Wiltshire Council Response to the Draft Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan (Regulation 16 Consultation)

Wiltshire Council Response to the draft Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan (Regulation 16 Consultation)

1. Context

1.1. Officers of Wiltshire Council have been advising Oaksey Parish Council and its Steering Group about the neighbourhood planning process and the requirements to help ensure the neighbourhood development plan meets the basic conditions.

1.2. The Oaksey Neighbourhood Area was designated on 29th April 2016. A consultation in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) took place over the period 31st March to 12th May 2018.

2. Submission of the draft neighbourhood plan

2.1. Wiltshire Council, as local planning authority, considered the submitted plan and is satisfied that it complies with all the relevant statutory requirements set out in Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). The submitted Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan (ODP) includes a map of the neighbourhood area, was accompanied by inter alia: a Basic Conditions Statement, the SEA Screening Decision, Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening, a Consultation Statement, and methodology papers for settlement boundary review and site selection.

2.2. This note sets out Wiltshire Council’s response to the ‘Regulation 16’ consultation on the ODP, which was submitted to the Council in June 2018. Following validation Regulation 16 consultation started on 31st July 2018 and finishing 12th September 2018

2.3. The comments that follow are made in the interests of ensuring that the submitted ODP is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy1 (WCS) and can be used effectively by the Council in determining planning applications within the Parish of Oaksey.

3. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

3.1. Natural England, Environment Agency and Historic England, as statutory consultation bodies under Regulation 9 of the SEA Regulations, were consulted by Wiltshire Council on an SEA screening process in. Following clarification as to the likely content of the plan in consultation with Historic England, the Screening consultation concluded that no SEA was required.

3.2. The final decision that no SEA was required to support the preparation of the ODP formed part of the Regulation 15 submission pack.

4. Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) 4.1. A Habitats Regulation Assessment has been submitted to Wiltshire Council that identifies that a part of the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC but that there no likely significant effects. The ODP was also screened by Wiltshire Council in accordance with the provisions of the Habitats Regulations. The screening process confirmed that the draft plan would have no likely significant effects upon any European designations. The screening opinion is attached at Appendix 1 for information.

5. The emerging development plan

5.1. Wiltshire Council is currently preparing two development plan documents which may be referred to by contributors to this ODP regulation 16 consultation. For information the current position in relation to these documents is set out below.

Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan

5.2. The draft HSAP was submitted to the Secretary of State in July for examination hearings early next year. The submitted Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan (HSAP) includes proposals to amend the settlement boundary for Oaksey but does not include any housing allocations within the Parish.

5.3. The submission HSAP is accompanied by a set of changes recommended to the Inspector following consulltaion on the submission version. These proposed changes are also now subject to further consultation.

5.4. Recognising that ONP had reached submission and includes its own proposals to amend the settlement boundary to Oaksey, proposed changes to the HSAP include deletion of amendment proposed by the Council (ref PC128-PC131).

5.5. Wiltshire Council is satisfied that ONP review of the settlement boundary is consistent with the approach taken by the HSAP, would help to realise the community’s vision, planning for its own area, as well as being likely to be quicker to resolve.

5.6. The ONP has been prepared to be in conformity with the adopted development plan and identifies a site within the settlement boundary as a specific allocation to provide certainty on the suitability of this area for housing. Wiltshire Local Plan Review

5.7. Wiltshire Council is reviewing the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The Wiltshire Local Plan Review will have a plan period covering 2016 to 2036. An initial issues consultation took place in collaboration with Swindon Borough Council at the end of 2017 which included new information about housing and employment need in Swindon and Wiltshire for the period 2016 to 2036. Further consultation with Parish and Town Councils as well as other stakeholders concerning strategy and specifically the broad distribution of development is programmed for next month. Evidence published to support the local plan review has not been tested through examination.

5.8. Paragraph 184 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan’ The ONP has been prepared to be in conformity with the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy for the period 2006 to 2026 and is not the appropriate vehicle to introduce new strategic policy which is being discussed as part of the Wiltshire Local Plan Review.

6. Comments on the submitted plan

Several policies of the ONP refer to development that is ‘supported’ or will be ‘resisted’. The ONP might state more clearly the tests by which a proposal will or will not be acceptable. This helps to substantiate grounds for refusal or to devise appropriate planning conditions.

Section Comments Introduction The ONP recognises that the plan, once made, will sit alongside the Wiltshire Core Strategy and that policies of the WCS are applicable in the neighbourhood plan area. There are, where appropriate, also references to specific policies of the WCS in relevant subject areas.

The ONP was submitted prior to the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework. Under transitional arrangements the ONP will be examined against the previous version. It would be appropriate to acknowledge these circumstances where the ONP refers to national policy (p11 of the ONP).

The ONP recognises relationships with neighbouring and emerging plans, including the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan. It might be useful to also recognise that work has begun to review the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The Wiltshire Local Plan Review will plan for the period 2016 – 2036. It would be useful to acknowledge that a significant change in national or strategic policy could trigger a review of the plan.

There is a focus on protecting and enhancing the built environment and the setting to Oaksey. It is unclear whether data from the Wiltshire and Swindon Historic Environment Record (HER) was used. Such information can help to expand sections on the parish’s history and evolution of the village. Built This section of the ONP refers too changes to the settlement boundary. The Environment revised boundary should be shown on map within the plan. We welcome that Policy 1 the ONP’s review as followed principles used by Wiltshire Council. This maintains a consistent approach.

The wording to Policy 1 needs some clarification to ensure it is effective and consistent with policies contained in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Specifically, the policy aims to prevent development within Oaksey that will:

“adversely affect the structure and form of the existing settlement geography, the landscape setting of the settlement or the transitional edge between the settlement and the surrounding rural areas.”

Historic Landscape Characterisation helps to define settlement morphology and good use has been made of the Landscape Character Assessment as means interpret the present day landscape. This allows a robust evidence base to corroborate policy aimed at safeguarding local landscape and settlement character. Nevertheless, it is not clear what is meant specifically by the village’s geography, setting and transitional edge. It would help a decision maker to know where these characteristics are defined or illustrated and therefore what weight can be given to them in planning decisions. Fundamentally, the objective of this part of the policy may be met in practice by the effect of the settlement boundary by itself without further elaboration being necessary.

The policy also refers to development in the countryside. Restricting all development for tourism and leisure and recreation to just a small area of the Parish (within the Cotswold Water Park) does not seem justified. Elsewhere, the ONP notes the pressures upon the ecological designations within the Water Park and the objective of this policy needs to balance against the considerable importance of protecting those interests. Not all such potential and opportunity can stem solely from this one area and neither may it be acceptable for it to accommodate such development. The approach would appear to conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework and its objective of supporting the rural economy as well as Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policies 39, 40 and 48.

The policy seeks to prevent the creation of holiday accommodation outside the Water Park. This seems to be quite restrictive and it would be useful to add to the justification by some detailed evidence of how much this pattern is affecting the local availability of homes.

On a more practical level, it is unclear how it will be possible for a decision maker to judge whether a change of use of a dwelling to holiday accommodation will lead to its permanent loss as a dwelling. In most instances such development will not involve extensive or irreversible changes to the structure of a building. Design of New Wiltshire Council welcomes the importance placed on high quality design and Development the need to maintain the distinctiveness and character of the village. and Local Characteristics and features for protection, as well as areas identified for Distinctiveness enhancement, are listed or referred to and they are identified within the Policy 2 character appraisal at annex 1.

It is positive to see that the approach to heritage acknowledges the importance of both designated and un-designated assets and their contribution to character and identity (see also comments on Policy 4 below). By identifying areas for enhancement, the ONP recognises that heritage and historic character provide opportunities as well as constraints.

Much of the village, but not all, is a designated conservation area where all development proposals should at least preserve or enhance its character. The policy might refer to the different weights attached to those within as opposed to outside the designation. The policy wording might distinguish between those characteristics that are within the conservation area and have this level of protection and those that are not but still make a positive contribution to the street scene. It might also refer to any areas that are not within the conservation area but contribute to its significance as a part of its setting.

The map showing the character areas should be annotated to show the area names listed in the text. It might also show the conservation area boundary or cross reference map 6 that does. Highway Impact Some amendments have been made to the wording of this policy in response Policy 3 to earlier comments by Wiltshire Council. In accordance with the Framework opportunities to promote and include walking and cycling should be pursued to help reduce the adverse impacts of the highway network. This could include promoting facilities such as cycle parking.

Heritage Assets A large part of the policy wording paraphrases national and strategic policies. Policy 4 This seems unnecessary and because of different phrasing and abbreviation may generate uncertainty. It would be better for these sections to be deleted.

The policy would then focus more clearly on those un-designated local assets, ‘Locally Important Buildings’, that merit a level of protection in planning decisions. The level of protection provided by this policy, however appears to imply a higher level of protection than is provided by national policy. This section possibly needs to be re-worded to be consistent with national policy. (Paragraph 197 of the Framework (July 2018)) Housing The ONP notes that the indicative housing requirement for the Malmesbury Policy 5 Community Area has been met. The requirement in the Community Area is expressed as ‘approximately’. The WCS also identifies Oaksey as large village where development ‘will be limited to that needed to help meet the housing needs of settlements and to improve employment opportunities, services and facilities’ (Core Policy 1). The allocation proposed in the ONP is in accordance with the core strategy and appropriate for the village

It should also be noted that a proposed change to the HSAP is to delete an allocation at Crudwell. A neighbourhood plan is being prepared for the Parish.

It is not clear why all housing development is expected to have a direct highway frontage and safe highway access, when this may be an acceptable form of development in some circumstances. This needs further justification or should perhaps be deleted.

Rather than require a minimum level of market housing essential to fund the affordable housing element, Wiltshire Council suggests that the form of development is worded more positively based on evidence of housing need. It may for example set out an appropriate mix of the different forms of affordable housing defined in the Framework as well as the size of market homes. The development meets the threshold of Core Policy 43 where the Council will seek a contribution of 40% of the additional homes to be affordable. Community The policy might be rephrased to substitute ‘permitted’ for ‘supported’ (See Facilities Policy 6 above). The policy wording could also be strengthened by substituting “or adequate replacement provision is made” with “replacement of the same size and quality or better is made elsewhere..”

Natural Wiltshire Council welcomes the importance given by the ONP to the natural Environment environment. An important objective of this policy is to maintain the setting Policy 7 to the village and landscape features that add to the distinctive character of the Parish. Most elements are specified and explained in Annex 1 to the ONP.

It is not clear however, how a decision maker will be easily able to determine whether development adversely affects or devalues the structure, diversity or views of the streetscene and landscape. This is aspect is perhaps unnecessary as it is considered under polices of the ONP. Perhaps it should be deleted or re-considered. Implementation, The ONP refers to the use of CIL receipts. It may be useful in the supporting Monitoring and text to identify priority projects for the use of CIL receipts received by the Review Parish Council if they are not already listed in the Wiltshire Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 123 List, September 2016.

The monitoring of all plans is a vital component of the planning system. As such, identifying the role of monitoring in the plan is welcomed.

1st October 2018 Appendix 1 HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018) OAKSEY NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT (HRA)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This version of the HRA relates to the “Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission”.

1.2. The HRA has been carried out to comply with Regulation 105 of the Habitats Regulations 2017. Under these Regulations, a competent authority must consider whether a relevant plan is likely to have a significant effect on any European sites before deciding to give any consent, permission or other authorisation. If the screening exercise demonstrates significant effects are likely, the competent authority must undertake an appropriate assessment to examine the effects of the plan on the conservation objectives of the European Sites in question, consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to its representations. Both the screening and the full appropriate assessment, must consider the impacts of the plan alone and in combination with other plans or projects.

1.3. On 12 April 2018 a judgement of the CJEU in the ruling provided to the Irish Courts in People Over Wind1 demonstrated that a low threshold should exist for assessing ‘likely significant effect’ at the screening stage:

“In the light, in particular, of the precautionary principle, such a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that the plan or project will have a significant effect on the site concerned.”

1.4. The judgement goes on to observe that if mitigation measures to avoid or reduce harmful effects are taken into consideration when determining whether an appropriate assessment is necessary, this presupposes the site is affected significantly and that consequently, such an assessment should be carried out.

1.5. A subsequent note from the Planning Inspectorate 2 explains the implications of this for the assessment of plans and projects as follows:

1.6. “The screening stage must be undertaken on a precautionary basis without regard to any proposed integrated or additional avoidance or reduction measures. Where the likelihood of significant effects cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information the competent authority must proceed to carry out an AA to establish whether the plan or project will affect the integrity of the European site, which can include at that stage consideration of the effectiveness of the proposed avoidance or reduction measures.”

1.7. Wiltshire Council will therefore be applying a low threshold for the judgement of likely significant effects and will only be considering mitigation measures as part of a full appropriate assessment.

1.8. It is usually the case that a plan of this nature does not go into the detailed aspects of development proposals and therefore the full effects of potential development cannot be accurately assessed at the plan making stage. Those details will typically be identified through a planning application which would be subject to further, more detailed HRA. The principle that a HRA need only consider the effects of a proposal or policy in as much detail as is specified by the plan was explained by Advocate General Kokott in a judgement brought against the UK government in 2005:

1 Case C 323/17 Court of Justice of the European Union “People Over Wind” 2 PINS Note 05/2018; date of issue 9 May 2018; Review date 9 November 2018

1 HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

“Many details are regularly not settled until the time of the final permission. It would also hardly be proper to require a greater level of detail in preceding plans or the abolition of multi-stage planning and approval procedures so that the assessment of implications can be concentrated on one point in the procedure. Rather, adverse effects on areas of conservation must be assessed at every relevant stage of the procedure to the extent possible on the basis of the precision of the plan. This assessment is to be updated with increasing specificity in subsequent stages of the procedure.”3 1.9. Where appropriate assessment is undertaken, the competent authority may only authorise the plan or project having ascertained, in light of the sites’ conservation objectives, that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or sites. Otherwise the plan cannot be authorised unless specific statutory tests are met.

1.10. Wiltshire Council has conducted the following HRA as competent authority for the Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan. Where risks to European Sites are identified amendments must be incorporated into the plan to remove these before the plan is made. Likewise, changes to the plan, or the planning context must also be considered under the Regulations before the final plan is considered by a referendum and adopted.

2. SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

2.1 Screening Methodology

2.1.1 Each element of the plan has been categorised against screening criteria developed by Natural England to provide a clear audit trail for the screening assessment.

2.1.2 The screening criteria used are as follows:

 Category A1: The policy will not itself lead to development e.g. because it relates to design or other qualitative criteria for development;  Category A2: The policy is intended to protect the natural environment;  Category A3: The policy is intended to conserve or enhance the natural, built or historic environment;  Category A4: The policy would positively steer development away from European sites and associated sensitive areas;  Category A5: The policy would have no effect because no development could occur through the policy itself, the development being implemented through later policies in the same plan, which are more specific and therefore more appropriate to assess for their effects on European Sites and associated sensitive areas.  Category B – no significant effect;  Category C – likely significant effect alone; and  Category D – Likely significant effects in combination. 2.1.3 The effect of each policy has been considered both individually and in combination with other plans and projects (see table below). Where there is a potential for likely significant effects an appropriate assessment must be undertaken.

3 Commission of the European Communities v UK and NI, opinion of Advocate General KoKott, 9 June 2005, Case C-6/04

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

2.2 Screening for Wiltshire Core Strategy HRA

2.2.1 The Wiltshire Core Strategy HRA (October 2009, February 20124, March 20135, and April 20146) identified general parameters to determine the likelihood of potential impact on Natura 2000 (European protected) sites. The following parameters were identified and assessed for the following Natura 2000 sites.

Recreation – Natura 2000 sites within 5km of the plan area, or where Salisbury Plain SPA/SAC is within 15km of the plan area:

 Salisbury Plain SAC and SPA

 River Avon SAC

 New Forest SAC / SPA

Hydrology / Hydrogeology - Sites that fall wholly or partly within the Wessex Water Resource Zone may be susceptible to impact:

 Salisbury Plain SAC / SPA

 Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC

 Pewsey Downs SAC

 North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC

 River Avon SAC

 River Lambourn SAC

 Kennet & Lambourn Floodplain SAC

Air Pollution / Nitrogen Deposition – Natura 2000 sites within 200m of a main road

 Porton Down SPA

 Salisbury Plain SAC / SPA

 Southampton Water SPA

 Clattinger Farm SAC

 River Avon SAC

 Rodborough Common SAC

 Cotswolds Beechwoods SAC Physical Damage / Interruption of Flight Lines / Disturbance

 Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC  Porton Down SPA

4 Wiltshire Core Strategy Submission Draft – Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, Wiltshire Council, February 2012 5 Wiltshire Core Strategy – Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, Wiltshire Council, March 2013 6 Wiltshire Core Strategy Updated Habitats Regulations Assessment, April 2014

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

2.3 Settlement screening for Oaksey From the list above, only North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC is identified within parameters where there could be a likelihood of significant effect. All other N2K sites are considered to be sufficiently distant from the neighbourhood plan area such that no mechanism for significant impact could exist. The following parameters were considered in relation to North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC.

Recreation

2.3.1 Part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan area falls within the boundary of the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area for Conservation (SAC), although the actual settlement boundary for Oaksey is approximately 2km east from the Clattinger Farm component of the SAC.

2.3.2 In its response to the HRA for the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2013, Natural England indicated that the current level of recreational activity is at or above capacity on the North Meadow Cricklade SSSI, which is a component of the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC. Current information on the SAC (JNCC) and the component SSSI identify that site level management is the most important factor in maintaining a favourable condition status. The 2013 HRA concluded that the management of recreational activity will need to continue to be dealt with at the site level through, for example, maintenance of the public footpaths and the restriction of access to areas of the site that are being adversely affected. 2.3.3 Since the Core Strategy was adopted, the Council has published a pre-submission draft of the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan together with a HRA dated 21 June 2017. Subsequently a submission draft of the plan has been published with an Addendum to the HRA dated 4 May 2018. The screening criteria for this HRA were refined on the basis of best available scientific evidence, local knowledge and the Council’s experience of carrying out HRA’s in the local area. Essentially, Natural England did not identify any further concerns in relation to potential recreational pressure on Clattinger Farm SSSI as a result of the development described in the 2017 Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan, therefore the SAC is not included under “Recreational Pressure” at 2.2.1 above.

2.3.4 The Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan does allocate one site for re-development of 12 houses at Bendy Bow, with an additional 10 new houses. This is within the allocation numbers that have been considered both in the 2013 Core Strategy HRA and its subsequent iterations.

Hydrology / Hydrogeology

2.3.5 The Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan settlement is not hydrologically connected with Clattinger Farm SSSI, therefore there is no mechanism for impact on the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC as a result of development within the settlement boundary.

2.3.6 There is hydraulic connection between the Oaksey settlement and Clattinger Farm SSSI, since groundwater in this part of the county flows from north west to south east. However, the scale of development and re-development proposed within the plan is not of sufficient scale or relevant nature to result in groundwater changes and therefore will not result in significant impacts on the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC.

Air Pollution / Nitrogen Deposition

2.3.7 Although the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Area falls within part of the Clattinger Farm SSSI, no physical changes are proposed to roads within 200m of this component of the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC.

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

2.4 Screening of Policies in Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan

2.4.1 The Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan comprises 7 planning policies which are screened in the Table below.

TABLE: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of the Hilperton Neighbourhood Development Plan

A / B (Green) – Screened out

C / D (Red) – Screened in

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening Built Environment Policy 1. Settlement Boundary A1 The settlement boundary of Oaksey is defined on the Policies Map. It serves the purpose of containing the growth of the settlement and protecting the countryside from encroachment. Within the settlement boundary planning permission will be granted

for small-scale development on sites not allocated for development

which do not adversely affect the structure and form of the existing linear settlement morphology, the landscape setting of the settlement or the transitional edge between the built environment of the settlement and the undeveloped nature of the surrounding rural areas.

Countryside The land outside of the settlement boundary is designated as the Any development outside the settlement countryside. Development outside the settlement boundary will be boundary will not have been included in this screening assessment. Any development strictly controlled and planning permission will only be granted for proposals within the plan area but outside proposals which require a countryside location, such as agriculture, the settlement boundary will need to be horticulture or forestry; or are related to community, leisure or screened under the Habitats Regulations to

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening recreation. In particular those designed to meet the needs of local ensure compliance. residents will be supported. Proposals for holiday accommodation, leisure and recreation uses designed to meet the needs of visitors and tourists will only be supported within the existing part of the Cotswold Water Park (Cottage Lake; Swallow Pool; and Mallard Lake) in the Parish. Proposals within the Cotswold Water Park will also need to comply with Core Policy 54 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Policy 7 of this Neighbourhood Plan. Proposals to extend the Cotswold Water Park westwards will not be supported. Residential development will only be permitted in the countryside where it meets the requirements of National Planning Policy.

Holiday Accommodation The removal of occupancy restrictions on holiday accommodation to allow their use as a permanent residential dwelling will not be supported unless the property is located within the settlement boundary. The change of use of a permanent residential dwelling to holiday accommodation will be resisted where this would lead to the permanent loss of a dwelling. Policy 2 – Design of New Development and Local Distinctiveness All new development shall demonstrate good quality design that reinforces local distinctiveness and complements the fabric of the A1 existing built up area, uses good quality harmonious materials and respects views around the village with reference to the height, scale, density, layout, siting, and orientation of new buildings. All new development shall have regard to the design guidelines set out in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1. New development will only be permitted where it does not adversely affect the distinctive character of Oaksey, including open areas; views and vistas; and built form set

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening out in the Character Appraisal included in Annexe 1. Proposals should not result in the loss of gaps and spaces between buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the streetscene. Proposals should not result in the loss of open views of the countryside from within the village. Planning permission for proposals for backland residential development will not be granted where the existing character and linear form of the settlement is adversely affected.

Views and Vistas The following important public views and vistas are identified for particular protection: Coppice Lane – Looking North Earls Corner – Looking North Cargill Place – Looking North Bendy Bow – Looking South Gateway to Minety Lane – Looking South Gateway to Wick Road – Looking North Eastern Gateway to the Village adjacent to Oaksey House – Looking West View Along Eastcourt Road – Looking South

These important views and vistas are illustrated and explained in detail in the character area profiles in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1.

Boundary Treatment, Trees and Public Realm Development proposals which have the potential to impact negatively on the boundary treatment, landscaping or trees which make a positive contribution to the public realm will be resisted. Any new

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening development will be expected to demonstrate how they will contribute to high quality streets, pavements and other publicly accessible areas (the public realm) within Oaksey. Important boundaries in the form of stone walls and hedges are illustrated on the character profile maps in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1. In addition to the general protection offered by the Conservation Area, the following groups of important trees are identified for protection because of the contribution they make to the character and appearance of the village: North of Cargill Place West of Woodfolds, The Green West of No.17 The Street The Old Rectory, The Street Playing Field, The Street Churchyard, The Street Orchard Place, Somerford Keynes Road Oaksey House, Somerford Keynes Road

These important trees are illustrated on the character profile maps in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1.

Open Spaces Development proposals which would adversely affect the contribution that the following important open areas make to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the overall village will not be permitted: The Well Garden; The Playing Field:

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening The Churchyard; The field between Wick Road and Wheatsheaf Lane; The field to the rear of Mulberry House, north of The Street; and The field south of Somerford Keynes Road on the eastern approach to the village.

These important open area are illustrated on the character profile maps in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1.

Opportunities for Enhancement Proposals which deliver opportunities for enhancement of the built and historic environment in the following areas will be supported subject to compliance with other development plan policies: Bendy Bow and its junction with The Street Earls Corner The Well Garden Buildings adjacent to the junction of The Street and Eastcourt Road The South Barn at Street Farm adjacent to The Street

These areas for enhancement are illustrated on the character profile maps in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1.

Extensions and Outbuildings Residential extensions; extensions to other buildings; and outbuildings will be supported where they: are subordinate to the host property; are constructed of materials which reflect the materials on the host property or those found in the surrounding area; do not result in the loss of existing boundary features;

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening make a positive contribution to the streetscene; and do not adversely change the inter-relationship between the front of the host property and the public realm.

Policy 3 – Highway Impact Where new development negatively impacts on the highway network, developers will be required to appropriately mitigate these impacts by A1 The policy itself will not result in highway improvements or contributions towards their mitigation. development. However it should be noted Contributions will be used to mitigate the impacts associated with the that any new highways infrastructure or road improvements to the east of Oaksey will development to ensure there is no unacceptable detriment in terms of need to be assessed under the Habitats congestion or safety conditions. Proposals for major development Regulations to ensure that such which impacts on traffic volume or safety must be supported by a developments do not result in significant transport assessment which considers the impact of traffic movements adverse impacts to the favourable on the highway network across the Parish of Oaksey. conservation status of North Meadow and Proposals for commercial, industrial or other forms of HGV generating Clattinger Farm SAC, particularly from the development which will result in additional HGV movements through effects of reduced air quality, ground water the centre of Oaksey village will only be permitted where routing disruption, water resource, loss of habitat or agreements can be secured to avoid HGV movements through the increases to recreational pressure beyond centre of Oaksey village. the level that management of the component SSSIs is able to successfully handle.

Parking Planning permission will only be granted for new development that incorporates adequate on-site provision for parking. Development proposals which would result in the displacement of parking provision from off-street to on-street will not be supported.

Refuse Provision Planning permission will only be granted for new development that incorporates adequate on-site provision for the storage of refuse

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening collection bins. Refuse collection storage should be screened and easily accessible to the collection point.

Policy 4 – Heritage Assets Development affecting or within the setting of listed buildings requiring planning permission, including for change of use, will be A3 required to demonstrate that the proposal is compatible with the setting and significance of the building. Development proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area by taking account of the distinctive character, appearance and setting of the Conservation Area including open spaces and natural features and reflect this in their layout, design, form, scale, mass, use of materials and detailing. Where development results in harm to the significance of designated heritage assets planning permission will only be granted where the public benefits of allowing the development outweigh the harm arising. Development proposals should take account of their effect on sites and their settings with the potential for archaeological interest. Proposals that are likely to affect known important sites, sites of significant archaeological potential, or those that become known through the development process, will be required to submit an appropriate desk based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. This will then be used to inform a range of archaeological mitigation measures, if required, for preservation by record and more occasionally preservation in situ. Planning permission will not normally be granted for development proposals which would destroy or detrimentally affect archaeological interests.

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening All development proposals affecting heritage assets and their settings, including new operational development and alterations to existing buildings, where they form or affect heritage assets should utilise appropriate siting, design, detailing, materials and methods of construction. Particular attention should be paid to reflecting locally distinctive styles of development and these should respect traditional methods and natural materials wherever possible. Where development results in harm to the significance of designated heritage assets planning permission will only be granted where the public benefits outweigh the harm arising. The Neighbourhood Plan designates the buildings below as ‘Locally Important Buildings’ as non-designated heritage assets, further details of them are detailed in the Character Appraisal included at Annexe 1. Where development results in harm to the significance of non- designated heritage assets planning permission will only be granted where the benefits of allowing the development outweigh the harm arising. Old Chapel, The Street Village Shop and Adjacent Building (Former Butchery and Abattoir), The Street National School Building, The Street Street Farm, The Street Spring Cottage, 17 The Street 3 The Street Wisteria Cottage, The Street The Wheatsheaf Public House, Wheatsheaf Lane Skittle Alley, Wheatsheaf Lane Oaksey Court, Somerford Keynes Road

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening Where development proposals requiring planning permission involve demolition, the resulting impact on heritage assets will be assessed under this policy.

Housing Policy 5 – New Housing Small-scale infill residential development within the settlement B boundary (defined in Policy 1) that does not impact adversely on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or living conditions of future occupiers and neighbouring occupiers will be supported where it complies with other policies in the Neighbourhood Plan and the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In particular proposals should respect the characteristics and local distinctiveness of the relevant Character Area profile detailed in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1. Proposals will be expected to have a direct highway frontage and safe highway access. The design of all housing shall have particular regard to the criteria set out in Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 “Ensuring high Quality Design and Place Shaping”.

Housing Allocation Land at Bendy Bow is allocated for a residential redevelopment scheme for the effective replacement of the 12 existing dwellings together with a net addition to the dwelling stock of a minimum of 10 dwellings. Proposals for residential development will only supported where it provides for a mix of housing sizes and tenures, involving if appropriate the minimum level of market housing that can be demonstrated as essential to fund the delivery of the affordable housing element, after taking into account any Government grant

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening funding. Proposals for this allocated site should be accompanied by a masterplan developed in collaboration with the community, the Parish Council and the local Planning Authority. The masterplan and the proposed development should reflect the development principles set out below: 1. Frontage to The Street - Provide a new built form frontage to ‘The Street’ to reinforce the traditional streetscene of those buildings facing ‘The Street’ which predominantly feature a generous frontage space. Also retain or relocate and rebuild if necessary the existing boundary wall at the junction of ‘The Street’ and Bendy Bow to reflect the traditional wall boundaries found along ‘The Street’. The access area and vista will also need to be improved.

2. Materials – The redevelopment of the site area facing The Street should enhance the character of the Conservation Area with materials that reflect the history of the area, for example utilising traditional buildings of stone and pantile. Elsewhere materials should seek to enhance the appearance of Bendy Bow.

3. Housing - Provide a mixed development which meets the defined needs of those households displaced by the redevelopment proposal. New market housing should be of a size and style suitable for small/medium family provision which can provide an option for the local community to access market housing at a cost below that found within the established village housing market.

4. Parking - Provide adequate off street parking to serve the new housing.

5. Landscaping – Redevelopment should continue to ensure that

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening properties have strong boundaries to the road frontages to retain the existing enclosed character. Existing hedges and trees to the countryside site boundaries should be retained to help assimilate the new development into the settlement edge.

Community Policy 6 – Community Facilities Facilities Development proposals that result in the improvement and expansion A1 of community facilities or the provision of new community facilities will be supported subject to the following criteria being met: The proposal will not adversely affect residential amenity or the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties; The proposal will not lead to traffic congestion or adversely affect the free flow of traffic; and Access arrangements and off street parking can be satisfactorily provided.

Development proposals that would result in the loss of community facilities (Places of Worship; Public Houses; Sports Facilities; School; Post Office; Shop; the Village Hall; or the Well Garden) will not be permitted unless it can be shown that they are poorly used, not viable in terms of community need, or adequate replacement provision is made elsewhere nearby within or close to the Parish. Proposals will also need to demonstrate a lack of economic viability as set out in Core Policy 49 (Protection of rural services and community facilities) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Natural Policy 7 – Setting of Oaksey Village Environment The Neighbourhood Plan supports proposals that protect and enhance A3 the natural features that are a key component of the landscape and provide habitat for Oaksey’s diverse wildlife populations, including: a) Measures to protect & enhance our natural environment &

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening landscape character and to maintain tree cover & hedgerows will be promoted wherever possible; b) Proposals that provide favourable conditions for biodiversity including maintenance and enhancement of habitat connectivity and

landscape scale conservation will be supported. Mitigation measures

will be sought where any loss would be unavoidable and cause significant harm; c) Woodlands & hedgerows. The community support measures to increase the enhancement, reinstatement or creation of hedgerows along boundaries, and support the creation of additional pockets of woodland.

Development within and on the edge of Oaksey will only be permitted

where it does not adversely affect views and linkages into and out of

the village. Key views and vistas are included in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1. The following areas are considered important to the overall setting of Oaksey Parish: Oaksey Wood; Dean Plantation; The tree planting at Oaksey Golf Club;

The tree lined driveway to Park Farm; and The trees to the east of Eastcourt Road

New development will be supported provided that it does not adversely affect or devalue the structure, diversity or views of the streetscene and landscape. New development, where supported by other plan policies, must be integrated into the streetscene and landscape through design and the incorporation of suitable green

buffers and the planting including trees. Development which would

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

Objective Policy Categorisation Comments and recommendations in initial screening introduce a harsh urban edge on the important road gateways into the village identified in the Character Appraisal in Annexe 1 will not be permitted. Development which adversely affects the character, appearance, setting, and tranquillity of the river corridors of Swill Brook and

Flagham Brook will not be permitted.

Development which adversely affects the integrity of the North Any development proposal outside of Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation will not be particularly to the east of the Oaksey permitted. Development which would adversely affect the ecological Settlement Boundary will require Habitats importance or rural character and appearance of the Clattinger Farm Regulation Assessment (HRA) at site level to SSSI; Ancient Woodland and County Wildlife Sites will not be ensure no significant adverse impacts on the permitted. favourable conservation status of North Proposals to enhance the village and surrounding areas through Meadow and Clattinger Farm SAC. appropriate landscaping and planting, especially around any new developments, will be encouraged.

HRA of Oaksey Neighbourhood Development Plan June 2018 Regulation 16 draft for submission (FE/V1/28.09.2018)

2.5 Assessment of all elements of the plan ‘in combination’  The draft policies would not have any in combination effects

2.6 Assessment of the effects of the plan as a whole, in combination with Wiltshire Core Strategy  The plan would not have any in combination effects with the Wiltshire Core Strategy,

3. Conclusion 3.1 The draft policies do allocate a single site for re-development of twelve dwellings plus an additional 10 houses, but largely provide qualitative criteria for development focused on protecting the local environment and guiding the design of new housing. In addition, the distance from any vulnerable N2K site (as identified in the parameters of the Core Strategy HRA) and the small scale of the allocation proposed by the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan indicate that there is no mechanism for adverse effect.

3.2 Wiltshire Council considers that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 Netework either alone or in combination, and no appropriate assessment is necessary.

3.3 Any significant changes to this plan or the planning context may affect the above conclusion and therefore this HRA should be reviewed before the plan is examined and / or before it is considered at referendum.

Fiona Elphick

Senior Ecologist, Wiltshire Council

28th September 2018

Comments.

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 1

Response Date 02/08/18 09:22

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.2

Comment: Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames Water) Property Services function is being delivered by Savills (UK) Limited as Thames Water's appointed supplier. Savills are therefore pleased to respond to the above consultation on behalf of Thames Water. As you will be aware, Thames Water covers the North East of the Wiltshire area. However, Thames Water do not cover the Oaksey area (this is within Wessex Water's area) and therefore we have no comments on the draft document.

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 2

Response Date 02/08/18 16:31

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.2

Comment: National Grid has appointed Wood to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regards to the above Neighbourhood Plan consultation. About National Grid National Grid owns and operates the high voltage electricity transmission system in England and Wales and operate the Scottish high voltage transmission system. National Grid also owns and operates the gas transmission system. In the UK, gas leaves the transmission system and enters the distribution networks at high pressure. It is then transported through a number of reducing pressure tiers until it is finally delivered to our customer. National Grid own four of the UK's gas distribution networks and transport gas to 11 million homes, schools and businesses through 81,000 miles of gas pipelines within North West, East of England, West Midlands and North London. To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect our assets. Specific Comments An assessment has been carried out with respect to National Grid's electricity and gas transmission apparatus which includes high voltage electricity assets and high pressure gas pipelines and also National Grid Gas Distribution's Intermediate / High Pressure apparatus. National Grid has identified the following high voltage overhead powerlines as falling within the Neighbourhood area boundary: ZF Route - 400kV from Minety substation in Wiltshire to Feckenham in Reddich. From the consultation information provided, the above overheads powerline does not interact with any of the proposed development sites. Gas Distribution ± Low / Medium Pressure Whilst there is no implications for National Grid Gas Distribution's Intermediate / High Pressure apparatus, there may however be Low Pressure (LP) / Medium Pressure (MP) Gas Distribution pipes present within proposed development sites. If further information is required in relation to the Gas Distribution network please contact [email protected] Key resources / contacts National Grid has provided information in relation to electricity and transmission assets via the following internet link:

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/land-and-development/planning-authority/shape-files/ The first point of contact for all works within the vicinity of gas distribution assets is Plant Protection ([email protected]). Information regarding the transmission and distribution network can be found at: www.energynetworks.org.uk Please remember to consult National Grid on any Neighbourhood Plan Documents or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure. We would be grateful if you could add our details shown below to your consultation database:

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 3

Response Date 12/08/18 12:20

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.2

Comment: I have been sent the above for comment by Wiltshire Council, presumably in my capacity as the Area Footpath Secretary for the Wiltshire Ramblers. Although it is an impressive document and is undoubtedly the result of a huge amount of work, it is disappointing to see only one mention (that I can see) in the entire document of Rights of Way (RoW), being footpaths, bridleways and byways. This comes in paragraph 4.6 on page 38, where it is noted that "the parish is reasonably well served with footpaths and bridleways. However somewhat unusually they do not provide direct connections to all the neighbouring villages, as such they perform a recreational role." The role of having recreational facilities open to all in any community should not be overlooked or minimised. It is a well known fact that physical inactivity can be the principal cause of many common ill health conditions, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and breast and colon cancer. The most economical and accessible form of activity to combat this is walking, and therefore the condition and upkeep of RoWs in the parish are very important in keeping its inhabitants healthy. Surely this merits consideration in a Neighbourhood Plan? Policy 3 is entitled "Highway Impact", and describes the need to mitigate the negative impact of new developments on the highway network. RoWs are an important part of any highway network, and it would have been appropriate to mention in this section the need to protect them from the ravages of developers. Equally, it was surprising to see no mention of RoWs in the sections of the Plan dealing with the Natural Environment and Community Facilities. And given that a well maintained network of RoWs is likely to attract walkers from outside the parish to walk there, thus contributing to the local economy, mention of RoWs would have been equally appropriate in section 12 dealing with the Economy. I note from paragraph 9.6 of the Plan that one of the clubs and societies listed is Oaksey Midweek Walkers; it would be interesting to know what comments they have made, if any, on the Plan.

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 4

Response Date 29/08/18 11:11

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.3

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1 does your comment relate?

Comment: Thank you for consulting Wessex Water on the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan 2018 ± 2026 (Submission Plan). Wessex Water provide water and sewerage services to the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan area.Wessex Water have existing assets in and around the village. It is likely that within the plan period we will need to undertake maintenance and improvements works to our existing assets and to construct new infrastructure. Such works are essential to deliver a reliable service and meet environmental requirements. As a statutory undertaker, some works are permitted development but certain works will require us to seek express planning consent from the Local Planning Authority. The Draft Neighbourhood Plan identifies development types which require a countryside location such as agriculture, forestry or horticulture.Water and sewerage infrastructure may also require a countryside location. We request a modification of the wording of Policy 1 to incorporate water and sewerage infrastructure.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 5

Response Date 29/08/18 11:11

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.2

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policies 2, 3 and 7 does your comment relate?

Comment: We are concerned that Policies 2, 3 and 7 may be overly restrictive when we are seeking consent to undertake maintenance/improvement works to our existing infrastructure or to construct new above ground infrastructure during the plan period. The design requirements under Policy 2, 3 and 7 should recognise that infrastructure development and maintenance by utility companies by its nature needs to be functional and considerations such as security and health and safety must take precedence over appearance. While we seek to ensure design is a sensitive to its location as possible, there are often constraints on location (due to existing below ground infrastructure), materials (for example requirements to meet national security standards) and size/form (driven by operational requirements).

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 6

Response Date 29/08/18 11:11

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.2

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policy 5 does your comment relate?

Comment: Wessex Water have undertaken CCTV investigations of sewers in the village which have identified groundwater infiltration. This is where high groundwater levels can result in groundwater entering into sewers with a loss of service to customers. It is proposed to undertake a scheme of sewer sealing on existing affected sewers.The site allocation made under Policy 5 New Housing is for the redevelopment of an existing site. Surface water connections to the public foul sewer network will not be permitted. New developments should be provided with a separate system of drainage. If there are any existing surface water connections to the foul water system these should be redirected on redevelopment. New development should be fitted with sealed drainage systems to prevent groundwater infiltration.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 8

Response Date 04/09/18 19:28

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.5

Comment: Re: Site selection methodology and Greenacres Farm, The Green, Oaksey. A number of falsehoods have been perpetuated here despite previous written responses for changes. The site at Greenacres Farm cannot be seen from the south approach to the village unless you are viewing from the sky. It lies to the east of The Green and simply can't be seen and from the south it has a high wall and a number of trees. This is coupled with angle of the approach road. The idea the site has unclear access is again nonsensical argument that has been developed on the hoof. It has x4 access points via public footpaths and has a farm entrance from The Green between 19A Greenacres Gate and Greenacres that has been in place for over 50 years. Surely the Parish Council is aware of this? To say the site could accommodate 37 houses, as maximum is thoroughly misleading ± this was never suggested. The suggestion was for all / or part of the site to be developed which could easily include play areas, small business units, additional parking to support Bendy Bow & The Green, public footpaths, coupled with a mixed use of affordable and market houses. It's an odd approach to find the theoretical maximum housing density and then dismiss the whole site through this ± when there are much potential. The argument re: Woodfolds is nonsense again. A recent planning application allowed for a garage redevelopment on the site. The house itself was extended in the 1980's. A new build At Greenacres Gate in 2004/5 was allowed and these reasons (impact on Woodfolds) were dismissed by the Planning Inspector. Greenacres House was redeveloped this year and this is west of the site and didn't have any impact on Woodfolds. The land between Greenacres Farm and Woodfolds has a ransom strip in terms of a public footpath and their own wall with very tall trees to protect it. The land at Greenacres Farm did historically form part of the same field as the proposed redevelopment at Bendy Bow. Other access options to Greenacres Farm could include subject to commercial negotiation via the Bendy Bow estate, either singularly or as an adjoining of the The Green to Bendy Bow.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 9

Response Date 05/09/18 14:53

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.4

Comment: Thank you for providing Highways England with the opportunity to comment on the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 Consultation. Highways England is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network (SRN) which in this case consists of the M4 to the south of the plan area. As the plan area is some distance from our network, we are therefore satisfied that the proposed plan policies are unlikely to result in development which will impact significantly on the SRN and we have no comments to make. However, this response does not prejudice any future responses Highways England may make on site specific applications as they come forward through the planning process, and which will be considered by us on their merits under the appropriate policy at the time.

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 10

Response Date 06/09/18 13:06

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.6

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1 does your comment relate?

Comment: As you will be aware, my client; *name redacted* previously raised objections to Policy 1.This response should be read in conjunction with the previous consultation response dated 9th May 2018 to the regulation 14 consultation. It is disappointing that none of these concerns appear to have been taken on board and this policy remains very restrictive.Whilst it is noted that the most recent housing land supply statement suggests there is no requirement for additional housing within Oaksey, this is not within the spirit of the NPPF. The revised NPPF (published July 2018) key aim is to support the Governments objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing (paragraph 59). As has been set out previously the supporting text for policy CP1 allows for the relaxation of settlement boundaries through the Neighbourhood Plan process. By drawing the settlement boundaries tighter than the existing North Wiltshire Local Plan, this is significantly restricting development in the parish. The NPPF at paragraph 78 is clear that "to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services." The Street Farm Paddock site is currently located within the settlement boundary for Oaksey and there appears to be no justification for its removal. The NPPF acknowledges the need for additional development to support and ensure villages grow and thrive. The Street Farm paddock site is located close to the centre of the village close to the village hall, primary school and bus stop. This is seen as a sustainable location where further development should be encouraged. By restricting settlement boundaries too far, the opportunity for additional development to help villages thrive is limited and could potentially lead to a reduction in services within the local community if suitable sites are not provided as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 11

Response Date 06/09/18 13:06

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.7

Files Rep 11 Attachment.pdf

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2 and Character Appraisal specifically character does your comment relate? area B.

Comment: As you will be aware, my client; *name redacted* previously raised objections to Policy 2 and the Character Appraisal. This response should be read in conjunction with the previous consultation response dated 9th May 2018 to the regulation 14 consultation. Policy 2 As has been previously set out this policy seeks to restrict backland development. Backland development is an existing feature within Oaksey and small developments can add to the vitality of communities whilst at the same time ensuring that residents are in close proximity to existing services and facilities within the village. It is pleasing to see that the opportunity for enhancements of the south barn at Street Farm has been recognised. Character Area B Street Farm is located within Character Area B, with Street Farmhouse identified as a non-designated heritage asset and the south barn identified as an area of enhancement. As mentioned within the previous response, my client had submitted a planning application for the conversion of the barn to residential accommodation together with improvements to Street Farm itself. Whilst it is acknowledged that this application was refused. Further information has been gathered in the form of a Heritage Assessment, which has considered the proposals in more detail. The Heritage Statement supports the assertions that the improvements to the south barn will enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area in line with the aims of the Neighbourhood Plan. a copy has been attached to this representation. There are concerns over the wording of paragraph 115 which states "proposals which deliver opportunities for enhancements of this barn will be supported where appropriate, including conversion where this is accessed from the existing access". Suggesting that a proposal must utilise an existing access is overly prescriptive. The role of a character assessment is to look at the character of an area, not make comments on potential highways safety issues.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 It would be for an applicant to demonstrate as part of a planning application, that a safe and suitable access could be provided to service a development when considering the proposal and all associated issues as a whole. It should be noted that there is an existing agricultural access which is accessed via the existing five bar gate to the north of Cargill Place.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

LAND AT STREET FARM, OAKSEY BUILT HERITAGE STATEMENT

PREPARED BY PEGASUS GROUP ON BEHALF OF HUNTER PAGE PLANNING

P18-1959 | AUGUST 2018 August 2018 | RG | P18-1959

Document Management

Version Date Author Checked/approved by: Reason for revision

Gail Stoten Gail Stoten

1 29.08.2018 - Regional Director Regional Director (Heritage) (Heritage)

Pegasus Group

T 01285 641717 | F 01285 642348 | W www.pegasuspg.co.uk

August 2018 | RG | P18-1959

BUILT HERITAGE STATEMENT

LAND AT STREET FARM, OAKSEY, WILTSHIRE

ON BEHALF OF: HUNTER PAGE PLANNING

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

Prepared by: Gail Stoten, Regional Director (Heritage)

Pegasus Group

T 01285 641717 | F 01285 642348 | W www.pegasuspg.co.uk

CONTENTS:

INTRODUCTION 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 2 METHODOLOGY 4 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 9 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 17 CONCLUSIONS 26

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire

PLATES: PLATE 1 EXTRACT FROM THE OAKSEY TITHE MAP OF 1843, WITH THE LATER STREET FARM COMPLEX ARROWED IN ORANGE...... 2 PLATE 2 EXTRACT FROM THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP OF 1900...... 3 PLATE 3 EXTRACT FROM THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP OF 1980 ...... 3 PLATE 4 STREET FARMHOUSE, LOOKING NORTH-EAST FROM THE STREET ...... 17 PLATE 5 LOOKING SOUTH TO THE REAR OF STREET FARMHOUSE ...... 17 PLATE 6 LOOKING NORTH-WEST TO THE SOUTHERN FACE OF THE NORTHERN OUTBUILDING ...... 19 PLATE 7 LOOKING SOUTH-EAST TO THE NORTHERN FAÇADE OF THE NORTHERN OUTBUILDING ...... 19 PLATE 8 LOOKING SOUTH TO THE WESTERN END OF THE NORTHERN OUTBUILDING ...... 20 PLATE 9 LOOKING NORTH-WEST TO THE SOUTHERN OUTBUILDING ...... 21 PLATE 10 BLOCKED WINDOWS ON THE SOUTHERN FACADE ...... 22

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire

Summary

The significance of each of the buildings of Street Farm and the Conservation Area as a whole has been considered, and an

assessment made of the proposals for their alteration and conversion. It is the conclusion of the assessment that the proposals will have a minor beneficial effect on the heritage significance of the buildings and enhance the appearance of the

Conservation Area. As such, the proposals are compliant with all legislation and policy.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire

Introduction

Pegasus Planning Group have been commissioned by Hunter In order to inform an assessment of the acceptability of the Page Planning to carry out a Built Heritage Statement of the scheme in relation to impacts to the historic environment, proposed development at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire as following paragraphs 193 to 197 of the NPPF, any harm to the shown on Figure 1. historic environment resulting from the proposed development is also described, including impacts to significance through The proposed development comprises the conversion of farm changes to setting. buildings to a four-bedroom dwelling and ancillary accommodation and garaging to the farmhouse, as well as an As required by paragraph 189 of the NPPF, the detail and access track and minor alterations to the farmhouse. assessment in this Report is considered to be “proportionate to the asset’s importance”. This Built Heritage Statement provides information with regards to the significance of the historic environment to fulfil the requirement given in paragraph 189 of the Government’s

National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF1) which requires:

“an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.”

1 NPPF, DCLG, 2018

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 1

Site Description and Location

The site comprises the Street Farmhouse, a two-and-a-half storey stone dwelling; two single-storey outbuildings/barns to the west; and two paddocks to the north of the farm complex.

The existing access into the site is between the southern outbuilding range and the farmhouse.

Site Development

The earliest available detailed cartographic source, the Tithe Map of the parish of Oaksey of 1843, shows that the site was part of a house, garden, buildings and yard complex owned and held in hand by Abel Cole. The land to the north of the complex, where the access track is proposed, was part of land owned by Frances Salisbury, and rented out to Abel Cole as were several other fields.

This source shows buildings in the locations of the existing farmhouse and northern barn range (Plate 1, orange arrows),

but not the southern barn range, where other buildings were present at this time (Plate 1, blue arrow). Plate 1 Extract from the Oaksey Tithe Map of 1843, with the later Street Farm complex arrowed in orange.

No changes to the building of the site are depicted on the Ordnance Survey Map of 1875, but the construction of the southern barn range is visible on the Ordnance Survey map of 1900 (Plate 2).

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 2

Plate 2 Extract from the Ordnance Survey map of 1900. Plate 3 Extract from the Ordnance Survey map of 1980

It is clear form this mapping that the complex originally Planning Background

extended further to the west, into the area now occupied by Previously, application N/95/00981/FUL granted planning Cargill Place. These western barns appear to be replaced by permission for the change of use of the cow shed from large, modern barns by 1980 (Plate 3), and were replaced by agricultural/ private garage to car repair workshop. This was st houses very early in the 21 century. subsequently renewed under applications N/97/1137/S73 and N/00/00770/S73A.

The proposed scheme was previously submitted as application 17/12512/FUL. This was refused, with one reason for refusal relating to heritage issues. This is further discussed below.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 3

Methodology

The aims of this Built Heritage Statement are to assess the • Aerial photographs and satellite imagery. heritage significance of the buildings within the site and the Assessment of significance contribution it makes to the Oaksey Conservation Area, and to

identify any harm or benefit to them which may result from the In the NPPF, heritage significance is defined as:

implementation of the development proposals, along with the “The value of a heritage asset to this and future level of any harm caused if relevant. generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, Site Visit architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s A site visit was undertaken by Pegasus Group on 3rd July 2018, physical presence, but also from its setting.”

during which the site and its surrounds were assessed. Historic England’s Historic Environment Good Practice advice in

The visibility on this day was clear. Surrounding vegetation was Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the 2 not fully in leaf at the time of the site visit and thus a clear Historic Environment (henceforth referred to as ‘GPA 2: indication as to potential intervisibility between the Site and the Managing Significance’) gives advice on the assessment of surrounding areas could be established. significance as part of the application process. It advises understanding the nature, extent, and level of significance of a Sources heritage asset. In order to do this, GPA 2: Managing Significance The following key sources have been consulted as part of this also advocates considering the four types of heritage value an assessment: asset may hold, as identified in Historic England’s Conservation

3 • The National Heritage List for England; Principles ; evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. These essentially cover the heritage ‘interests’ given in the • Online historic mapping (including the Tithe Map); and glossary of the NPPF, which comprise archaeological,

2 Historic England, 2015, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3 English Heritage 2008 Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 4

architectural, artistic and historic interest. acknowledged commemorative or symbolic value that reflects the meaning of the place, or Conservation Principles provides further information on the through more informal social value as a source of identity, distinctiveness, social interaction heritage values it identifies: and coherence. Spiritual value may also be part of communal value. Evidential value: the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity. This value Significance results from a combination of any, some or all of is derived from physical remains, such as archaeological remains, and genetic lines. the values described above.

Historical value: the ways in which past people, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas are generally events and aspects of life can be connected designated for their special architectural and historic interest. through a place to the present - it tends to be illustrative or associative. Illustrative value is Scheduling is predominantly, although not exclusively, the perception of a place as a link between past associated with archaeological interest. and present people and depends on visibility. It has the power to aid interpretation of the past Setting and significance through making connections with and providing insights into past communities and As defined in the NPPF: their activities through shared experience of a place. By contrast, associative value need not necessarily be legible at an asset, but gives a “Significance derives not only from a heritage particular resonance through association with asset’s physical presence, but also from its 4 a notable family, person, event or movement. setting. ”

Aesthetic value: the ways in which people draw Setting is defined as: sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. Aesthetic values can be the result of “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is conscious design or fortuitous outcome or a experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may combination of the two aspects. The latter can change as the asset and its surroundings result from the enhancement of the appearance evolve. Elements of a setting may contribute to of a place through the passage of time. the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be 5 Communal value: the meanings of a place for neutral.” the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or Therefore, setting can contribute to, affect an appreciation of memory. This can be through widely

4 NPPF Annex 2, DCLG, 2018 5 Ibid

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 5

significance or be neutral with regards to heritage values. to the significance of the heritage asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated’. The guidance includes a (non-exhaustive) It is also important to note that whilst a physical or visual check-list of elements of the physical surroundings of an asset connection between a heritage asset and its setting will often that might be considered when undertaking the assessment exist, it is not essential or determinative. This was recently including, among other things: topography, other heritage considered in a High Court Judgement6 where it was concluded assets, green space, functional relationships and degree of that: change over time. It also lists points associated with the “The term setting is not defined in purely visual experience of the asset which might be considered, including: terms in the NPPF which refers to the “surroundings in which a heritage asset is views, intentional intervisibility, tranquillity, sense of enclosure, experienced”. The word “experienced” has a land use, accessibility and rarity. broad meaning, which is capable of extending beyond the purely visual”. Step 3 is to assess the effect of the proposed development on

Assessing change through alteration to setting the significance of the asset(s). Step 4 is to explore ways to ‘maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm’. Step 5 is How setting might contribute to these values has been assessed to ‘make and document the decision and monitor outcomes’. within this report with reference to Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition): The Setting Descriptions of significance will naturally anticipate the ways in of Heritage Assets7 (henceforth referred to as GPA 3: The which impacts will be considered. Hence descriptions of the significance of Conservation Areas will make reference to their Setting of Heritage Assets), particularly the checklist given on special interest and character and appearance, and the page 11. This advocates the clear articulation of ‘what matters significance of Listed Buildings will be discussed with reference and why’. to the building, its setting and any features of special In GPA 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, a stepped approach is architectural or historic interest which it possesses. recommended, of which Step 1 is to identify which heritage Levels of significance assets and their settings are affected. Step 2 is to assess ‘whether, how and to what degree settings make a contribution In accordance with the levels of significance articulated in the

6 EWHC 1456, Steer v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local 7 Historic England, 2017, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Government, Catesby Estates Limited, Amber Valley Borough Council, 2017. Note 3 (Second Edition): The Setting of Heritage Assets

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 6

NPPF, three levels of significance are identified: Assessment of harm

• Designated heritage assets of the highest Assessment of any harm will be articulated in terms of the policy significance, as identified in paragraph 194 of and law that the proposed development will be assessed against, the NPPF comprising Grade I and II* Listed buildings, Grade I and II* Registered Parks and such as whether a proposed development preserves or enhances Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Protected the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, and Wreck Sites, World Heritage Sites and Registered Battlefields (and also including articulating the scale of any harm in order to inform a balanced some Conservation Areas) and non-designated judgement/weighing exercise as required by the NPPF. heritage assets of archaeological interest which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to In order to relate to key policy, the following levels of harm may Scheduled Monuments, as identified in footnote 63 of the NPPF; potentially be identified:

• Designated heritage assets of less than the • Substantial harm or total loss. It has been highest significance, as identified in paragraph clarified in a High Court Judgement of 20139 194 of the NPPF, comprising Grade II Listed that this would be harm that would ‘have such buildings and Grade II Registered Parks and a serious impact on the significance of the asset Gardens (and also some Conservation Areas); that its significance was either vitiated and altogether or very much reduced’; and

• Non-designated heritage assets. Non- • Less than substantial harm. Harm of a lesser designated heritage assets are defined within level than that defined above. the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance as “buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas It is also possible that development proposals will cause no or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning harm or preserve the significance of heritage assets. A High decisions but which are not formally designated Court Judgement of 2014 is relevant to this10. This concluded heritage assets8”. that with regard to preserving the setting of a Listed building or Additionally, it is of course possible that sites, buildings or areas preserving the character and appearance of a Conservation have no heritage significance. Area, ‘preserving’ means doing ‘no harm’.

8 DCLG, Planning Practice Guidance, Paragraph: 039 (ID: 18a-039-20140306, 10 EWHC 1895, R (Forge Field Society, Barraud and Rees) v. Sevenoaks DC, West Revision date: 06 03 2014) Kent Housing Association and Viscount De L’Isle 9 EWHC 2847, R DCLG and Nuon UK Ltd v. Bedford Borough Council

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 7

Preservation does not mean no change; it specifically means no assets by taking their settings into account need not prevent harm. GPA 2: Managing Significance states that “Change to change”. heritage assets is inevitable but it is only harmful when Additionally, it is also important to note that, as clarified in the significance is damaged”. Thus, change is accepted in Historic Court of Appeal12, whilst the statutory duty requires that special England’s guidance as part of the evolution of the landscape and regard should be paid to the desirability of not harming the environment. It is whether such change is neutral, harmful or setting of a Listed Building, that cannot mean that any harm, beneficial to the significance of an asset that matters. however minor, would necessarily require planning permission As part of this, setting may be a key consideration. For an to be refused. evaluation of any harm to significance through changes to Benefits setting, this assessment follows the methodology given in GPA 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, described above. Again, Proposed development may also result in benefits to heritage fundamental to the methodology set out in this document is assets, and these are articulated in terms of how they enhance stating ‘what matters and why’. Of particular relevance is the the heritage values and hence the significance of the assets checklist given on page 13 of GPA 3: The Setting of Heritage concerned.

Assets.

It should be noted that this key document states that:

“setting is not itself a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation”11

Hence any impacts are described in terms of how they affect the significance of a heritage asset, and heritage values that

contribute to this significance, through changes to setting.

With regards to changes in setting, GPA 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets states that “conserving or enhancing heritage

11 Historic England, 2017, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 12 Palmer v Herefordshire Council & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1061 (4th November Note 3 (Second Edition): The Setting of Heritage Assets 2016)

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 8

Planning Policy Framework

This section of the Statement sets out the legislation and “Parliament in enacting section 66(1) did intend that the desirability of preserving the planning policy considerations and guidance contained within settings of listed buildings should not simply be both national and local planning guidance which specifically given careful consideration by the decision- maker for the purpose of deciding whether relate to the application Site, with a focus on those policies there would be some harm, but should be given relating to the protection of the historic environment. “considerable importance and weight” when the decision-maker carries out the balancing Legislation exercise.”

Legislation relating to the Built Historic Environment is primarily Recent judgement in the Court of Appeal14 (‘Mordue’) has set out within the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation clarified that, with regards to the setting of Listed Buildings, Areas) Act 1990 which provides statutory protection for Listed where the principles of the NPPF are applied (in particular Buildings and Conservation Areas. paragraph 134 of the previous draft of the NPPF, the

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation requirements of which are now given in paragraph 196 of the Areas) Act 1990 states that: revised NPPF, see below), this is in keeping with the requirements of the 1990 Act. “In considering whether to grant planning permission [or permission in principle] for Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as Areas) Act 1990 states that: the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall have special regard to the desirability of “In the exercise, with respect to any preserving the building or its setting or any buildings or other land in a conservation features of special architectural or historic area, of any powers under any of the interest which it possesses.” provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the In the 2014 Court of Appeal judgement in relation to the character or appearance of that area.” Barnwell Manor case13, Sullivan LJ held that:

13 East Northamptonshire District Council v SSCLG (2015) EWCA Civ 137 14 Jones v Mordue Anor (2015) EWCA Civ 1243

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 9

Notwithstanding the statutory presumption set out within the development (the ‘presumption’) sets out the tone of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Area) Act 1990, Government’s overall stance and operates with and through the Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act other policies of the NPPF. Its purpose is to send a strong signal 2004 requires that all planning applications are determined in to all those involved in the planning process about the need to accordance with the Development Plan unless material plan positively for appropriate new development; so that both considerations indicate otherwise. plan making and development management are proactive and driven by a search for opportunities to deliver sustainable National Policy Guidance development, rather than barriers. Conserving historic assets in The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) a manner appropriate to their significance forms part of this National policy and guidance is set out in the Government’s drive towards sustainable development.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in July The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the 2018. This replaced and updated the previous National Planning achievement of sustainable development and the NPPF sets out Policy Framework 2012. The NPPF needs to be read as a whole three ‘objectives’ to facilitate sustainable development: an and is intended to promote the concept of delivering sustainable economic objective, a social objective, and an environmental development. objective. The presumption is key to delivering these ambitions, The NPPF sets out the Government’s economic, environmental by creating a positive pro-development framework which is and social planning policies for England. Taken together, these underpinned by the wider economic, environmental and social policies articulate the Government’s vision of sustainable provisions of the NPPF. The presumption is set out in full at development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to paragraph 11 of the NPPF and reads as follows:

meet local aspirations. The NPPF continues to recognise that the “Plans and decisions should apply a planning system is plan-led and that therefore Local Plans, presumption in favour of sustainable development. incorporating Neighbourhood Plans, where relevant, are the starting point for the determination of any planning application, For plan-making this means that: including those which relate to the historic environment. • plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development The overarching policy change applicable to the proposed needs of their area, and be sufficiently development is the presumption in favour of sustainable flexible to adapt to rapid change; development. This presumption in favour of sustainable

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 10

• strategic policies should, as a minimum, o any adverse impacts of doing so provide for objectively assessed needs would significantly and for housing and other uses, as well as any demonstrably outweigh the needs that cannot be met within benefits, when assessed against neighbouring areas, unless: the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.” o the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or However, it is important to note that footnote 6 of the NPPF assets of particular importance applies in relation to the final bullet of paragraph 11. This provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type provides a context for paragraph 11 and reads as follows: or distribution of development in the plan area; or “The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development o any adverse impacts of doing so plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those would significantly and sites listed in paragraph 176) and/or demonstrably outweigh the designated as Sites of Special Scientific benefits, when assessed against Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local the policies in this Framework Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural taken as a whole. Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; For decision-taking this means: irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of • approving development proposals that archaeological interest referred to in footnote accord with and up-to-date development 63); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal plan without delay; or change.” (our emphasis)

• where there are no relevant development The NPPF continues to recognise that the planning system is plan policies, or the policies which are plan-led and that therefore, Local Plans, incorporating most important for determining the application are out-of-date granting Neighbourhood Plans, where relevant, are the starting point for permission unless: the determination of any planning application.

o the application policies in this Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as: Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance “A building, monument, site, place, area or provides a clear reason for landscape identified as having a degree of refusing the development significance meriting consideration in planning proposed; or decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 11

identified by the Local Planning Authority “In determining planning applications, local (including Local Listing)” planning authorities should take account of:

The NPPF goes on to define a Designated Heritage Asset as a: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage “World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, assets and putting them to viable uses Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, consistent with their conservation; Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated b) the positive contribution that under relevant legislation15” (our emphasis) conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities As set out above, significance is also defined as: including their economic vitality; and

“The value of a heritage asset to this and future c) the desirability of new development generations because of its heritage interest. making a positive contribution to local That interest may be archaeological, character and distinctiveness” architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s With regard to the impact of proposals on the significance of a 16 physical presence, but also from its setting ” heritage asset, paragraphs 193 and 194 are relevant and read

Section 16 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the as follows:

historic environment’ and states at paragraph 190 that: “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a “Local planning authorities should identify and designated heritage asset, great weight should assess the particular significance of any be given to the asset’s conservation (and the heritage asset that may be affected by a more important the asset, the greater the proposal (including by development affecting weight should be). This is irrespective of the setting of a heritage asset) taking account whether any potential harm amounts to of the available evidence and any necessary substantial harm, total loss or less than expertise. They should take this into account substantial harm to its significance. when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a between the heritage asset’s conservation and designated heritage asset (from its alteration any aspect of the proposal” or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing Paragraph 192 goes on to state that: justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

15 NPPF, Annex 2 16 IBID

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 12

a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II through appropriate marketing that will registered parks or gardens, should be enable its conservation; and exceptional; c) conservation by grant-funding or some b) assets of the highest significance, form of not for profit, charitable or notably scheduled monuments, public ownership is demonstrably not protected wreck sites, registered possible; and battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the parks and gardens, and World Heritage benefit of bringing the site back into Sites, should be wholly exceptional” use”

Section b) of the above describing assets of the highest Paragraph 196 goes on to state: significance also includes footnote 63 of the NPPF, which states “Where a development proposal will lead to that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest less than substantial harm to the significance of which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for proposal including, where appropriate, designated heritage assets. securing its optimum viable use”

In the context of the above, it should be noted that paragraph The NPPF also provides specific guidance in relation to 195 reads as follows: development within Conservation Areas, stating at paragraph 200 that: “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance “Local planning authorities should look for of) a designated heritage asset, local planning opportunities for new development within authorities should refuse consent, unless it can Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, be demonstrated that the substantial harm or and within the setting of heritage assets, to total loss is necessary to achieve substantial enhance or better reveal their significance. public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, Proposals that preserve those elements of the or all of the following apply: setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) a) the nature of the heritage asset should be treated favourably.” prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and Paragraph 201 goes on to recognise that “not all elements of a

b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily can be found in the medium term contribute to its significance” and with regard to the potential

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 13

harm from a proposed development states: achieving public benefits are also key material considerations for application proposals. “Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the National Planning Guidance significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) substantial harm under paragraph 195 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 196, as launched the planning practice web based resource in March appropriate, taking into account the relative 2014, accompanied by a ministerial statement which confirmed significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the that a number of previous planning practice guidance Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a documents were cancelled. whole” (our emphasis) This also introduced the national Planning Practice Guidance With regards to non-designated heritage assets, paragraph 197 (PPG) which comprised a full and consolidated review of of NPPF states that: planning practice guidance documents to be read alongside the “The effect of an application on the significance NPPF. of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the The PPG has a discrete section on the subject of ‘Conserving and application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated enhancing the historic environment’ which confirms that the heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be consideration of ‘significance’ in decision taking is important and required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage states: asset.” “Heritage assets may be affected by direct Overall, the NPPF confirms that the primary objective of physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent development management is to foster the delivery of and importance of the significance of a heritage sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent it. Local asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential Authorities should approach development management impact and acceptability of development decisions positively, looking for solutions rather than problems proposals17” so that applications can be approved wherever it is practical to In terms of assessment of substantial harm, the PPG confirms do so. Additionally, securing the optimum viable use of sites and

17 PPG, paragraph 009 (ID: 18a-009/20140306 revision date 06.03.2014)

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 14

that whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a Local Planning Policy judgement for the individual decision taker having regard to the Planning applications within Wiltshire are currently considered individual circumstances and the policy set out within the NPPF. against the policy and guidance set out within the Core Strategy It goes on to state: (adopted January 2015) and the saved policies of the North “In general terms, substantial harm is a high Wiltshire Local Plan. test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a The Core Strategy contains the following policy relating to the listed building constitute substantial harm, an historic environment: important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. Policy CP58 Ensuring the conservation of the It is the degree of harm to the asset’s historic environment significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm Development should protect, conserve and may arise from works to the asset or from where possible enhance the historic development within its setting18. environment.

Designated heritage assets and their settings While the impact of total destruction is obvious, will be conserved, and where appropriate partial destruction is likely to have a enhanced in a manner appropriate to their considerable impact but, depending on the significance, including: circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later i. nationally significant archaeological remains inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works ii. World Heritage Sites within and adjacent to that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to Wiltshire cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the iii. buildings and structures of special potential to cause substantial harm” (our architectural or historic interest emphasis) iv. the special character or appearance of conservation areas

v. historic parks and gardens

18 PPG, paragraph 017 (ID: 18a-017-20140306 revision date 06.03.2014)

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 15

vi. important landscapes, including registered battlefields and townscapes. Distinctive elements of Wiltshire’s historic environment, including non-designated

heritage assets, which contribute to a sense of local character and identity will be conserved,

and where possible enhanced. The potential contribution of these heritage assets towards

wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits will also be utilised

where this can be delivered in a sensitive and appropriate manner in accordance with Core Policy 57 (Ensuring High Quality Design and Place Shaping).

Heritage assets at risk will be monitored and development proposals that improve their condition will be encouraged. The advice of statutory and local consultees will be sought in consideration of such applications.

With regards to the Core Strategy, policy CP58 was adopted

before the NPPF, and does not allow for the balancing exercise to be undertaken. As such, the policy is not considered to reflect

the guidance within the NPPF and thus the weight that can be attached to it in the decision-making process is limited.

No policies relevant to the current proposals are contained in the

saved policies of the Wiltshire Local Plan.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 16

The Historic Environment

This section describes the elements of the historic environment The rear of the building is very plain, with all north-facing which are relevant to this application. Each asset will be elevations mainly blank. Two simple windows are present at described in turn, including an assessment of their overall ground floor level, but this is clearly not a primary façade. significance. Any impact to their significance that would result from the proposed development is then discussed.

Street Farmhouse

Street Farmhouse is a stone-built residence of two-and-a-half storeys. It has an L-Shaped plan, with its main façade facing south onto The Street, with an intervening garden defined by a stone-built wall.

Plate 5 Looking south to the rear of Street Farmhouse

The farmhouse is at least mid-19th-century in date. It has some modest heritage interest due to its historic illustrative value as part of a farmstead of at least 19th-century date, and a small amount of aesthetic value relating to its southern façade. It is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset of modest

Plate 4 Street Farmhouse, looking north-east from The Street value.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 17

This significance is primarily embodied in its fabric, but setting • The removal of part of an external wall at first floor level does make a contribution to is significance. Those elements of to access the roof space of the new lean to. its setting that contribute to its significance are considered to • The replacement of the uPVC windows with timber be: casements. • The remainder of the surviving outbuildings, which give Little historic fabric would be lost. Overall, the proposals would the house legibility as being a farmhouse; not affect the historic illustrative value of the asset, and would • The Street, from where the southern façade can be enhance the aesthetic values, through the replacement of the appreciated, and from where the house is visible in flat-roofed extension and uPVC windows. conjunction with the outbuildings; With regards to setting, the proposals would ensure the long- • The village of Oaksey, in which the farm complex was term maintenance and survival of the associated outbuildings sited and perpetuated. (one of which already has consent for non-agricultural uses). As discussed above, the rear of the farmhouse is currently largely • The agricultural land that was associated with the farm, blank, and does not appear to have been constructed to have although the mid-19th-century mapping demonstrates clear views over the land to the rear, although it is that this was in separate ownership to the house. acknowledged that the proposals include the expansion of two

The proposals see: openings. The proposed trackway and parking is not out of • The replacement of the flat roof rear extension with a keeping with a farm complex, although it would change the Cotswold stone lean-to with dormer window. character of a very small part of the formerly associated agricultural land. Views north from the structure would be • A new Cotswold atone porch on the western elevation. largely unobscured. • The widening of the kitchen window (left on plate 5). Overall, the proposals are considered to have a minor beneficial • The expansion of the window (right on Plate 5) to a effect on the heritage significance of the farmhouse. doorway. Northern outbuilding • The lowering of the wall to the north of the farmhouse. The northern outbuilding is a single storey structure. Its • The removal of internal walls within the kitchen area. southern facade faces south onto the farmyard and is stone-

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 18

built/stone-faced (Plate 6) but the northern façade is largely built of concrete blocks (Plate 7), with only the westernmost element constructed of stone (Plate 8). The southern roof element is covered in Cotswold stone tiles (or replicas) and the northern roof is covered in concrete tiles.

Plate 7 Looking south-east to the northern façade of the northern outbuilding

Plate 6 Looking north-west to the southern face of the northern outbuilding

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 19

aesthetic value, although this is compromised by its northern elevation. Overall it is considered to be a non-designated heritage of very modest significance.

This significance is primarily considered to be embodied in its fabric, but setting does make a contribution to is significance. Those elements of its setting that contribute to its significance are considered to be:

• The farmhouse and southern outbuilding, which give the structure legibility as being part of a farm complex.

• The farmyard, from where the southern façade is visible.

• The Street, from where part of the southern façade can be appreciated in conjunction with the farmhouse.

• Plate 8 Looking south to the western end of the northern outbuilding The village of Oaksey, in which the farm complex was sited and perpetuated. A linear structure is shown in the location of the northern outbuilding on the earliest available mapping of the mid-19th • The agricultural land that was associated with the farm, th century. However, the majority of the structure (eastern part) although the mid-19 -century mapping demonstrates appears to have been rebuilt since then. The small projecting that this was in separate ownership to the structure.

element on the northern side is first shown on mapping of 1980 The proposals comprise: (Plate 3) but is not shown on the latest previous detailed • Alterations to internal partitions and openings in the mapping of 1924. Hence, this building is considered to be largely modern, eastern element of the structure, to create a 20th-century structure, with only the westernmost element living accommodation and a garage. being of potentially earlier construction. • Replacement of concrete tiles on northern roof element As such, the building is considered to have very limited heritage with replica Cotswold stone tiles. significance. It has very modest historic illustrative value as part of a farm complex, albeit largely rebuilt. It also has very modest • Rendering of northern elevation.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 20

• Removal of partitions in the western element of the structure to create a home office, although portions will be retained to allow the legibility of the space as formerly subdivided to remain. The existing doors to the openings will be fixed open.

Overall, the legibility of the structure as a part of a former farm complex will remain. The legibility of the oldest, western element as formerly subdivided will remain, although some loss of fabric will occur. The proposals will see the long-term maintenance and survival of the building and will improve the appearance of its northern façade.

With regards to setting, the proposals would ensure the long- term maintenance and survival of the associated outbuilding

(which already has consent for non-agricultural uses). The Plate 9 Looking north-west to the southern outbuilding proposed trackway and parking is not out of keeping with a farm The building has large barn doors at either end (east and west), complex, although it would change the character of a very small and five small window apertures on it northern and southern part of the formerly associated agricultural land. Views north facades. The window apertures on its southern façade have been from the structure would be largely unobscured. bricked-up with concrete blocks, giving it an unattractive dead- Overall, the proposals are considered to have a minor beneficial eyed appearance (Plate 10). The building has rooflights in the effect on the heritage significance of the asset. northern roof element.

Southern outbuilding

The southern outbuilding is a single-storey structure, constructed parallel to The Street, and hard up against the road. It is stone built with concrete tiles covering a pitched roof.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 21

is significance. Those elements of its setting that contribute to its significance are considered to be:

• The farmhouse and northern outbuilding, which give the structure legibility as being part of a farm complex;

• The Street, from where the southern façade and eastern facades can be appreciated in conjunction with the farmhouse;

• The farmyard, from where the northern façade is visible.

• The village of Oaksey, in which the farm complex was sited and perpetuated.

• The agricultural land that was associated with the farm, although the mid-19th-century mapping demonstrates that this was in separate ownership to the structure.

Plate 10 Blocked windows on the southern facade It is proposed that the barn is converted to a residence. The The building is first depicted on the Ordnance Survey map of eastern and western barn doors will be retained, fixed open, with 1900, and it is of late 19th-century date. the openings glazed. The southern window apertures will be reopened, and glazed with fixed metal units in timber surrounds. The structure has very modest heritage significance through its The rooflights on the northern roof will be replaced with historic illustrative value as part of the Street Farm complex, conservation style roof lights. albeit a later element. Overall, it has modest aesthetic value, but the blocked windows of the southern façade detract from One window on the northern elevation will be expanded to make this. The structure is considered to be a non-designated heritage a doorway. asset of very modest significance. Internally, the space will remain single storey. Some internal The significance of the structure is primarily considered to be partitions will be removed, and the space subdivided. embodied in its fabric, but setting does make a contribution to The proposals will result in some loss of late 20th-century fabric

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 22

but will retain its legibility as a former farm building. The The complex of Street Farm is considered to make a small proposals will greatly improve the appearance of the building, contribution to the overall significance (character and through the reopening of the windows on the southern façade. appearance) of the Conservation Area, as being a farm complex They will also ensure the long-term maintenance and survival of of at least mid-19th-century origin (albeit with later and rebuilt the structure, and the outbuilding to the north. The access elements) and being of some modest aesthetic value. However, proposals will not be visible from this structure. Overall, the the bricked-up windows of the southern outbuilding are proposals are considered to have a minor beneficial effect on the considered to detract from the character and appearance of the heritage significance of the structure. area, due to their dead-eyed appearance.

Oaksey Conservation Area As an area containing several Listed buildings, including the Grade I Listed Church, the Conservation Area is considered to The site lies mostly within the Oaksey Conservation Area (Figure be a designated heritage asset of the highest significance as 1). There is no adopted Conservation Area Appraisal for Oaksey. defined by the NPPF. The Conservation Area covers the historic core of the village, as The significance of the asset is considered to primarily originate well as some fields to the north and south. The village has an in the buildings and spaces within the Conservation Area, east/west linear character overall, with road and cul-de-sacs although setting is considered to contribute to a lesser degree. extending north and south from the main thoroughfare, The Street. The surrounds of the Conservation Area comprise later housing to the north-east and south-west, and agricultural land. In the Notable buildings include the Grade I Listed Church of All Saints, wider vicinity, Oaksey is known locally for having a golf course which has three Listed monuments in its churchyard, and the and airfield. Grade II Listed Tudor House, Oaksey House, and 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, The Street. Most of these front onto The Street. The portion of the site that lies outside the Conservation Area is considered to make a very small contribution to the heritage Other notable buildings that are not Listed include the school significance of the asset as part of the agricultural surrounds and The Wheatsheaf Pub. The playing fields, which lie between associated with Street Farm. the school and village hall, are a key part of the village. The proposals have been detailed above, but those aspects that The site lies on the northern edge of the Conservation Area, are considered relevant to the consideration of the character and partly within it and partly outside it. appearance of the Conservation Area comprise:

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 23

• The improvement of the appearance of the farmhouse The proposals have previously been refused planning through the replacement of the windows and the flat permission, with one of the reasons for refusal relating to roofed extension; heritage

• The improvement of the appearance of the northern The development is not considered to be a high quality design that relates barn through its rendering and replacement of concrete positively to the built form of the locality tiles. and would result in the less than substantial harm to the historic • The great improvement in the appearance of the character, appearance and setting of this part of the Oaksey Conservation Area and southern outbuilding through the reopening of the the non-designated heritage asset being windows in the southern façade. These are highly visible Street Farm. The identified harm is not outweighed by any public benefit from the main thoroughfare of the Conservation Area. including securing the optimum viable use. Therefore the proposal is contrary to • The long-term maintenance of the outbuildings that will WCS Core Policies 57 (i, iii, iv, vi) and 58, be delivered by the proposals. paragraphs 56, 58, 64, 131, 132, 134, 135 and 137 of the NPPF and Section 72(1) of • The change in character of a small area of agricultural the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. land to access trackway and parking. Such uses are typical for the vicinity of a farm complex, and an existing As discussed above, the proposals are considered to have trackway provides access to the houses or Cargill Place beneficial effects on the heritage significance of each structure to the west. As discussed above, the farmhouse has a and to enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area, largely blank northern elevation and most of the causing its significance no harm. northern façade of the northern outbuilding is Looking at the comments from the Conservation Consultee, constructed of concrete blocks. Across much of the area, there appear to be no objections alterations to the buildings views will not be inhibited, with garaging provided for themselves, subject to the treatment of the openings and the the farmhouse within the northern outbuilding. placement of rooflights which the proposals have adhered to. Overall, the proposals are considered to represent a small However, concern was raised with regards to the access track enhancement to the character an appearance of the encroaching into the agricultural landscape. It should be noted Conservation Area and its heritage significance. that the consultee identified harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 24

With regards to the above, it is considered that the access track is incongruous. With regards to this, the tracks would be and parking would not be out of keeping with an agricultural separated by planting, and the area where they would be complex. They would result in the change of character of a small parallel lies north of the modern houses of Cargill Place, rather part of the agricultural surrounds of the building and than the farm complex. Conservation Area, but would not be out of keeping, and would The officer’s report also states that ‘it has not been adequately little inhibit views from modern elements and largely blank demonstrated by the applicant that the proposed access track is elevations. Any very minor harm to the Conservation Area and the only feasible means of providing access to the proposal site buildings within it through changes in setting would be more or that other potentially less harmful alternatives have been than outweighed by the heritage benefits of the scheme which suitably considered’. However, the proposals must be would enhance the appearance of all of the buildings of the considered on their own merits, and in this case it is the complex. conclusion of the above assessment that the proposals would The Officers report also states that the dual arrangement of enhance the heritage significance of the non-designated access track for the proposed scheme and that for Cargill Place buildings and the Conservation Area as a whole.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 25

Conclusions

The significance of each of the buildings of Street Farm and the Conservation Area as a whole has been considered, and an

Conservation Area. As such, the proposals are compliant with all legislation and policy.

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey, Wiltshire 26

Appendix 1: Figure

P18-1959 │ GS │ August 2018 Land at Street Farm, Oaksey *# *# *# *# *# *#

*# *#*# *#

*# *#

*# *# *# *# *# *#*#*#*#*#*# *# *# *#*#*# *# # *# *#*# # *# * *# *# *#*#

*# *#

KEY Site Oaksey Co n servatio n Area Listed Buildings Grade: *# I *# II

TUDOR HOUSE *# *#

HAWKINS MONUMENT IN THE CHURCHYARD, 1 METRE NORTH OF NAVE, CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS LATCHETS *# *#*#*# *# UNIDENTIFIED MONUMENT IN THE CHURCHYARD, HARD AGAINST SOUTH WEST CORNER OF SOUTH AISLE, CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS 7,8,9,10,11, THE STREET CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS *# UNIDENTIFIED MONUMENT IN THE CHURCHYARD, 5 METRES EAST OF CHANCEL, CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS

Revisio n s: First Issue- 09/08/2018 Figure 1: Designated Heritage Assets Lan d at Street Farm , Oaksey

Clien t: - DRWG No :- Sheet No : - REV : - Draw n by: RGO Appro ved by: GS

0 0.15 km > Date: 09/08/2018 (N *# Scale: 1:4,000 @ A3

Co pyright Pegasus Plan n in g Gro up Ltd. Cro w n co pyright. All rights reserved. 2018 Em apsite Licen ce n um ber 0100031673. Ordn an ce Survey Co pyright Licen ce n um ber 100042093. Pro m ap Licen ce n um ber 100020449. Pegasus accepts n o liability fo r an y use o f this do cum en t o ther than fo r its o rigin al purpo se, o r by the o rigin al clien t, o r fo llo w in g Pegasus’ express agreem en t to such use. T 01285 641717 w w w .pegasusgro up.co .uk

*# *#

*# *#*#

*# # *#*#*#*#**#

*# *#

*# *# *# *#*# *#

*# *#

*# www.pegasusgroup.co.uk

Pegasus Group Pegasus House Querns Business Centre Whitworth Road Cirencester Glos GL7 1RT

Telephone: 01285 641717

COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group.

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 12

Response Date 06/09/18 13:06

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.6

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policy 4 does your comment relate?

Comment: As has been previously set out in the representation dated 9th May 2018, this policy should be updated to reflect the wording to non-designated Heritage within the NPPF. This states at paragraph 197 that "the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated Heritage Asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the Heritage Asset". In respect of non-designated Heritage Assets, the NPPF requires a balancing judgement to be made rather than an assessment of public benefits against harm as is set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. This policy should be amended to align with the NPPF.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 13

Response Date 06/09/18 13:06

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.5

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Policy 5 does your comment relate?

Comment: As you will be aware, my client; *name redacted* previously raised objections to Policy 5.This response should be read in conjunction with the previous consultation response dated 9th May 2018 to the regulation 14 consultation. I do not intend to repeat the comments previously made here as the majority are still relevant. It is noted that it is considered there is no remaining requirement for housing within the Malmesbury Community Area, but that the Neighbourhood Plan proposes to allocated 12 additional dwellings. Policy CP2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy seeks to deliver at least 42,000 homes over the plan period. It is important to state that this is a minimum figure and paragraph 59 of the NPPF seeks to "significantly boost the supply of homes". Furthermore, the revised NPPF sets out at paragraph 68 that "small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built up relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirements on sites no larger than one hectare". As a result, there is further support within the NPPF for development on smaller sites and as per the previous comments made, development should be considered on the paddock to the rear of Street Farm.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 14

Response Date 10/09/18 16:26

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.5

Comment: Thank you for your Regulation 16 consultation on the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan. I can confirm that there are no issues associated with the Plan upon which we wish to comment. I attach our Regulation 14 comments for information. (found below) "Thank you for your Regulation 14 Pre-submission consultation on the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan. Our apologies for not getting this response to you before now. The wrong deadline was logged on to our system in error. However, there are few comments that we wish to make on the Plan and as these are of an incidental nature we hope that they can still be accommodated. Our only previous involvement with your Plan has been on the SEA Screening consultation carried out by Wiltshire Council at the beginning of last year. I attach our response for information. You will see that we raised no objection to the view that an SEA would not be required subject how the Plan eventually made provision for the housing that it wished to allocate. We note from the latest version of the Plan that a single allocation site at Bendy Bow is proposed in Policy 5 ± New Housing (p49). This is an already developed site outside the conservation area and would involve the replacement of existing dwellings with a greater number. Character assessment of the settlement has identified development principles for this development to ensure it represents an enhancement. On this basis, and having considered the information in the Housing Site Selection Methodology March 2018 report, I can confirm that we have no objection to this policy allocation and any prevailing view that an SEA is not required. Otherwise, we are pleased to note the value which your community attaches to its locally distinctive historic character, the analysis of it which has taken place, and the policies and proposals made within the Plan for its protection and enhancement. We would therefore only want to congratulate your community on its progress to date and wish it well in the making of its Plan."

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Comment ID 1

Response Date 02/08/18 09:22

Submission Type Email

Version 0.2

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 15

Response Date 12/09/18 15:57

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.14

Files Rep 15 attachment.pdf

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Page 31 Policy 1 does your comment relate?

Comment: The Policy 1- Settlement Boundary is defined on the Policies Map (Map 3) and the text in the policy states that the purpose of containing growth of the settlement and protecting the countryside from encroachment are both served by the boundary. It does not allow any new green field housing sites and only offers one housing `allocation' on an area currently largely occupied by housing. The settlement boundary fails to accord with the Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan, (see attached plan) and takes no account of an up to date local assessment of housing need as required by section 5 of the NPPF, July 2018 and specifically paragraph 66, which explains how a housing figure for Neighbourhood Plans should be derived. More information is provided about the housing need in a separate representation by Impact Planning Services Ltd on paragraphs 6.1 to 7.13 of the Neighbourhood Plan. It is recommended that a survey of housing need is undertaken in the settlement to update the broad information provided by Wiltshire Council which is currently out of date and too general in nature. Only once an up to date assessment has been made specifically for Oaksey, can the Neighbourhood Plan then justify the statement it makes in paragraph 2.8 about Oaksey being in an area of housing demand. It can then qualify this statement to specify what types of housing are required. To assist the Neighbourhood Plan it is noted that the data from the ONS shows Oaksey has a higher than average age profile within its existing population: The population of Oaksey as a whole, is older than the national average: AGE Oaksey ENGLAND Age 0 to 4 6% 6.30% Age 5 to 9

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 5.80% 5.60% Age 10 to14 6.20% 5.80% Age 15 to 17 3.90% 3.70% Age 18 to 24 7.50% 9.40% Age 25 to 29 5.40% 6.90% Age 30 to 44 19.40% 20.60% Age 45 to 59 20.90% 19.40% Age 60 to 64 6.60% 6% Age 65 to 74 9.60% 8.60% Age 75 to 84 6% 5.50% Age 85 and over 2.50% 2.30% Mean Age 40.8 39.3 Median Age 42 39 Source: ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualsmallareapopulationestimates/mid2016.

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 2 Therefore, there is a need to provide land for new housing for the active elderly and more information about this is provided in the representation on the Housing Policy. This will require a change to the settlement boundary and Oaksey Park, should be included within the settlement boundary.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Comments.

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 16

Response Date 12/09/18 15:57

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.4

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Page 47-50 Para 6.1 - 7.13 does your comment relate?

Comment: The Housing chapter fails to refer to any housing needs assessment as required by the NPPF paragraphs 15;35a) & footnote 19; 59 to 66 & footnote 31; 69 to 71; 77;78 and 122 to 123. Instead it refers to outdated strategic evidence at the County level (2011 to 2014) and broad affordable housing need (2011 and 2014). None of these can be regarded as up to date. Whilst it may be the latest evidence of local housing need, it is not up to date and no evidence of the population of the neighbourhood area is evident. In the absence of this the Plan fails to meet the first basic condition: Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Another important factor is the Inspector's report (1st December 2014) into the examination of the Wiltshire Core Strategy clearly states in paragraph 81 the housing figure of `at least 42,000 homes over the plan period should be 'with the flexibility to deliver more'. It is not a maximum target. Furthermore, the one housing allocation in the Plan is on a site with existing housing and this presents constraints to delivery. The management of existing tenants and owners complicates such a proposal and no information is provided to explain how these major constraints to delivery will be overcome. Reference is given to the Housing Association's substantial work but none of this has been made available. The Plan can be rectified once an up to date assessment of housing need has been prepared (See IMPACT representation on Policy 1) and this it is anticipated will show a need for affordable housing and specific housing for the active elderly as evidenced in our submission on the Policy 1 Settlement boundary. Further information about this specific types of housing is available from: https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/counties-set-out-their-social-care-policy-positions-in-new-report-ahead-of-government-green-paper/ and https://www.demos.co.uk/project/supply-and-demand/ This will require greenfield sites and the settlement boundary will require changes, notwithstanding the other reasons for changing the boundary made in our submission on Policy 1. The Plan does refer to our Client's land in paragraph 6.4 and the statement made in paragraph 2.8 of the Plan about Oaksey being in an area of housing demand combined with the concern over the loss of permanent dwellings to holiday accommodation has been partly overcome by the development at Oaksey Park and this can offer more opportunities to provide much needed housing for Oaksey. The Plan also recognises the inter-relationship between Oaksey and the Cotswold Water Park and in chapter 9 the Golf and Leisure Park is mentioned as a facility Oaksey residents can use. It is much

Powered by Objective Online 4.2 - page 1 closer to Oaksey than the Cotswold Water Park, being within 10 metres of the village sign and 30mph speed limit signs at the eastern entrance to Oaksey. In chapter 10 of the Plan, Policy 7 refers to the tree planting at the Golf Club as an area important for the setting of Oaksey. It is also referenced as source of local employment for Oaksey in paragraph 12.3. This all confirms the significance of Oaksey Park and it can make further provision for high quality specialist and affordable housing to serve the needs of the village, within easy walking distance. A small change to the settlement boundary with an allocation for housing would go a significant way to meeting objectives A, C and D of the Plan. See the attached Plan.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?

Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Reg 16 (31/07/18 to 12/09/18)

Comment ID 17

Response Date 12/09/18 15:57

Status Processed

Submission Type Email

Version 0.4

To which part of the Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan Page 51, Para 8.3, Policy 7 does your comment relate?

Comment: The reference to Oaksey Park and Golf Club is welcomed in paragraph 8.3, but the wording implies that the facilities here are not fully available. This presumably assumes that membership is required. This is not the case here as the club and course are open to the public. It should therefore be recognised as a key facility for Oaksey, as a recreation and leisure use and to recognise the links between the village and the Cotswold Water Park. The wording in paragraph 8.3 should revised as follows: `Local residents have the opportunity to use the 9-hole golf course at Oaksey Golf Club and the restaurant on the Oaksey Park Golf and Leisure Estate; and the airstrip at Oaksey Park Airfield'. Given the proximity and importance to the village of Oaksey as confirmed in Policy 7: should be recognised by an amendment to the settlement boundary as argued in our other submissions. If this is not agreed then at least given the positive comments about the setting in Policy 7 and in the Economy section 12 paragraph 12.3 of the Plan, this site warrants further policy development with the factors mentioned above. The tree planting does enhance Oaksey and opportunities to improve what is described in the Plan at paragraph 10.1 as detracting from the rural entrance to the village, can be made with agreement through the Neighbourhood Plan.The comment at 10.1 should be made positive by reference to the important role the Golf Course and Leisure Estate plays in linking the village with the Cotswold Water Park and also the potential it provides for carefully controlled development and landscaping here to design an appropriate entrance to the village which meets the aims and objectives of the Parish and the community.

Do you wish to be notified of the decision on the Yes Oaksey Neighbourhood Plan proposal?