22nd April 2020 160 Aztec Our Ref: BRS.17.9028 Aztec West Bristol Ms Claire Courtois BS32 4UB North Somerset District Council Town Hall T 0117 428 7970 Walliscote Grove Road Weston-super-Mare BS23 1UJ BY EMAIL

Dear Ms Courtois

Re: North Somerset Local Plan: Pre-Commencement Document (March 2020)

I am instructed by my client, The Newcombe Estates Company Limited, to submit representations in response to the North Somerset Local Plan Pre-Commencement Document (PCD) consultation. Paragraph 5 of the PCD explains that this is the notice of intent to prepare a new Local Plan for North Somerset for the period 2023 to 2038. As part of this, the PCD describes the scope, methodology and programme for the plan preparation.

In response to the Issues and Options consultation (December 2018) representations were submitted on behalf of the Newcombe Estates Company, in respect of land interests at Portbury, and Long Ashton (further details provided below).

Our comments as set are provided to support the District Council in the preparation of the Local Plan and to ensure that the evidence base considers all reasonable alternatives on a fair and equitable basis. Specifically, we are keen to ensure that when preparing the Local Plan the approach to site selection does not conflate matters of sustainability with other designations, such as the Green Belt.

Context

The 2018 Issues and Options consultation was prepared in the context of the West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP), and was required to be consistent with the emerging JSP Spatial Strategy, both in terms of the numerical requirement and the planned distribution of growth over the Plan period. The JSP process has now been abandoned, with the District Council, along with Bath and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire, and Bristol City councils formally withdrawing the submitted JSP.

It is explained at paragraph 3 of the PCD that this provides a ‘fresh start’ for the North Somerset Local Plan and an opportunity to reassess the strategic context and spatial strategy options for the district. Whilst this is true, it is important that the preparation of the Local Plan learns from the shortcomings and failings of the JSP, specifically in terms of the evidence base and the obvious lack of consistency and evidence to justify the preferred JSP spatial strategy, including the distribution of development.

A key component of the new Local Plan will be the identification of sites/land to accommodate the Local Housing Need (LHN), as calculated using the ‘standard method’.

Boyer Planning Ltd. Registered Office: Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride, Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GZ. Registered in England No. 2529151. VAT 587443501. Offices at Bristol, Cardiff, Colchester, London, Midlands and Wokingham.

Page 2 of 10

Paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that the LHN represents the minimum number of new homes needed and it is only where ‘exceptional circumstances’ can justify an alternative approach, is it appropriate for a local planning authority to deviate from this standard approach.

We are reassured that there is no indication within the PCD and supporting documents that would suggest that North Somerset is pursuing a plan based on an alternative method of calculating housing need. It is correct therefore for the new Local Plan to be based on the housing need figures derived from the standard method.

The adopted Core Strategy identifies the district’s housing requirement for the plan period 2006-2026 as 20,985 dwellings (1,049 dwellings per year). In comparison, the minimum LHN, based on the standard method equates to 1,369 dwellings, an uplift circa 30%.

It should be made clear that this is the minimum required to meet need arising from within the District, it does not take into account any unmet need arising from neighbouring authorities, specifically Bristol City. The precise scale of unmet need to be accommodated within North Somerset will be confirmed through the Duty to Cooperate process, but it is evident that North Somerset will be required to put in place a spatial strategy that responds positively to the challenge of meeting need, both from within the district and through its Duty to Cooperate obligations.

Alongside the plan-making process it should also be noted that the district is currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, with the current calculation indicating supply in the region of 4.4yrs. When the Housing Delivery Test (February 2019) is reviewed for North Somerset, this confirms that North Somerset is only achieving 73% of its Core Strategy housing requirement and as a result a 20% buffer is to be applied to any calculation.

This raises genuine questions as to the effectiveness of the current Spatial Strategy and its ability to deliver existing identified need. In circumstances where the LHN is applied, this will compound further the challenges of housing delivery and require innovative and pragmatic revisions to the current Spatial Strategy.

North Somerset is a district that has constraints which in turn reduce the availability of land to meet current and future growth requirements. A key constraint in the district is the Green Belt designation. Through the JSP process it was a recognised component of the Spatial Strategy that ‘exceptional circumstances’ did exist that required land to be released from the Green Belt. Moreover, it was recognised within the JSP evidence base, that avoiding the Green Belt would result in highly unsustainable patterns of development, contrary to the vision and objectives of the JSP.

Notwithstanding this, the JSP did not propose any Green Belt release within the North Somerset District. The soundness of such an approach and the consistency with the wider JSP Spatial Strategy was identified by the JSP Inspectors as an area of concern.

The approach to Green Belt release through the JSP, as it relates to North Somerset, can be traced back to the adopted Core Strategy. Within the adopted Core Strategy it is listed as a ‘priority objective’ to: “continue to support North Somerset’s existing Green Belt in order to prevent the sprawl of Bristol and its encroachment into valued countryside and to preserve the character of existing settlements.’

Page 3 of 10

This is translated into policy within the Core Strategy (Policy CS6) where is states that the Green Belt boundaries will remain unchanged.

Strategic Policies

In general the list of Strategic Policies set out at paragraph 10 of the PCD are supported. It is however necessary to ensure that specific policy requirements are based on a robust evidence base, and wider issues such as the impact of policy burdens on the viability and deliverability of sites / development locations assessed at every stage.

We also support the inclusion of the Green Belt as a Strategic Policy. However, we are concerned that there is a lack of any specific detail on this and note that the PCD only refers to the need to ‘consider’ whether exceptional circumstances warrant a review of locations within the Green Belt.

There is concern that the approach to the Green Belt through the Local Plan process will not consider, in sufficient detail, the opportunities for sustainable development to be provided at sites/locations which do not make an important contribution to the five purposes of the Green Belt as defined in national policy.

In this context, Appendix 1 to the SA Scoping Report lists a range of plans, programmes and policies and reviews their relationship with the local plan. For example, in respect of National Planning Policy and Climate change, Appendix 1 states: “Local Policies will need to achieve these objectives”. This ‘relationship’ is therefore how the Local Plan intends to respond to existing plans and programmes etc. Such a review is an important part of the plan-making process, but we are concerned that on specific matters, the commentary set out at Appendix 1, suggests that the impact (response of Local Plan) in terms of the future Spatial Strategy is already pre-determined.

In the context of the Green Belt, Appendix 1 (page 69-70) identifies the requirements and objectives of the NPPF and the ‘protection’ of the Green Belt. It correctly recognises that the Local Plan must conform to these objectives. In terms of the adopted Core Strategy, page 78 of Appendix 1 refers to the objective of continuing to support the ‘existing’ Green Belt and states that the relationship of the Local Plan will be to: “Ensure that commitments identified in the Core Strategy are carried through.”

Ensuring that commitments identified in the Core Strategy are carried through, prior to any significant progress being made on the Local Plan, suggests that this component of the future spatial strategy has already been decided. Such an approach raises serious concerns that the district council is not treating the withdrawal of the JSP as an opportunity to reassess the fundamentals of Spatial Strategy. The concern is that the district will advance a plan that retains those elements of the JSP Spatial Strategy insofar as they relate to North Somerset, with no genuine consideration of reasonable alternative options for the Spatial Strategy.

Given the scale of need arising through the LHN and critical questions regarding the scale of unmet need from Bristol, it would be of major concern if fundamental considerations of the future Spatial Strategy, including whether this will require land from within the Green Belt, are already determined at this ‘pre-commencement stage.

Page 4 of 10

Approach of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Paragraph 67 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. It is from this that planning authorities should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites.

The September 2018 SHLAA for North Somerset, is the latest iteration of this evidence base and whilst we would expect this to be updated as the Local Plan progresses, we have significant concerns regarding the consideration of sites currently located with the designated Green Belt.

The Part 1 assessment of the 2018 SHLAA discount sites from further assessment if they fall into identified categories. This includes sites in designated SSSI or Flood Zone 3b, but also sites entirely within the Green Belt. Therefore, irrespective of the sustainability attributes of a site, and its ability to provide for sustainable patterns of growth in response to identified needs, sites in the Green Belt are rejected from the outset.

Such an approach reinforces our concerns that the priority objective set out in the adopted Core strategy, to retain the existing Green Belt, will be taken forward as a key component of the Local Plan Spatial Strategy.

For the North Somerset to advance a spatial distribution strategy which has the retention of the existing Green Belt as a key driver/objective is considered to be a flawed process. The identification of sustainable development opportunities should, in the first instance, be distinct from Green Belt considerations. It is a logical and coherent process to consider development options on a “policy-off” basis, before policy constraints are applied, in order to provide a comprehensive and transparent assessment of site options.

It is therefore considered essential that the SHLAA methodology is revised to ensure that sites located within the Green Belt are assessed in comparable way to non-Green Belt sites.

Duty to Cooperate

In the absence of the JSP process, it is critical that there is a proactive and meaningful engagement with neighbouring authorities, including those which form the West of England Combined Authority.

Whilst we recognise that the Duty to Cooperate is not a duty to agree, given the likely significant scale of unmet need arising from Bristol, and the proximity of land within North Somerset which is subject to Green Belt constraints, it is incumbent upon the district council to consider sustainable development opportunities in such locations on a fair and equitable basis. In doing so this will avoid the failings of the JSP process whereby matters of sustainability were artificially conflated with matters of Green Belt.

Timescales

We support the District Council in setting out an ambitious timetable for the preparation and adoption of the Local Plan. This will ensure that an appropriate strategic policy framework can be in place at the earliest opportunity.

Whilst it is important to pursue this process with some speed, this should not be at the expensive of a sound and comprehensive evidence base. Each stage in the preparation of the Local Plan will be

Page 5 of 10

critical and the evidence base should be published in full at each stage in order to provide the confidence that emerging proposals are both justified and effective.

Land opportunities at Portbury and Long Ashton

In response to the 2018 Issues and Options consultation, details of land controlled by our client, were submitted and for the sake of completeness I am pleased to enclose this information for your reference and consideration through the plan-making process.

Conclusions

Our comments set out within these representations are submitted without prejudice to comments we intend to make on future stages of the Local Plan process.

We recognise that the JSP process has now been abandoned and a new Local Plan for the district is to be prepared. The timetable for doing so is ambitious but this should not be a criticism, unless this timetable prevents or curtails the preparation of a robust evidence base to support future policies, including site allocations, to be identified in the Local Plan.

The Strategic Policies set out within the PCD are considered appropriate, however we are concerned that there is no express commitment to undertake a fresh and detailed review of the Green Belt. The existing approach is one that seeks to retain the Green Belt in its current form. In doing so, excluding the consideration of reasonable alternatives, both for the Spatial Strategy and site allocations as part of the plan making process.

To advance a spatial distribution strategy which has the retention of the existing Green Belt as a key driver/objective is considered to be a flawed process. The identification of sustainable development opportunities should, in the first instance, be distinct from Green Belt considerations. It is a logical and coherent process to consider development options on a “policy-off” basis, before policy constraints are applied, in order to provide a comprehensive and transparent assessment of site options.

It is within this context that land controlled by my client, Portbury and Long Ashton, has been promoted previously through the 2018 Issues and Options process, information for which I am pleased to enclose as part of our comments in response to this PCD consultation.

I trust that our representations are clear and should you have any questions or would like to discuss land controlled by my client, I would be very pleased to discuss this with you.

Yours sincerely.

James Millard Associate Director

Tel: 0117 428 7970 / 07393 012 493 Email: [email protected]

Page 6 of 10

Land to the east of Portbury

Land to the east of Portbury (Appendix 1) provides the opportunity to deliver a non-strategic site (c. 75-100 dwellings) that would benefit from and support existing services and facilities, including St Mary’s CoE Primary School associated with the settlement of Portbury.

This site is an edge of settlement site that benefits from good access to the strategic road network, with Junction 19 of the M5 Motorway accessed to the east via the A369 (Martcombe Road).

The M5 borders the north of the site with existing residential development along Priory Road to the west. To the south runs the High Street, with playing fields and St Mary’s CoE Primary School located to the south west of the site.

The site is therefore physically contained by hard infrastructure and built development on three sides, with playing fields and open fields extending eastwards and St Mary’s Church and Cemetery adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

An indicative masterplan has been prepared (see Appendix 2) which demonstrates how this site can be delivered in a manner that provides for a logical and coherent edge of settlement development at a scale that is proportionate to the existing settlement of Portbury.

Development at this location will retain existing sports pitches, whilst providing additional amenity provision in terms of useable open space, alongside play areas and allotment provision. The indicative masterplan has been prepared to ensure that development proposals have due regard to the existing heritage assets, specifically the 12th Century St Mary’s Church and Cemetery.

The entire Portbury settlement is washed over by Green Belt, and consequently, the current adopted North Somerset Core Strategy makes no provision for growth at Portbury. However, it is considered that this site provides a genuine opportunity to deliver a sustainable pattern of development that would support a spatial strategy which delivers a range of sites, both in terms of size and locations.

The promotion of this site should also be considered in the context of NPPF and the clear direction that when preparing plans, local authorities should consider areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt as well as locations beyond the outer Green Belt.

We set out below a summary of the five purposes of the Green Belt and the site’s contribution to it.

Page 7 of 10

NPPF Five Purposes Site Characteristics Contribution to purpose of Green Belt

To check the unrestricted The development site provides a Limited sprawl of large built-up logical and coherent extension to areas Portbury that is not out of scale with the existing settlement. The development site is subject to significant urban influences which means that the site is enclosed and divorced from the countryside beyond. This includes the M5 Motorway to the north, the High Street to the South and the existing Portbury settlement to the east. To prevent neighbouring Development to the east of Portbury Limited towns merging into one will not reduce the separation of another Portbury to other settlements. The site is physically contained by existing road infrastructure to the east such that there is no impact on neighbouring settlements. To assist in safeguarding Given the physically constrained Moderate the countryside from nature of the site, as result of the encroachment existing road network, the site does not result in any encroachment into the wider countryside. To preserve the setting Portbury is not subject to any specific Limited and special character of Conservation Area designations. As historic towns demonstrated in the indicative masterplan, the St Mary’s Church Listed building and its setting can be protected such that it does not result in harm to this asset. To assist in urban The site is promoted as a positive and Limited regeneration, by deliverable sustainable development encouraging the opportunity as part of a wider recycling of derelict and development strategy which includes, other urban land brownfield sites, large scale Greenfield Strategic Allocations and non-strategic sites.

Page 8 of 10

This high level summary of the performance of the site in terms of its contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt demonstrates that this site could be developed without undermining the overall function of the Green Belt, specifically as it does not make a significant contribution to any of the five purposes as defined in national policy.

The North Somerset SHLAA 2018 identifies the site, SHLAA reference HE18157, as being within Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) fluvial flood zone 3b. The SFRA states that all areas in flood zone 3 should be considered as functional floodplain (3b) until an appropriate FRA demonstrates otherwise.

The SHLAA Part 1 Assessment discounts sites entirely within flood zone 3b. However, the 2008 North Somerset SFRA Level 1 states that “If the SFRA indicates that a property or possible area for development is within or adjacent to a flood risk area, than a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) will be required to assess the site before any decisions can be made”. Nevertheless, the SHLAA Part 1 assessment immediately discounts sites stated to be within flood zone 3b, without further assessment.

It is considered that the 2018 SHLAA has incorrectly concluded that the site is located within Flood Zone 3. The Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning identifies the site as entirely being within flood zone 1 (as shown below)

The EA Map shows areas of flood zone 2 and flood zone 3 to the adjacent north west, but these do fall within the boundary of the site. To the north of the M5 motorway, the EA Flood Map shows large areas of Flood Zone 3, but that are benefiting from flood defences.

Duplicating the EA Flood Map, North Somerset’s Planning Map also identifies the entirety of the site as being within flood zone 1.

Page 9 of 10

North Somerset Planning Map

The Planning Map shows some small areas of Surface Water, to the north and north east corner, and towards the south of the site, indicating where surface water flooding could occur as a result of rainfall (at 1% chance of it happening in any year).

The 2018 SHLAA should therefore be updated to ensure that it is based on an accurate and reliable assessment as to the actual flood risk associated with this site.

Page 10 of 10

Land adjacent to Long Ashton Road (A370)

This site (Appendix 3) comprises a triangular piece of land which is enclosed by Ashton Road (A370) along its southern boundary and the B3128 along its western, northern and eastern flanks.

The site is located at the eastern edge of the North Somerset administrative boundary, adjacent to the boundary of Bristol City. The site provides opportunities for future development either as part of a large urban extension to the south-west of Bristol, or as an expansion of existing non-residential development, complimenting existing employment, retail and leisure land uses to the south of the A370. The Long Ashton Park & Ride facility is located to the south of the site, accessed via the B3128.

The recently completed South Bristol Link Road provides access from the A370 to the west of the site, through to Hengrove Park to the south of Bristol. This new Link Road also provides direct links to Bristol Airport.

The site is considered to be very well located to access the Metrobus Network, which is a cornerstone of the wider Bristol Transport Strategy. The network extends along the newly completed Link Road and the completion of the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads Metrobus Route will provide access from the Park and Ride direct into the centre of Bristol.

The site is located within the designated Green Belt however this should not exclude the consideration of this site, through Green Belt release in North Somerset Local Plan, based on an objective assessment of its sustainability credentials balanced against its contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.

The site provides a genuine development opportunity to deliver residential development as part of a wider urban extension to the south west of Bristol, or an employment-led development that compliments existing land uses in close proximity to the site. In terms of the latter discussions are ongoing with a number of potential operators with specific aspiration to development the site for an employment generating us.

We would welcome the opportunity to work closely with North Somerset Council, through the JSP and Local Plan process, to demonstrate how this site can provide a positive, deliverable and sustainable non-strategic site option.

APPENDIX 1: LAND AT PORTBURY SITE LOCATION PLAN N

7 m 175600m

M 5

9 m

Pond

175500m

PLAYING FIELD 9 m

9 m ST MARY'S CHURCH

1 9 Church Cott

P RIO RY 1 RO

AD 35

0 1

NE LA 175400m CH 11.9m UR

CH

0

3 Lych Gate

8 1 tle Trac Lit k rd cha Or D r a 4

in 9 13m

0 2

ST MARY'S 2

CHURCH OF ENGLAND 4

a 9 5 St 1

b 5 VOLUNTARY AIDED u 3

l S

E 4

3 PRIMARY SCHOOL,

5

7 12 m PORTBURY 1 6 0

lk REET a GH ST W HI ry io Pr ef

rtr VILLAGE CLUB

Ca 1 3 11 15m

LB 3 175300m TCB

23

1 5 13 Four Limes 9 Linden Croft 1

War Meml 1 20 m 6 T 17 m HIGH STREE GP

e 1 2 4 1 ag 8 ott C ory Pri

y ior Hillend

Pr 3 1 ld 2 O e 2

Th

4

2

9

V

a

8 l

l 1

e

y

1 s

i

1 d e The Old Vicarage 175200m Conygar

Cottage 3 31 m 12 Ayr 38 m

349900m 350000m 350100m 350200m 350300m 350400m

HIGH STREET, PORTBURY

LOCATION PLAN

1:2500 @ A3

0 20 40 100 200 400m ©Crown Copyright and database rights 2017 OS 100019980

HSP SK-01 19.12.17 © JAMES ARMITAGE LTD 2017 JAMES ARMITAGE ARCHITECTS, 27A WESTGATE STREET, BATH, BA1 1EP Tel: 01225 423038 email: [email protected] web: www.jamesarmitage.com APPENDIX 2: LAND AT PORTBURY INDICATIVE MASTERPLAN MOTORWAY AY MOTORW NEW BERM

ERM EXISTING ISTING B EX PLAY AREA

NEW ALLOTMENTS N (10 PLOTS) NEW BERM

TH TPA EXISTING FOO TING SPORTS EXIS PITCHES

PLAY AREA

ST MARY'S CHURCH

NEW HOUSING

CHURCH YARD

PRIORY ROAD PLAY AREA

D ST MARY'S R H PRIMARY C R SCHOOL U H C

GREEN

VILLAGE CLUB

THE OLD HIGH STREET, PORTBURY VICARAGE E T H I G H S T R E SKETCH MASTERPLAN

1:1250 @ A3

0 10 20 50 100 200m

HSP SK-02 19.12.17 © JAMES ARMITAGE LTD 2017 JAMES ARMITAGE ARCHITECTS, 27A WESTGATE STREET, BATH, BA1 1EP Tel: 01225 423038 email: [email protected] web: www.jamesarmitage.com APPENDIX 3: LAND AT LONG ASHTON SITE LOCATION PLAN Land at Long Ashton

Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432. Plotted Scale - 1:7500