’ covering part of the site area termed DID 7A was considered to be suitable.

Extract of Figure DID 7.2 showing the Recommended DID 7A site area and Green Infrastructure

3.8 The conclusions and recommendations on page 81 of the report state that: ● ‘Despite a low capacity, the reduced area as shown in Figure DID 7.2 be considered further for housing ● Developing this area will bring the edge of settlement in line with the proposed Great Western Park to the west and provide an opportunity to create a strong, vegetated edge to the built form and to link the planting along the southern edge of the Great Western Park, which will enhance the setting of the cycle route and footpath along the disused railway and possible views from the AONB

Page 6 ● Views further south from Park Road across undeveloped fields between Didcot and West Hagbourne should be retained’

3.9 The report then goes on to state:

‘It is recommended that DID 7A is considered further as a site option potentially for housing on landscape and visual grounds as shown in Figure DID 7.2. The developable area covers 4.1 ha. and is a reduced part of the site to limit the impact on the open character of the land separating Didcot and West Hagbourne and views across it from Park Road and the cycle route, as well as the sensitivity of the adjacent North Wessex Downs AONB. It would be important to carefully design the access from Park Road, minimising impacts on the character of the rural lane. At a nominal density of 25 dph, 106 dwellings might be accommodated on site DID 7A. A full detailed landscape and visual impact assessment will be required to inform the final capacity of the site.’

3.10 There is no consideration of this Landscape Capacity Assessment in the preparation of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan or its supporting evidence and we consider that the evidence suggests this area should be excluded from the green buffer.

The Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan

3.11 The Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan is referenced on page 23 of the Neighbourhood Plan and appears to have been given weight in establishing the justification for the green buffers included in the Neighbourhood Plan. We would clarify that the Delivery Plan is a non-statutory guidance document adopted by partners to set out a vision for the area. The foreword to the Plan is clear that it is not a formal planning policy document and has limited weight when determining future planning applications. This principle equally applies to its role in setting out strategic policies in which Neighbourhood Plans should be in accordance with.

3.12 The Publication Version of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan was published in December 2018. The Plan makes no reference to the Green Buffers referred to in the Delivery Plan. An extract from the emerging Proposal Map can be seen below.

South Oxfordshire Publication Local Plan Proposals Map Extract

Page 7 3.13 The identification of Green Buffer to prevent the growth of Didcot leading to coalescence with surrounding villages is a strategic issue. It should not be for neighbourhood plans to effectively preclude the future growth of the District’s major town.

3.14 It is considered that by virtue of the lack of consideration of the evidence underpinning the emerging Local Plan, the Draft Neighbourhood Plan cannot be considered to meet Basic Condition E, which requires the Neighbourhood Plan to be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

Recent Planning Appeal

3.15 The above is further supported in the recent appeal decision (PINS reference: 3188474) dated 27th June 2018, which the Draft Neighbourhood Plan itself references, on the Land to the east of Park Road, Didcot. The location of the appeal site corresponded in part with DID 7A identified above, but also covers land to the south as part of a larger site.

3.16 The Neighbourhood Plan includes a statement that ‘the Inspector noted the open nature of the gap between Didcot and the more enclosed southern area as part of the defining character of the area and considered that it was a valued landscape for the purposes of paragraph 109 of the NPPF.’

3.17 However, what the Draft Neighbourhood Plan fails to reference is that the Inspector considers the appeal site which is within the Coscote Green Buffer to be suitable for development in line with the Landscape Character Assessment which is discussed above.

3.18 Paragraph 26 of the appeal decision sees the Inspector support the findings of the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment. The appeal decision reads:

‘The landscape witness for the Council sought to characterise this [Landscape Capacity Study] statement as inaccurate since she considered that it had failed to take account of the condition preventing built development to the south of the line of Loyd Road on Great Western Park. However, it seems to me that the provision of some landscaping along the southern edge of the site identified in the Study would link to the proposed landscaping on the southern edge of Great Western Park and together could provide a strong, vegetated southern edge to Didcot.”

3.19 The issue which the Inspector had with the appeal site was that it eroded the gap too much and was twice the depth of the site assessed in the Site Capacity Assessment. This is stated in paragraph 27 ‘this appeal proposal would extend approximately twice the depth of the site identified in the Study to the south along Park Road’.

3.20 Loss of openness and change to visual character are unavoidable effects of development, but need not result in unsustainable patterns of growth subject to appropriate design.

3.21 As a result, this appeal reinforces the question of why the green gap includes the entirety of the land between Didcot and Coscote when this area has been identified as being suitable for development whilst the key landscape and visual characteristics of the site and its landscape setting can be preserved.

Page 8 East Hagbourne Village Landscape Character Assessment

3.22 We have some concern with the methodology used in the East Hagbourne Village Landscape Character Assessment. The Landscape Character Assessment document divides the Neighbourhood Plan Area into ‘landcover parcels’, as set out below.

Extract of the Draft East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan showing the Landcover Parcels

3.23 The justification for the boundaries used is that ‘each of these parcels of land comprise different land uses and/or field pattern, bounded by streamlines, roads/trackways, or the parish boundary.’ However, the result of this is that there are parcels of varying sizes and shapes and a lack of consideration of other factors such as their location in relation to settlements. For example, the land parcel identified as VF14 is a large land parcel of which the boundaries go right up to the edge of both Coscote and Didcot. It seems inconceivable that the same landscape character would be found on the edge of Didcot, a growing town, to that of the small village of Coscote. No justification is given as to why this landcover parcel, amongst others, was not divided up into smaller parcels to account for this.

3.24 Further, the document identifies each landcover parcel by a four digit code comprising two letters to define the type of landscape of which it is a part of. The letter combinations comprise: ‘HV - East Hagbourne Village, VF - Village farmlands, AL - Alluvial lowlands, UF - the Urban Fringe of Didcot’. However, landcover parcels VF14, VF13, VF01, VF 01, VF 18, VF07 and VF08 are all classified as ‘Village Farmlands’ despite abounding Didcot. This categorisation ignores the fact that the northern half of these parcels provides the setting for Didcot and should be considered as being part of the urban fringe of Didcot.

Page 9 3.25 This same criticism is echoed when it comes to the identified Local Character Areas in this document. The justification given for the identification of Coscote Fields is that ‘these fields provide the setting for Coscote and remain in agricultural use’. There is no mention that the northern boundary abuts Didcot.

3.26 As such, it is felt that there has been too much generalisation made about parcels without sufficient consideration of the individual characteristics of their component parts. No reference is made to the Landscape Character Assessment conducted by the Council in 2017 and its conclusion that the northern area of parcel VF14 which abounds Didcot would be suitable for development with the appropriate screening to the south.

East Hagbourne Green Buffer Assessment (September 2018)

3.27 Similar concerns are raised with the East Hagbourne Green Buffer Assessment as with the Landscape Character Assessment.

3.28 Coscote Fields is identified as a Character Area as the extract below demonstrates.

Extract taken from the East Hagbourne Green Buffer Assessment

3.29 Coscote Fields comprises a significant area. Different parts of Coscote Fields have distinct opportunities and constraints such as SSSI risk zone, Scheduled Ancient Monuments etc. As identified above, Coscote Fields area abounds both Coscote and Didcot. There is no attempt to further drill down specific sub-areas with Coscote Fields to identify these differences, despite the assessment on page 26 noting that the site is bounded ‘to the north, in part by the wooded edge of Mowbray Fields, but mainly by the urban edge of Didcot. This comprises 20th and 21st century closely spaced dwellings with small gardens and few trees. All quite visible across the area’.

Page 10 3.30 The document then goes on to identify where Green Buffer Zones should be integrated into the plan using the flawed approach above as a guide.

3.31 This sweeping approach is also contradictory to the statement made earlier in the document which said that ‘Green Buffers are intended to prevent coalescence between East Hagbourne, its neighbouring villages and Didcot town, protecting the identity, character and diversity of the area.’

3.32 The potential coalescence of Coscote and Didcot does not necessarily require the inclusion of a green buffer over the entirety of this area and, aside from the Council’s own assessment, no proper consideration has been given to the extent to which the character and integrity of Coscote would be harmed by a development on the edge of Didcot as shown on the enclosed plans.

3.33 Therefore, insufficient justification is given in the document as to why the proposed Green Buffer Zone should cover the entirety of the Coscote Fields area and does not acknowledge the relationship which the northern part of Coscote Fields has to Didcot.

3.34 Set out below is a summary of how the Green Buffer policy fails to meet the Basic Conditions. From our client’s perspective, a number of these concerns could be addressed through the exclusion of the land identified as DID7A in the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Four Towns in South Oxfordshire (September 2017) from the Green Buffer and its allocation for residential development.

4.0 Basic Conditions in Relation to the Proposed Green Buffer

Basic Condition E

4.1 The East Hagbourne Landscape Character Area Assessment and the East Hagbourne Green Buffer Assessment (September 2018) do not meet the requirements of Basic Condition E in which the Neighbourhood Plan should be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

4.2 The Core Strategy (2012) places a significant emphasis on the growth of Didcot as a settlement as outlined in Policy CSS1 which states that South Oxfordshire should be ‘focusing major new development at the growth point of Didcot so the town can play an enhanced role in providing homes, jobs and services with improved transport connectivity’. This is further supported by Paragraph 9.4 of the adopted Core Strategy which states that ‘high quality greenfield neighbourhoods need to be delivered in ways which will integrate well with the town’. Similarly, the emerging Local Plan 2033 states in ‘Policy STRAT1: Overall Strategy’ that proposals should be ‘focusing major new development in Science Vale including Didcot Garden town and Culham so that this area can play an enhanced role in providing homes, jobs and services with improved transport connectivity.’

4.3 Should this Draft Neighbourhood Plan be made in its current form, the proposed Coscote Fields Green Gap could potentially restrict housing development on the edge of a sustainable settlement such as Didcot, in a location identified by the Council’s own evidence as being suitable for housing development and could undermine the overall strategy for South Oxfordshire in the future.

Page 11 4.4 The Draft Neighbourhood Plan does not give due consideration to the evidence which has underpinned the strategic policies of the emerging Local Plan (e.g. the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Four Towns in South Oxfordshire (September 2017)). This evidence provides conflicting advice to that of the East Hagbourne and shows the failings in the methodology underpinning the studies commissioned by the East Hagbourne Steering Group.

Basic Condition A

4.5 The Neighbourhood Plan fails to meet the requirements of Basic Condition A which stipulates a neighbourhood plan to have regard for national policy and guidance.

4.6 The Coscote Fields Green Gap has been shown in this representation to restrict the growth of Didcot. This is contrary to the aspirations of the National Government agenda which seeks to support the growth and vitality of Didcot as part of the knowledge corridor between Oxford and Cambridge.

4.7 Paragraph 29 of the NPPF states that ‘Neighbourhood plans should not promote less development than set out in the strategic policies for the area, or undermine those strategic policies’. Coscote Fields Green Gap in its current form potentially undermines the strategic policies of the adopted and emerging Local Plan through restricting growth around Didcot.

4.8 Paragraphs 59 and 120 seek to ensure that land is available for development where it is needed. Specifically, Paragraph 59 of the NPPF states that ‘it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed’ and paragraph 120 states that ‘Planning policies and decisions need to reflect changes in the demand for land.’ By having a restrictive Green Buffer policy, there is no allowance for changes in demand for land around Didcot, a town which is a focus for growth, meaning that the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan could end up unjustly restricting growth.

Basic Condition D

4.9 The Neighbourhood Plan fails to meet the requirements of Basic Condition D in which a Neighbourhood Plan should contribute towards the achievement of ‘sustainable development’.

4.10 Sites within the identified Coscote Green Gap have not been sufficiently assessed against the three pillars of sustainability as defined by paragraph 8 of the NPPF. The relationship of sites to the sustainable settlement of Didcot has not been given due consideration as part of the formulation of this policy and would be restricted from coming as a result of an unjustified methodology used in the supporting evidence underpinning Policy VC1c.

4.11 As such, sites which represent opportunities to deliver sustainable development in the future have been included within the Green Gap, unjustifiably restricting their future development potential.

Page 12 5.0 Policy VC2 - Conserving and Enhancing Important Views

5.1 Policy VC2 states that: ‘Views within the village, to and from the village, and of the wider landscape including views towards the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs AONBs, should be protected wherever possible. New development should avoid significant harm to the views listed in Table 9 of the Character Assessment and shown in Figure 6 below’

Figure 6 of the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan showing Protected Views

5.2 This is a restrictive and onerous policy given the number of views which have been identified for protection. The Policy seeks to protect views from 14 general areas (around 40 specific views in total) with Table 9 of the Character Assessment setting out that these views having ‘high’ or ‘very high’ sensitivity to development.

5.3 The Character Assessment covers a range of factors including heritage, ecology and landscape. It is unclear to the reader how the particular significance of the views identified in table 9 has been established via the assessment undertaken in the report. It also appears that all of the views identified and assessed are of ‘high’ or ‘very high’ sensitivity and are to be protected – none are assessed as being of negligible to medium sensitivity and therefore not protected. The lack of differentiation between the views and the apparent protection of all assessed views calls into question the robustness of the assessment and the need to protect such views.

5.4 In our view Policy VC2 does not meet Basic Conditions A, D and E as it will potentially restrict opportunities for sustainable development as defined by paragraphs 7-10 of the NPPF and undermine the strategic policies of the Development Plan if it is made in its current form.

5.5 Notwithstanding this general concern with the policy there are other specific comments to make. Firstly, three different locations are identified as view ‘2’ and this does not take account of the variance in views from each of these different locations.

Page 13 5.6 Secondly, whilst stating that ‘new development should avoid significant harm to the views listed’ no clear definition has been given on what constitutes ‘significant harm’ and what measures can be taken to mitigate this. In failing to do it may be interpreted that any form of change to a view could constitute ‘significant harm’ under the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, which would be inappropriate and overly restrictive.

Conclusion My client does not consider that the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan in its current form meets Basic Conditions A, D and E as is required for a Neighbourhood Plan to pass examination.

My client has numerous concerns in relation to the Neighbourhood Plan which are outlined in this representation which demonstrate that there have been significant failings in the site selection process and in the evidence base used to underpin the Green Gap policy and View Policy.

My client is of the opinion that the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan needs to be revised taking into account the concerns raised as part of this representation and should not proceed in its current form.

Should you have any queries in respect of my client’s representation, please do not hesitate to contact us directly. Our contact details are included in the letterhead.

Alternatively, we look forward to receiving your written confirmation of my client’s representation to the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan Consultation.

We would request that given the issues raised in our representation, the examination of the Neighbourhood Plan includes an oral hearing sessions(s) to enable the issues to be examined in more depth.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Harris, MRTPI Associate

Enclosures: Constraints and Opportunities Plan

Development Framework Plan

Page 14