SITE ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (SADMP) TOPIC PAPER

SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES

Introduction Core Strategy policy SP1 identifies a hierarchy of sustainable development locations ranging from , down to small rural centres such as and Churchinford. Within this hierarchy the Core Strategy allocated strategic development sites such as Monkton Heathfield for an urban extension and the emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) will make smaller scale allocations to meet the Core Strategy requirements for housing, employment and other land uses.

At the bottom of the settlement hierarchy lie a number of villages where allocations will not be made although opportunities for ‘infilling’ may be acceptable subject to other planning policies.

The physical ‘limit’ to each of these settlements are defined by a settlement boundary. Beyond this boundary, the ‘in-principle’ acceptance of development is more restricted, development being regarded as lying in open countryside, where policy DM2 of the Core Strategy applies.

Background Settlement boundaries (referred to as settlement limits in the Local Plan, 2004) were last reviewed as part of the evidence base assessment for the Taunton Deane Local Plan (2004).

It is unlikely that the topographical context of the landscape has changed since this period. However, the preparation of the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) provided an opportunity to review settlement boundaries where development has occurred since adoption of the 2004 Local Plan and to seek the views of local communities as to where logical amendments to current settlement boundaries may have been overlooked in 2004.

It should be emphasised that the aim of the boundary review was not to provide an opportunity to encourage development in unsuitable or otherwise unsustainable locations by extending boundaries into the countryside. There is no ‘need’ in terms of the exercise being undertaken to increase housing supply in the rural area. The Plan already meets rural housing targets and, if required, exception sites can accommodate future unmet affordable need.

Any amendments which did not already have planning permission or were built would need to be of a small scale, unlikely to accommodate more than four dwellings. Consequently, such sites would not be included within any housing trajectories as they (are either built or) would not constitute a small windfall opportunity. Larger sites would form allocations in line with the hierarchy outlined in Core Strategy SP1 and would have been informed through other processes such as the annual Strategy Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

The Issues and Options consultation to the SADMP was undertaken between January – March 2013. This resulted in a number of additional sites being suggested. These were subject to further consultation between June – August 2013. A final round of consultation was undertaken through the ‘Preferred Option’ stage between October – December 2013 in advance of Plan publication in autumn 2014 when formal representations could be made.

The consultation stressed that changes would need to be logical and justified, being physically, functionally and visually related to the settlement. It was also stressed that inclusion of land within a settlement boundary would not necessarily confer that planning permission would be granted for any future development. Proposals would still need to meet other development management criteria. However, such a process will clearly raise development ‘hope value’ and thus if assessment indicated that inclusion may lead to proposals that could undermine plan policies and objectives a precautionary approach has been adopted and the particular site retained beyond the settlement boundary.

Justification for settlement boundaries. Settlement boundaries are identified on the Proposals Maps and relate to Core Strategy policy SP1 and SADMP policy SB1. Generally, they reflect the built form of the settlement. The settlement boundary is used as a policy tool reflecting the area where a set of planning policies are applied. Any land or buildings outside of this boundary are usually considered to be countryside, where development is restricted under Core Strategy policy DM2.

Settlement boundaries are defined to protect the integrity of the countryside. This in itself can serve a number of related but separate purposes including:

• A Plan led approach. The NPPF reaffirms a plan led and controlled approach to growth rather than adhoc and potentially inconsistent decision making; • Providing certainty. A black line on a Proposals Map makes it easy to identify the ‘settlement’ from ‘open countryside’, providing a consistent approach and firm basis for decision making; • Compact form. The establishment of an edge to the settlement encourages and enables consolidation; • Visual impact. The countryside is a finite resource. A boundary protects the countryside from unnecessary development and prevents sprawl, which can impact on the natural enjoyment of the locality; • Character and identity. It can help separate adjacent communities and assist in retaining their individual identities.

Protection of the environment and countryside is reflected in a number of plan policies. In particular:

Core Strategy policy CP1 (Climate Change) which seeks to reduce the need to travel through locational decisions;

Core Strategy policy CP8 (Environment) which states that ‘the natural environment will be conserved and enhanced and development strictly controlled in order to conserve the environmental assets and open character of the area’;

Core Strategy policy DM1d (General Requirements) requiring that proposals do not unacceptably harm the appearance and character of any affected landscape, settlement or building; and

SADMP policy SB1 (Settlement Boundaries) which states that the quality of the rural environment will be conserved and a sustainable approach to development proposals adopted by assessing development proposals beyond settlement boundaries against Core Strategy DM2 (Development in the Countrsyide).

In addition, there may be other ‘sound’ planning reasons why protection of the countryside as an environmental asset may be important; avoiding development in areas of high flood-risk being an obvious example.

Resonding to proposals For the Issues and Options, stage initial assessments were largely undertaken by local knowledge, desk-top exercises, including computer ‘street views’ and assessment of planning histories. The process was iterative. As issues were raised during the progression of the Plan, site visits were undertaken and where relevant, more detailed discussions held with specialists (eg landscape and heritage officers).

Assessments were generally made against three objectives:

• Physical constraints: Based on Site Selection Criteria of tables C1-8 Appendix C of the SADMP Issues and Options document; • Locational constraints: For example, does the proposal physically adjoin an existing, defined settlement?; • Impact: For example, would inclusion have an adverse visual or other impact on the settlement (or part of) or its setting if the land were included within the settlement boundary?

SUGGESTED CHANGES TO SETTLEMENT LIMITS

Site: . South east of village around Court Place Physical constraints: Site lies within a conservation area and area of high archaeological potential. Court Place is listed. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the currently defined settlement boundary. Impact: The proposed boundary encompasses existing buildings, some of which are already in residential use. Proposal supported by Parish Council Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: . Land at Delta Rise. Physical constraints: Site lies part within and part adjoining conservation area and area of high archaeological potential. Site lies just within 2km of AONB. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins existing settlement boundary to three sides Impact: English Heritage have expressed concerns about development in this area. However, site is sandwiched between existing settlement limit and western (fourth) boundary follows existing alignment of settlement boundary. The Councils Heritage section have raised no issues with the principle of inclusion within the settlement boundary. Action: Amend settlement boundary. Inclusion forms a natural rounding off of Bishops Lydeard.

Site: Bishops Lydeard. Land west of Bishops Lydeard station Physical constraints: None relevant. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Adjoins the Bishops Lydeard ‘annex’ settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and is partly developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary. The site has planning permission and includes the ‘saved’ Local Plan allocation EC22 (SADMP policy MAJ5).

Site: Bishopswood. Land adjacent to the Old Vicarage Physical constraints: The site adjoins a listed building and lies within the Blackdown Hills AONB. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins existing settlement boundary to the north east. Impact: The land contains modern equestrian buildings and not considered as previously developed land as per NPPF Annex2. No indication provided that the current use is not viable and if proven, alternative uses can be considered under Core Strategy DM2. The use would only have been granted permission as it is acceptable in the countryside and this should not be used as an unacceptable mechanism to gain alternative benefit. Amendment not supported by Parish Council. Concerns expressed by English Heritage. The Councils Heritage section have raised no issues with the principle of inclusion within the settlement boundary. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Established use compatible with policy DM2 and no justification/evidence that existing use is not viable.

Site: Blagdon Hill. Wayside, Howleigh Lane Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins existing settlement boundary. Impact: Site is existing garden land and has past permission for a structure (sub station) on part of site. Action: Amend settlement boundary. Note: The site has now planning permission for a dwelling in July 2014.

Site: . South East of Coronation Hall Physical constraints: Flood zone 3b. Site adjoins an area of high archaeological potential and c200 metres from RAMSAR site. Locational constraints: One boundary (southern) adjoins small Burrowbridge ‘annex’ boundary. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Impact: Scale of site would warrant an allocation but the settlement is not defined as a rural centre appropriate for an allocation under Core Strategy policy SP1. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. No sound reason to override floodzone 3b criteria and scale of development would be too large for a non-defined rural centre contrary to Core Strategy policy SP1.

Site: Burrowbridge. Land adjacent Withy Orchard. Physical constraints: Flood zone 3b. Adjoining RAMSAR site. Grade ¾ agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site does not adjoin currently defined settlement boundary. Impact: Sporadic development in countryside Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. No sound reason to override floodzone 3b criteria.

Site: . North of Glebe cottage Physical constraints: Site lies within a water protection area. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site lies c3.5 km from nearest settlement boundary. Impact: Would constitute isolated, sporadic, non sustainable development in countryside. Any proposal could only be considered against Core Strategy policy DM2. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Would undermine principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM1d.

Site: Churchinford. Newberry Farm Physical constraints: Site lies within AONB and adjoins a County wildlife site. Northern boundary adjoins listed building. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins the existing settlement boundary to three sides. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and is developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: . North side of Charlton Road (2 sites) Creech Heathfield Physical constraints: Both sites are within c30-50 metres of a pipeline, identified as a potential hazard by the HSE. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Taken together, the sites adjoin Creech Heathfield settlement limit. Impact: The site covers a combined c0.4 hectare. The proposal would extend the settlement in a linear fashion into open countryside on raised ground and thus have a strong visual impact from the north and south of the site. The scale would warrant an allocation but the settlement is not defined as a rural centre appropriate for an allocation. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. The settlement has no local service facilities (these are located at Creech St M) and would visually extend the settlement into the open countryside. Inclusion would undermine principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8, SP1 and DM1d.

Site: Creech St Michael. Hyde Lane (4 sites) Physical constraints: The southernmost site extends southwards and adjoins the canal which is a County Wildlife site and floodzone 3 beyond. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Three sites adjoin the existing settlement boundary. The fourth (westernmost) does this by virtue of adjoining one of the other sites. Impact: Not relevant. All four sites have planning permission. One is fully developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Halse. Land north of Halse Water Physical constraints: Site lies within flood zone 3 and is covered on the Proposals Map by an ‘important tree group’. The site also lies within a conservation area and lies within the curtilage of a listed building. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site lies over 300 metres from the nearest part of the existing settlement boundary. Impact: Would constitute isolated, sporadic, non sustainable development in countryside. Concern at inclusion expressed by English Heritage. Retention beyond settlement limit supported by the Councils Heritage section. Any proposal could only be considered against Core Strategy policy DM2. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion would undermine principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8, DM1d and SADMP policy SB1.

Site: . Land north of Lodeshill Physical constraints: Site lies within Quantocks AONB and adjoins the conservation area. Grade 2/3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Adjoins existing settlement boundary and consists of garden land of property within the current boundary Impact: Concern raised by English Heritage and Parish Council. The Councils Heritage section has no issues with the principle of inclusion. The site is within residential curtilage, managed as garden land, enclosed by dense hedging and individual trees. The site reads as part of the existing settlement and would only be visible from distant, higher parts of the Quantocks where it would be seen as part of the settlement. Planting belt to the northern boundary provides a logical edge to the settlement boundary. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: Kingston St Mary. Land at Kingston Court Physical constraints: Site lies within Quantocks AONB and adjoins the conservation area. Site adjoins listed building. Locational constraints: Site adjoins settlement limit to the eastern boundary. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Impact: Not relevant. Concern raised by English Heritage but the site has planning permission, mostly built. Most of the site was an allocation in the Local Plan and lies within settlement limit. Inclusion supported by Parish Council. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Kingston St Mary. Adjacent Copper Hill, Lodes Lane Physical constraints: Site lies within Quantocks AONB, lies within conservation area and adjoins defined area of high archaeological potential. Site adjoins a listed building. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins the settlement limit to two sides. Impact: Geographically the site may constitute a ‘rounding off’ of the settlement boundary. However, northern part of site is sloping, garden, visually prominent when viewed from the south. Southern part is pasture and extends to middle of field (stream edge). This open wedge assists in providing setting of and views between Kingston Manor and Parish Church (both listed). Inclusion may lead to development proposals. This would be resisted on visual impact grounds, setting of listed buildings and historic landscaped character between these listed buildings and the immediate area. Application for a dwelling refused in 2009 on similar grounds. Inclusion not supported by Parish Council and English Heritage have raised concerns. The Councils Heritage section does not support inclusion of the site within the settlement boundary. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion would be contrary to principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM1d.

Site: . Land off Butts Lane Physical constraints: Site adjoins a defined area of high archaeological potential. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Adjoins settlement limit to two sides Impact: The site extends to around 0.2 hectare and is thus of a size to warrant an allocation (of around 7 units) rather than a ‘rounding off’ of a settlement. The settlement is not identified as a rural centre appropriate for an allocation under Core Strategy policy SP1, lacking a broad range of facilities and thus would not be considered sustainable. English Heritage have expressed concern at inclusion within the settlement boundary. The Councils Heritage section raise no issues with the principle of inclusion within the settlement boundary. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1 and SP1.

Site: Langford Budville. Land opposite The Wedge Physical constraints: None. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the settlement limit on two sides Impact: The site would extend into open countryside and as defined does not follow any defensible boundary to the north, passing across a field. English Heritage have expressed concern at inclusion within the settlement boundary. The Councils Heritage section have raised no issues with the principle of inclusion within the settlement boundary. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion would be contrary to principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM1d.

Site: . Paynes Orchard Physical constraints: The land liesadjacent to the conservation area and partly within a defined area of high archaeological importance. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site borders the settlement boundary to three sides. Impact: The site contains the remains of old structures to the western end of the site and a hard standing and workshop to the east and gives the visual appearance of already forming part of the settlement. Inclusion would be a logical rounding off of the settlement, reflecting its built appearance as part of the settlement. English Heritage have expressed concern at inclusion within the settlement boundary. The Councils Heritage have raised no issues with the principle of inclusion within the settlement boundary. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: Lydeard St Lawrence. South and west of Allens cottage Physical constraints: Land lies within conservation area and area of high archaeological potential. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site is bounded on two sides by existing settlement boundary. Impact: The site lies within a residential curtilage and is maintained as garden land bounded by a hedgebelt to the open countryside. This hedgebelt follows the alignment of the current settlement boundary and inclusion within the settlement boundary would be a logical rounding-off. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: Milverton. Butts Way Physical constraints: None. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site is bounded on three sides by the existing settlement boundary Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and has been developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Milverton. West of Courtfield Physical constraints: None Locational constraints: The site bounds the settlement limit to its eastern boundary, extending the settlement into the countryside. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and has been developed as an exception site. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: Milverton. Mount Farm Physical constraints: None. Grade 2/3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the existing settlement boundary at its southern edge. Impact: The site would constitute ribbon development, extending the settlement into the countryside. The land slopes across adjoining farmland to a river valley beyond its eastern boundary and would be highly visible from the surrounding countryside. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP8 and Dm1d.

Site: Milverton Land around Olands / Primary School Physical constraints: the north eastern edge lies within the conservation area and adjoins an defined area of high archaeological potential. An important tree belt forms part of the northern boundary and Olands House is a listed building. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the existing settlement boundary to the north east and the settlement ‘annex’ to the west. Impact: Inclusion of (part) of the site provides an opportunity to join the Milverton settlement boundary with the ‘annex’ (around Courtfield) of the Milverton boundary identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map. English Heritage expressed concern at inclusion of the land. The Councils Heritage section support partial inclusion, reflecting the existing built environment form; being the existing listed building and outbuildings (now residential), school and school field. Inclusion of the pasture land to the south would not be supported as it is considered that any development proposal would detrimentally affect the setting of the listed building. The Parish Council do not support development of this land other than for affordable housing. However, a more suitable site has been identified for an allocation including affordable housing. Action: Amend settlement boundary in part. Reject amendment to settlement boundary to south of Olands (west of school) as inclusion could undermine Core Strategy policies CP8 and Dm1d.

Site: North Curry. Land east of church. Physical constraints: The site lies within the conservation area, a defined area of archaeological importance, and adjoins a county archaeological site, including a Grade 1 listed church and other listed building. The site also falls within the North Curry Ridge Special Landscape Feature. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site is enclosed to three sides and geographically would constitute a logical rounding-off of the settlement boundary. Impact: Whilst geographically inclusion of the site would constitute a logical rounding-off of the settlement boundary its inclusion may lead to a development proposal. This would be strongly resisted on impact to the setting of listed buildings. The Councils Heritage section do not support inclusion. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP8 and Dm1d.

Site: North Curry. Manor Farm. Physical constraints: The site lies within the conservation area and a defined area of high archaeological potential. Manor Farm is a listed building. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the settlement boundary to the north west and north east. Impact: The listed building is in residential use, as are the outbuildings within the curtilage. It would constitute a logical rounding-off of the settlement boundary in this instance, reflecting the existing settlement form. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: North Curry. Oxen Lane Physical constraints: None Locational constraints: The site is detached from the defined settlement boundary by a distance of around 350 metres. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Impact: Whilst the site contains existing residential properties there is no reasoned justification for inclusion within settlement boundaries and it could lead to future pressure for future development both within this extension and within the gap between the two boundaries which would constitute sporadic, non sustainable development in the countryside. Action: Reject No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion would undermine principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM1d.

Site: North Curry. Stoke Road/Pury Farm Street Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Part of the northern boundary adjoins the existing settlement boundary. Impact: The site consists of a number of existing residential properties and visually forms part of the existing built form of the settlement. It would include a logical rounding-off of the settlement boundary in this instance, reflecting the existing settlement form. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: North Curry. White Street/Morris Way Physical constraints: The site adjoins the conservation area and a small section lies within a defined area of archaeological importance. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site south western boundary adjoins the defined settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and has been developed. Additional proposals were submitted to include undeveloped land to the north west and south east. The former site has been dismissed on appeal including harm to the character and appearance of the locality, semi-rural character of the site, setting of a listed building and conservation matters. Inclusion of land to the south-east may raise similar concerns contrary to Core Strategy policies CP8 and DM1d. Action: Amend settlement boundary (in line with Preferred Options only)

Site: . Land off Knightstone Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the settlement boundary to two sides Impact: The site extends to over 0.5 hectare and could accommodate 15-20 dwellings, the scale of which would warrant an allocation rather than a ‘rounding-off’ of a settlement. The settlement is not identified as a rural centre appropriate for an allocation under Core Strategy policy SP1, lacking a broad range of facilities and thus would not be considered sustainable. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine he principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1 and SP1 . Site: Ruishton. Land off Stoke Road Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Adjoins settlement boundary on three sides Impact: Not relevant. The site is a rural exceptions site and has planning permission for residential development. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Ruishton. Land at Bushy Cross Lane Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the existing settlement boundary to the west. Impact: The site extends to over 1.5 hectares and could accommodate around 50 dwellings, the scale of which would warrant an allocation. Ruishton is not identified as a rural centre appropriate for an allocation under Core Strategy policy SP1, lacking a broad range of facilities and thus would not be considered sustainable. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1 and SP1.

Site: Stoke St Mary. Land at Aplens Physical constraints: The southern part of the site lies within a defined area of high archaeological potential and adjoins a county wildlife site. A group of trees on the northern part of the site is identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map as an important tree group. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The western boundary of the site adjoins the defined settlement boundary. Impact: Whilst the boundary would follow garden land, the scale of the site (around 0.75 hectare) could in theory accommodate around 20 dwellings, the scale of which would warrant an allocation. Stoke St Mary is not identified as a rural centre appropriate for an allocation under Core Strategy SP1, lacking a broad range of facilities and thus would not be considered sustainable. English Heritage have expressed concern at inclusion and the Council’s Heritage section consider that any development could detrimentally impact on the listed building within the curtilage (Aplens) Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, SP1, CP8 and DM1d

Site: . Land at Polkes Field. Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the ‘annex’ of the Stoke St Gregory settlement boundary Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and has been developed as a rural exception site. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Taunton. Amberd Lane Physical constraints: The site lies within the Vivary green wedge boundary identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The extreme eastern edge lies within flood zone 2. Grade 2/3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the defined settlement boundary to the west and south. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission for residential development Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Taunton. Bishops Hull Road Physical constraints: The southern boundary of the site adjoins the Stonegallows Special Landscape Feature identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The eastern and (part) northern boundaries adjoin the current settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission for residential development and is developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Taunton. Killams and Pool Farm Physical constraints: The site lies within the Vivary Green Wedge, identified in the Local Plan. The extreme south eastern boundary lies within flood zone 3. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The eastern site boundary adjoins the defined settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission for residential development. Pool Farm is a residential curtilage. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: Taunton. Pyrland Hall Physical constraints: the site lies within the Hestercombe bat consultation zone. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the current settlement boundary to its southern and eastern boundaries. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission for residential development. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Taunton. Parsonage Farm Physical constraints: The site lies within the French Weir Green wedge and Stonegallows Ridge/Bishops Hull Cliff Special Landscape Feature, identified in the Local Plan. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The southern and eastern boundaries adjoin the defined settlement boundary. Impact: The proposed western boundary follows a field hedgerow. The southern boundary is more exposed and the old peoples home beyond is an intrusive feature at the edge of the settlement when viewed from the north. The landscape officer considers that a small infill development with strong planting on the northern boundary could better screen Parsonage Court, providing a more appropriate edge to the urban area and definition to the green wedge boundary beyond. Action: Amend settlement boundary

Site: Wellington. West of Farthing Pitts Physical constraints: Site lies within Wellington/Rockwell Green green wedge. Grade 1,2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The eastern boundary joins the current settlement boundary Impact: The proposed alignment follows the urban form of existing residential properties and is enclosed by hedgerow and treebelt. It forms a logical ‘rounding-off’ of the Wellington settlement boundary. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Wellington. Lowmoor Physical constraints: The site lies within flood zone 3b Locational constraints: The southern boundary adjoins the current settlement boundary. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Impact: The land is not easily visible from the Milverton Road and a small part contains existing small workshops. In theory it would form a logical extension to the settlement boundary. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. No sound reason to override floodzone 3b criteria.

Site: Wellington. Westford Physical constraints: The land lies within a water source protection area. Grade 1,2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The eastern boundary of the site adjoins the current settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and has been developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: . Bashford Stables Physical constraints: The site lies within the conservation area and adjacent to a county wildlife site. The settlement lies within the Quantocks AONB. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The western boundary adjoins the current settlement boundary. Impact: English Heritage have expressed concern but the Councils Heritage section have no in principle objection to inclusion within the settlement boundary. The site contains existing building and visually forms part of the existing settlement, forming a natural ‘rounding-off’ of the settlement boundary, not particularly visible from public viewpoints and defined by an existing hard surfaced roadway to the eastern boundary. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: West Bagborough. Land adjoining Potters Cottage Physical constraints: The site lies within the conservation area and the settlement lies within the Quantocks AONB. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The western and southern boundaries of the site adjoin the current settlement boundary. Impact: English Heritage have expressed initial concern but the Councils Heritage section have no in principle objection to inclusion within the settlement boundary. Part of the site is hard surfaced and contains parking and garaging/store for the adjoining house. The rear of the site appears to contain fruit trees and from the east would read as part of the urban form of the settlement. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: . Allenslade Close Physical constraints: The south western corner lies within a water protection zone. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The southern boundary of the site adjoins the current settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and developed as a rural exception site. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Wiveliscombe. Ashbeers Physical constraints: The site adjoins a County archaeological site (former rail line) Locational constraints: The northern and southern boundaries join the current settlement boundaries. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Impact: Whilst geographically the site may provide a logical ‘rounding-off’ of the settlement boundary the site is visually separate from the settlement. The northern boundary is an elevated embankment with a tree belt and the existing boundary to the south is also screened by a treebelt. Both provide effective screening and form a strong physical edge to the settlement when approaching from the east, which could be weakened through any potential development to the front of it if the boundary was relocated. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP8 and DM1d

Site: Wiveliscombe. Culverhead/Rec ground Physical constraints: The eastern part of the site is notated as a recreation ground and within the conservation area on the existing Local Plan Proposals Map. The western part of the site is currently shown as containing a County wildlife site and historic tree group. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The eastern part of the site adjoins the settlement boundary. However, the western edge would lie some 300 metres from the nearest part of the settlement boundary. Impact: There is no justification to include the site within a settlement boundary. Visually the land appears as countryside or open in appearance, providing a setting for, rather than part of the settlement. The bulk of the land is protected from development by Plan policies and inclusion would serve no logical purpose. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM1d.

Site: Wiveliscombe. Dene View Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site lies over 300 metres from the nearest point of the current settlement boundary. Impact: The site is visually prominent from the north, west and south and lies in open countryside. Development in this location would be regarded as unsustainable. Any proposal could only be considered against Core Strategy policy DM2. Action: Reject. No amendment to settlement boundary proposed. Inclusion could undermine the principles established in Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM1d.

Site: Wiveliscombe. Children’s and Medical Centre Physical constraints: Site lies within a water protection zone. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The northern boundary adjoins the current settlement boundary and the southern boundary will adjoin the proposed SADMP allocation at Croft Way. Impact: The site encompasses existing community buildings and would form a logical inclusion into the settlement boundary as it would be enclosed by existing and proposed development. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Site: Wiveliscombe. Tuckers Meadow Physical constraints: None. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site is bounded to the north, east and south by existing settlement boundaries. The site was reserved for educational purposes in the Taunton Deane Local Plan (2004) Impact: Not relevant. The site has been developed for housing. Action: Amend settlement boundary.

Sources: GIS layers including County (eg archaeology), Borough (eg conservation areas) and other (eg Natural 2013 data on agricultural land classification).

File: H/SADMP/Settlimits/TopicpaperSettLimitsreview