Puriton Energy Park Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Statement (March 2012)

CONTENTS

Page

1. Overview of SPD 1

2. Purpose of Consultation Statement 2

3. Preparing the Puriton Energy Park SPD 3

4. Sedgemoor Statement of Community Involvement 4

5. Stage 1 Consultation 5

6. Stage 2 Consultation 8

7. Summary of Main Issues 11

8. Summary of Main Changes made to the SPD 19

9. Further Consultation 24

10. Conclusion 26

Appendices

A1. List of Persons and Organisations Notified

A2. Summary Leaflet

A3. Notes from Stage 1 Drop In Sessions

A4. Slides from Presentation to Parish and Cluster Meetings

A5. Notes from Stage 2 Drop In Sessions

A6. Notes from Public Meeting

A7. Puriton Parish Council and Residents Group - Further Comments and Response

1. OVERVIEW OF SPD

1.1 To support the allocation in the Core Strategy of the former Royal Ordnance Factory site as an Energy Park, with priority for renewable and low carbon energy generation and other energy related or complimentary uses, a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been prepared. This seeks to define through development principles the role, function and character of the proposed Energy Park with the objective to achieve sustainable high quality development.

1.2 The SPD and the Core Strategy allocation have been informed by the Council’s Economic Masterplan which identified Sedgemoor’s opportunity to become a centre for energy related business, employment and skills, building on the experience of new nuclear build at Hinkley Point, and other initiatives based on renewable energy and technologies. The Masterplan, and subsequently the Bridgwater Vision, identified the former Royal Ordnance Factory site as having the potential for being a focus for renewable and low carbon energy development and contributing to the ambitions of the Somerset Low Carbon Business Cluster.

1.3 In addition to supporting the allocation of the former ROF site in the Council’s Core Strategy, demonstrating that it is broadly deliverable within the Plan period to 2027, the SPD will also have a key role in providing a framework for assessing subsequent planning applications for the site. The Council formally adopted the SPD on 28th March 2012 and this is now a significant material planning consideration when determining applications for planning permission for the site, setting out the key principles that developers will need to follow. The adopted SPD forms part of the Sedgemoor Local Development Framework.

1.4 It should be stressed that the SPD does not set out full details of how the site will be redeveloped, for example detailed building plans, road layouts and known end users. Instead it sets out high level parameters against which detailed schemes submitted to the Council as planning applications will need to be assessed. It should therefore be seen as high level planning tool that sets out the important requirements and considerations that should be borne in mind when preparing planning applications. It does not set out what the site will ultimately look like or who will occupy it – that is the role of subsequent planning applications.

1.5 The emphasis of the SPD is on guidance rather than prescription recognising that delivering the k objectives for the site can be realised in a number of ways and that this will depend on a number of changing factors, for example economic circumstances including market demand. Given the likely long-term scale of the Energy Park Project building in flexibility into the SPD is essential.

1.6 However flexibility needs to be balanced with ensuring development and design principles are established that provide confidence to the local planning authority and local communities that potential impacts of are minimised wherever possible. So the adopted version of the SPD includes specific guidance on a range of issues informed through the public consultations and discussions with technical stakeholders that have taken place during the process of preparing the SPD.

2. PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION STATEMENT

2.1 This Consultation Statement sets out how Sedgemoor District Council has involved the community and stakeholders in the preparation of the Puriton Energy Park SPD Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). In doing so the Consultation Statement sets out how the Council has complied with Regulations 17(1)b and 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

2.2 These regulations require that Local Authorities prepare a statement setting out the following:

 the names of any persons whom the authority consulted in connection with the preparation of the SPD;

 how those persons were consulted;

 a summary of the main issues raised in those consultations; and

 how those issues have been addressed in the SPD.

2.3 The Puriton Energy Park SPD has been the subject of two stages of consultation and these are detailed in this report alongside the key issues arising and the Council's response to them. This Consultation Statement is published, alongside the final adopted version of the SPD and its accompanying Sustainability Appraisal Report, on the Council's website at www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark

3. PREPARING THE PURITON ENERGY PARK SPD

3.1 There have been a number of distinct stages in preparing the Puriton Energy Park SPD, including two stages of consultation. The process and timeline is summarised in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 - Progressing the Puriton Energy Park SPD

Preparation of Initial Draft SPD (November 2010 – February 2011)

Council’s Executive Approve Draft for Consultation (March 2011)

Stage 1 Public Consultation (March – May 2011)

Consideration of Representations Received (June - July 2011)

Stage 2 Public Consultation (September – November 2011)

Consideration of Representations Received and Proposed Amendments (November – December 2011)

Council’s Executive Approve Final Draft and Recommend Adoption to Full Council (January 2012)

Further Engagement with Puriton Parish Council and Puriton Residents Group (January – March 2012)

Council Adopt SPD (28th March 2012)

4. SEDGEMOOR STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

4.1 The Sedgemoor Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), adopted in April 2007, sets out how consultation on the documents of the Sedgemoor Local Development Framework would be undertaken. The aims of consultation as set out in the SCI are as follows. To:

 Inform people regularly about current planning issues as part of an ongoing programme of awareness raising and information;

 Invite people to participate in identifying concerns and key issues when undertaking technical research and gathering information on our area;

 Involve people in identifying issues and concerns when preparing development plan documents and supplementary planning documents;

 Listen to the results of public engagement, as well as taking in to account technical work and national/regional policy considerations before developing possible policy responses;

 Notify people of the outcomes of these considerations and how and to what extent these have shaped policy decisions;

 Motivate people through the use of a variety of consultation techniques to encourage a wide range of participants in the planning process, including those members of the community who traditionally have not participated in the past;

 Respond to those people making comments, advising them how their views have been taken in to consideration, how this has helped to shape the decision, or explaining the reason why the view has not been accepted.

4.2 The SCI also sets out which groups of people should be consulted and the possible methods and techniques of consulting.

4.3 It has been a main aim of the Puriton Energy Park SPD consultation to fulfil the aims of the Sedgemoor SCI and to follow the procedures set out within it in order to ensure that the consultation accords with the Council's Consultation Policy Statement that states:

“We will work with the people within Sedgemoor to ensure the actions of the Council reflect the needs and wishes of the wider community.

5. STAGE 1 CONSULTATION

5.1 The Council’s Executive approved the draft SPD for Puriton Energy Park for public consultation on 9th March 2011. The SPD and the interim Sustainability Appraisal Report were subsequently published on the 22nd March 2011 for this purpose initially for 6 weeks. Following requests by those making representations the consultation period was extended to the 31st May 2011.

5.2 A total of 91 formal representations were received during the Stage 1 consultation period.

Who We Consulted

5.3 In accordance with the SCI, all persons and organisations on the Council’s Local Development Framework consultation database were notified of the consultation on the Puriton Energy SPD and the dates and venues of the supporting events. Consultees on the LDF database are made up of the following groups:

 Specific consultation bodies. These are the bodies listed in planning legislation, including parish councils, agencies such as the Environment Agency and English Nature, and utility providers.

 General consultation bodies. These include organisations and individuals who are active in the area, including voluntary groups, faith groups, disability groups, and groups representing local businesses,

 Other Consultees. These are persons or organisations that have requested to be kept informed of progress on the LDF or who have been identified through previous consultation activities. This represents a wide spectrum of interests including individual members of the public, developers, landowners and special interest groups.

5.4 In addition to the database, letters of notification were also sent to local residents who had responded to the then current planning application for the solar farm to the east of Puriton village, adjacent to the fence line of the former Royal Ordnance Factory.

5.5 A full list of the persons and organisations that were notified of the consultation (at both Stage 1 and Stage 2) is attached in Appendix A1.

How We Consulted

5.6 The consultation material including the draft SPD, Interim Sustainability Appraisal and relevant consultation questionnaire was published on the Council’s website at www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark via the online consultation portal. This enabled consultees to access the material and either respond in writing, via email or to complete an online form that allowed for comment directly on relevant sections of the SPD (a feature of the online consultation portal). The material was also made

available for inspection in the Council Offices and Bridgwater Library during opening hours. Hard copies of the material were available on request.

5.7 Notification was via either email or letter (depending on the consultees previously stated preferences). In addition consultees received an LDF Newsletter, featuring details of the consultation, which was published to correspond with the start of the consultation period. In addition to the notifications a series of consultation events were undertaken in the local area to raise awareness of the future plans for Puriton Energy Park. The events were essential in to ensuring local people were informed about the SPD and could engage effectively in the consultation process.

5.8 The Stage 1 Consultation was supported by the following events/meetings:

 Puriton Drop-in Session on 14th April 2011 (between 2-30pm and 7pm) in the Committee Room of Puriton Village Hall;

 Woolavington Drop-in Session on 19th April 2011 (between 2-30 and 7pm) in Woolavington Village Hall

 A manned exhibition in Angel Place Shopping Centre, on Saturday 23rd April between 10am and 2pm

 Presentations to Puriton (12th April 2011) and Woolavington (19th April) Parish Councils, the wider Coastal Parish Cluster meeting held in Burnham-on-Sea (13th April) and the Sedgemoor Business Forum held in Axbridge (15th June)

5.9 To meet the requirements of the Council’s SCI the consultation events were widely publicised through the following ways:

 posters of the consultation events was placed in advance in the local shops in Woolavington and Puriton;

 additional posters were sent to the parish clerks to be displayed on public notices;

 press notices were placed in the local press;

 an interview was conducted on BBC Somerset Radio and played throughout the day on the day before the event in Puriton;

 the consultation and relevant events were publicised on the Council’s and Puriton and Woolavington Parish Councils’ websites.

Drop–In Sessions

5.10 The purpose of the drop-in sessions as to ensure local people to the site had the opportunity to engage in the consultation process and be informed of the role, content and process of the SPD.

5.11 At the drop–in sessions, material was exhibited on a number of display boards showing the key elements of the Energy Park SPD including: site context, policy

context, key objectives, potential uses and a draft masterplan. In addition there was an opportunity for attendees to give an indication at the event as to whether they agreed or disagreed with the suggested approach of the SPD in terms of a range of issues including: transport strategy, potential uses, biodiversity and ecology etc and to leave comments on any aspect of the SPD.

5.12 Consultation material including a summary leaflet outlining the consultation process and how comments could be formally made were also provided at the events. A Copy of the summary leaflet is attached in Appendix A2. Officers were present at the events throughout to answer questions, hear views and to assist attendees in undertaking the consultation activities.

5.13 The two drop-in sessions were attended by over 300 people. Notes from the Stage 1 Consultation events outlining the comments made on the day is attached in Appendix A3.

Manned Exhibition

5.14 The purpose of the manned exhibition was to raise awareness of the consultation to the wider residents of Bridgwater and its hinterland, given the strategic importance of the site in respect of job creation, inward investment, relationship to the strategic road network and Bridgwater Vision context.

5.15 The exhibition comprised of a series of display boards showing the key elements of the SPD focussing on the site’s context, potential uses and masterplan. Although the display was present in the shopping centre for the entire day for information, it was manned between 10am and 2pm to allow for members of the public to ask questions and raise issues with officers. Again summary leaflets were provided that outlined how people could comment on the SPD.

Presentation to Puriton and Woolavington Parish Councils and Coastal Cluster Meeting

5.1.6 The purpose of these meetings was to present to the relevant local councils to provide them with an overview of the role and content of the draft SPD. This was in order to raise awareness locally but also to support the councils in making an informed response to the consultation in their capacity as statutory consultees. Attendance at the Sedgemoor Business Forum was to ensure that the business community (a recognised hard to reach group in the SCI) were aware of the proposals and how these fitted within the Council’s overall Economic Masterplan for the District. A copy of the slides from the presentations is attached in Appendix A4.

6. STAGE 2 CONSULTATION

6.1 A number of respondents to the first stage consultation between March and May 2011 raised concerns that there had been inadequate consultation on the document, particularly suggesting it had not been widely publicised and, in the case of the Puriton event, that the venue was inappropriate.

6.2 As set out above the requirements for consultation set out in the relevant legislation and the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement were met. However it is acknowledged that the venue for the Puriton drop-in session was not ideal and made it difficult at times for people to view the exhibition boards particularly given the large interest.

6.3 To address these concerns and provide further opportunity for involvement and engagement of local people on the significant issues the redevelopment of the site has raised locally, an additional public consultation stage was introduced between 16th September and 1st November 2011.

6.4 A total of 22 formal representations were received during the Stage 2 consultation period.

Who We Consulted

6.5 Again those persons and organisations on the LDF database were notified of the Stage 2 Consultation. In addition notifications were sent to those individuals who had made representations at Stage 1 or had been asked to be added to the database.

How We Consulted

6.6 The original consultation material was again made available for comment at the Stage 2 consultation. However in addition a Stage 2 Report was prepared. This provided initial feedback back on the key issues raised at Stage 1 and indicated how the final draft of the SPD could seek to address these. This allowed people to comment on how we were suggesting we would respond to previous comments and the subsequent direction of the document. The Stage 2 report outlined the following:

 the consultation that had occurred previously;

 the main issues raised by respondents;

 the Council’s response to these issues; and

 areas of the draft SPD that could be amended to address these concerns where appropriate.

6.7 The full Stage 2 Report can be viewed from the Council’s website at www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark

6.8 As at Stage 1 all consultation material was made available on the Council’s website and via the online consultation portal. Copies were also available for inspection at the Council offices and in Bridgwater Library during normal opening hours. Hard copies were available on request.

6.9 Notification of the Stage 2 consultation and associated events was via either email or letter (depending on the consultees previously stated preferences). Again a series of local events were arranged to ensure as many people as possible were aware and informed of the SPD and the Stage 2 consultation. These included:

 Manned Exhibition at Angel Place, Bridgwater (17th September 2011 between 10am and 2pm)

 further drop-in session at Puriton (19th September 2011 at St Michael’s Church Hall between 2pm and 8pm);

 further drop-in session at Woolavington (21st September 2011 at the Village Hall between 2pm and 8pm);

 a public meeting held in Puriton Village Hall on 22nd September 2011; and

 attendance at Puriton and Woolavington Parish Council meetings

6.10 As at Stage 1 the consultation events were widely publicised through posters in local shops and parish notice boards and through notifications sent to those who had previously commented. In addition press notices were again placed in the local newspapers. In Puriton, the offer of a local resident to leaflet drop every home in the village was accepted and facilitated by the provision of almost 1000 flyers advertising the events.

Manned Exhibition

6.11 The same approach was used as at Stage 1 with display boards focussed on providing information on the key elements of the SPD and the issues raised at Stage 1, with officers present to answer any questions.

Drop-in Sessions

6.12 These were run exactly the same as at Stage 1 with a series of display boards and activities to illicit views and comments from attendees whilst promoting the opportunity to make more formal comments as part of the consultation process. Again these were well attended (by around 150 people). Notes from the sessions are attached in Appendix A5.

Public Meeting

6.13 In direct response to requests for a public meeting by respondents at Stage 1 the Council through Puriton Parish Council arranged an open evening public meeting. This provided the opportunity for residents and other interested parties to ask questions of the Council in respect of the SPD and the future of the Former Royal Ordnance Factory site. It was chaired by the Chairman of Puriton Parish Council. Its 9

format included a presentation by the Council on the SPD and the main issues raised at Stage 1 and potential changes to the SPD being suggested to address these. This was followed by an open question and answer session. The event was attended by over 120 people and the notes of that meeting are attached in Appendix A6.

6.14 Despite the level of interest at the Stage 2 events only as further 22 formal responses were received by the end of the consultation period. The responses received generally did not raise any new issues from Stage 1 although in some cases they suggest the need for greater clarification of particular sections. A full schedule setting out all representations made at both Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultations alongside the Council’s response (including proposed changes) is available to be viewed on the Council’s website at www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark

6.15 The next section of this Consultation Statement provides a summary of the main issues raised at both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultation stages.

7. SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RAISED

7.1 The key issues raised at the original consultation stage are discussed in the table below alongside the Council’s response. However it should be stressed that the issues do not include all areas of comment but focuses on the key areas of concern.

7.2 A full schedule of comments from both the first and second stages of consultation, which provides individual responses to all comments received and identifies proposed changes as a result of them, can be accessed from the Council’s website at www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark

7.3 In broad terms the issues raised can be divided into the following categories:

1. Principle of Redeveloping the Site

2. Defining the Energy Park Concept

3. Economic Considerations

4. Transport Strategy for the site

5. Potential Uses

Topic Area Issue Raised Council’s Response

Key Issue 1 - A covenant exists Although a legal rather than planning Principle of requiring the site to be returned to matter, further clarification of the Redeveloping the farmland covenant issue has been sought from Site BAE Systems who confirm that there is no covenant that would restrict the

redevelopment of the site.

Principle of Key Issue 2 - Scale of the proposed The Core Strategy allocates 90 Redeveloping the Energy Park is out of character of the hectares of developable employment Site adjacent villages and the rural nature land (based on the amount of the site of the area that already constitutes brownfield land) out of a total site area of 220 hectares. The Core Strategy therefore does not allocate any increase of employment land than what currently exists. The remainder of the site includes significant areas of ecological interest which will be retained and enhanced.

Defining the Energy Key Issue 3 - The concept of the The Former ROF is allocated in the Park Concept Energy Park is undefined and not Core Strategy as an Energy Park it clearly evidenced that it is needed or therefore establishes the principle of deliverable the site’s redevelopment and identifies a number of key deliverables expected from the site. 11

This includes priority for renewable and low carbon energy generation and related uses. It is based on evidence set out in the Council’s Economic Masterplan, Employment Land Review and the Bridgwater Vision.

Economic Key Issue 4 - There is no evidence of The Council’s Economic Masterplan Considerations market demand for the uses identifies the potential demand in envisaged for the site and therefore it energy related business which are is not deliverable. key growth sectors of the economy. In addition the site promoters have undertaken an initial assessment of market demands relating to an Energy Park to provide some confidence that demand exists. This has been complimented by regular enquiries regarding the site by Energy related users even though the site has not yet been formally marketed.

Of course market demand increases with certainty so the further the site progresses through the planning system the more market demands will increase. Further assessment of market demands are being undertaken by the promoters and this information will ultimately be submitted to support any future planning application.

It is important that the final version of the SPD sets out parameters as to what potential uses could be acceptable on the site to guide subsequent planning applications for individual users but retains some degree of flexibility to deal with any changing market demands.

Economic Key Issue 5 - There is no further need The District faces a significantly Considerations for employment land here because of challenging growth agenda over the all the development planned and plan period to 2027 and to ensure key ongoing in Bridgwater objectives are met including increasing self-containment, greater access to higher paid and skilled jobs and diversification of the local economy, the Core Strategy 12

advocates an employment led approach. In addressing this growth agenda potential employment generation from the site has already been factored in, the ROF is therefore central to the employment strategy for the District not additional.

As a unique and substantial brownfield employment site with existing infrastructure, the ROF offers many advantages over Greenfield sites on the edge of Bridgwater and is sequentially preferable.

Economic Key Issue 6 - Level of jobs to be The Core Strategy identifies potential Considerations created is far in excess of that for the creation of about 4000 jobs required in the villages and therefore based on standard job density figures will encourage workers from further however given the nature of uses away who will travel in and expected on the site this is likely to be exacerbate the existing traffic significantly less with around 2000 problems. being a realistic target (a similar number to the peak employment levels of the site in the past).

It is not suggested all these jobs will be taken by people of Puriton and Woolavington but there will be an emphasis on local employment taking into account the site’s relationship to Bridgwater as well.

The town and villages suffer from high levels of out-commuting to other centres outside of the District, partly as a result of more limited high skilled and high paid jobs within the District. Therefore promoting higher skilled jobs within new and emerging technologies provides the opportunity to reverse this trend. It also will have benefits in increasing the retention of younger qualified persons in the area who currently relocate outside of the District because of limited skilled jobs in the area.

Clearly not all the jobs will be taken by even the wider definition of ‘local’ and there needs to be provision made to deal with the transport implications 13

that this may have.

Transport Strategy Key Issue 7 - Overly reliant on the As the SPD acknowledges, the full for the Site provision of substantial transport potential of the site would not be infrastructure (i.e. new access road) realised without substantial transport without first considering the benefits improvements and measures to sustainable transport measures could mitigate the impact on the local have including re-instating the rail network through Puriton and link, dedicated bus links and Woolavington. encouraging greater walking and cycling. However in addition options for other sustainable transport methods are being considered including the impact that re-using the rail link could have. This may reduce the reliance on new road infrastructure at least in the short-term to medium-term.

It is agreed that there needs to be greater emphasis in the SPD on the transport strategy as a whole including clearer linkages between the phasing of development and the provision of necessary infrastructure. This should also emphasise soft measures that encourage the use of more sustainable modes of travel as well.

Transport Strategy Key Issue 8 - The rail link should be The SPD emphasises the potential for the Site reinstated given its wider benefits to that the rail-link could have. Though addressing the transport impacts of there remains a need for a detailed the development. feasibility assessment before its reinstatement can be fully confirmed.

Transport Strategy Key Issue 9 - There has been no As the SPD recognises, off-site for the Site consideration of the cumulative infrastructure improvements are impacts of developments related to unknown at this stage and will be the new Morrisons depot and Hinkley established through detailed Point C which will add further traffic assessments. This will take into on the strategic highway network in account the impacts and planned this locality. improvements on the strategic network required through the Morrisons development and Hinkley Point C.

The SPD should ensure detailed assessment of all cumulative impacts (and benefits) are fully considered as part of the transport strategy for the site and submitted as part of any

Transport Impact Assessment.

Transport Strategy Key Issue 10 - Alternative road Options for the location and for the Site options should be considered before alignment of the road are still under the potential access to the south and consideration and work with technical east of the village – suggested stakeholders to define the realistic alternatives included: options for addressing the highway issues of the redevelopment of the  Direct access to the M5 using site is ongoing. In addition the options the existing rail bed in terms of other sustainable transport methods are being considered  New Motorway junction road including the impact that re-using the to provide direct access to rail link could have. This may reduce M5 the reliance on new road infrastructure at least in the short-  New road to the north west term to medium-term. over the existing road bridge to join up with the A39  New road from the site directly southwards to the A39 through Knowle Hall

 New road to join eastwards with the B3141

 New road northwards from the site to join Withy Road

Transport Strategy Key Issue 11 - Potential access road If a new access road is required any for the Site to the east and south of the village proposal will need to meet all would have an unacceptable impact technical requirements and be on adjacent residential properties supported by detailed assessments including noise and disturbance, addressing a range of potential pollution, devaluation of properties. It impacts including: air quality, noise would also raise health and safety pollution and vibration and ecology issues given its proximity to the etc. These requirements are set out school, impact on existing rights of in policies within the Core Strategy. way and destroy wildlife. In addition an additional paragraph could usefully be added to the transport section outlining how impact would be assessed. Where the assessments identify adverse impacts mitigation measures would need to be identified and implemented.

Transport Strategy Key Issue 12 - The potential access The final transport strategy for the for the Site road would become a rat run from site will need to demonstrate that it is Woolavington and exacerbate the not adversely impacting on both the existing traffic and junction problems strategic and the local highway currently experienced in Puriton. network to an unacceptable degree.

The redevelopment of the site generally and indeed a potential new access road does provide the opportunity to comprehensively address some of these issues, including remodelling of existing

junctions and the provision of new strategic cycling and pedestrian linkages between the villages and more widely. In the absence of public funding many of these issues are likely to only be addressed through private sector investment from development proposals locally.

Potential Uses Key Issue 13 - The possible The potential of a combined cycle gas construction of a Gas Fired Power turbine (CCGT) is identified in the Station would be unacceptable as SPD. This is a clean and low carbon gas is a primary energy source and use that could form part of the should not be used to create another short/medium term national energy primary energy source. strategy. It would broadly fit within the overall concept of the energy park and its focus on renewable and low carbon energy generation. It would also represent a key ‘anchor’ for the site and potentially could facilitate significant infrastructure provision from the outset

Potential Uses Key Issue 14 - Anaerobic digesters The SPD includes a number of processing human and animal waste potential uses for comment on would be inappropriate in this location however any proposed energy use and would cause nuisance to and its processes will need to be residents and create transport issues. mindful of the context of the site and avoid any unacceptable adverse impact on the local community or the environment.

Energy from Waste uses are emerging that are very clean and efficient processes. In addition to broadly fitting the overall concept of the energy park and its focus on renewable and low carbon energy generation, these uses may be key drivers for re-instating the rail link and ensuring the transport strategy for the site promotes sustainable options before road infrastructure.

However such an Anaerobic Digestion facility is already committed within the area (i.e. at Walpole) so it is unlikely that this will be deliverable as part of the Energy Park and specific reference will be removed from the SPD

Potential Uses Key Issue 15 - The SPD would It is agreed that the role of waste and benefit from recognising the potential in particular the potential for Energy role of waste as a resource that could to waste has not been fully developed deliver some of the SPD’s objectives. in the SPD as it currently stands. Currently the document does not There are a number of synergies acknowledge of the full extent of the between the aspirations for the site opportunities presented by waste, this and the role of the waste industry, could include (1) waste management particularly the development of higher and (2) energy from waste value and skilled jobs.

Energy from waste uses would appear to provide a strong justification for reinstating the rail link and helping to manage the amount of traffic that would need to access and leave the site. In addition the potential for reduced heating costs for businesses could be an important incentive for new occupiers to locate onto the site.

Potential Uses Key Issue 16 - It is not appropriate to The SPD does not suggest such uses identify logistics as a potential use for would be appropriate to open or the site as this does not fit within the establish the Energy Park as this concept of the energy park. would clearly conflict with the concept and intentions for the site and its priority for renewable and low carbon energy generation and related uses.

The SPD does need to be clearer on this to ensure that in advocating some flexibility to reflect commercial realities this does not mean the energy park will be prejudiced or diluted at a later date. However when the Energy Park has been successfully delivered in terms of appropriate end users and infrastructure investment the site will perform sequentially better than other potential employment sites in the town.

In the long-term logistics may have a role to play in the site and indeed be a sustainable location for these given the infrastructure investment that would have taken place and the opportunity for complimentary linkages. This could be either directly through specific connection to energy industries or indirectly through the ability to utilise energy generated on the Park.

The Transport Assessment supporting the planning application(s) for the site will need to ensure that all potential uses are modelled as part of the evidence base for assessing impacts.

Potential Uses Key Issue 17 - The proposed solar The remainder of the site (outside of farms would extend the site beyond the fence) includes uses that are the existing site boundary and into compatible with a countryside the countryside – any such use location i.e. solar farm. National and should be within the existing fence local planning policy supports the line of the site. principle of renewable energy projects in the countryside such as solar farms. Therefore proposals for the solar farms are not dependant on the Energy Park plans and indeed have been taken forward independently.

The SPD will be updated to reflect that the site to the north east of Puriton now has planning consent and is under construction, whilst reference to the site to the west of Woolavington should be removed as the changes to the feed-in tariff would make this site less deliverable.

8. SUMMARY OF MAIN CHANGES MADE TO THE SPD

8.1 In responding to the issues raised during the consultation a number of changes to the SPD were identified. A full list of changes is identified as part of the comprehensive schedule of representations received during the stage 1 and stage 2 consultations, this is available to be viewed on the Council’s website at www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark. A summary of the key changes are identified below organised around the same broad topic areas the issues set out in the section above were structured.

Topic Area Change to the SPD

Principle of Redeveloping the Although the scale of the development is addressed in Site Section 5.3 of the SPD (Brownfield and Greenfield Proportions) a further subsection has been added to Section 5 setting out the Principle of redevelopment. This outlines more clearly why the principle of the redevelopment has been established, i.e.long-standing brownfield site, national and local policy context promoting redevelopment and opportunities for significant inward investment. However the section also acknowledges the site’s countryside location and its proximity to local communities, making it clear that the purpose of the design and principles section of the SPD is to ensure that detailed schemes take this into account and seek to minimise impacts wherever possible.

Principle of Redeveloping the New section added to Chapter 2 (Strategic and Local Site Context) reflect consultation responses and to emphasis the local context for the site, i.e. relationship with local communities and surrounding countryside. It also includes mention of the committed and planned development that has occurred in the local area recently. There is also mention of issues such as lack of safe footpath linkages between the villages and the site and the ongoing parish planning exercises.

Principle of Redeveloping the New section added to Chapter 5 (Site Analysis) that Site outlines the site’s benefits and constraints. This is again based on consultation responses and places upfront some of the constraints to and benefits of development that will need to be overcome/maximized.

Defining the Energy Park It is recognised that the draft SPD did not outline in a Concept single place a clear definition or the concept of an Energy Park. Although the Vision and Key Deliverables section discusses the concept, it failed to identify the key 19

components or drivers of an Energy Park or outline why this concept is appropriate for the former Royal Ordnance Factory site.

To address this a new section has been added to Chpater 6 setting out the concept of an Energy Park and identifying its key components and drivers. This can then be used as a framework for assessing whether individual proposals that may subsequently be promoted for the site meet the overall concept and vision of the Energy Park. This will also support the identified key deliverables for the site.

Key components of the Energy park concept now identified include:

 Multifunctional energy park that goes beyond routine economic development;

 Promotion of renewables culture and emerging technologies

 Opportunities for decentralised power supply

 Net exporter of energy and strive to be waste neutral

 Promotion of clean energy

 Integrated approach to energy production, distribution, storage, production , research and development and sustainability

 Promotion of walking, cycling and/or other zero/low carbon transport

Economic Considerations New Section (6.2) added that sets out the economic context for the site This sets out a reasoned justification for why the former ROF is the most appropriate site for an Energy park providing the background on the economic drivers for the site’s identification in the Council’s Economic Masterplan and Core Strategy.

This sets out the importance to the economy of the Energy park concept in terms of growing sectors but also in terms of the opportunity to increase local and higher skilled jobs into the area. Specific mention is made of local labour agreements and their role in maximizing opportunities for local employment opportunities.

Transport Strategy The draft SPD did not set out a comprehensive approach to guide the development of a transport strategy for the site although it acknowledged that the full potential of the site will not be realised without substantial improvements.

Whilst a new access road is likely to be a significant element of this there are a number of parameters that the SPD should set out to ensure any proposal for the site, through the preparation of a full Transport Assessment, answers the following key questions:

(a) At what stage would a new access road be required for the site to mitigate adverse impact on the existing local highway network taking into account cumulative impacts (including Hinkley Point C and other planned development in the locality);

(b) To what extent can alternative sustainable travel options (rail-link, dedicated bus links etc) influence the transport strategy for the site;

(d) How any transport strategy for the site should be linked to its phasing to ensure infrastructure is provided when it is needed.

To do this the Transport and Accessibility Section (now Section 5.6) has been completely rewritten and reframed to move away from identifying a specific road route and instead provides higher level advice as to what will be expected in developing a transport strategy for the site and undertaking the Transport Assessment. This includes consideration of other transport measures (including the re-instatement of the rail link), consideration of alternative access options and the opportunity for addressing existing traffic problems in the villages.

In summary the key elements of the revised section are:

 Identifies need for comprehensive transport solution for the site and makes no reference to a specific access road option;

 Outlines the traffic issues in the locality and on the strategic road network

 Identifies the key transport concerns of the local residents in making representations on the draft 21

SPD

 Identifies the key elements of what the transport strategy should address i.e. what stage is a new road required, what extent do alternative sustainable travel options reduce this requirement, what are the reasonable road option alternatives

 Sets in detail how a transport assessment will need to meet the requirements of DfT guidance including the key principles that will need to be considered

 Identifies specific elements that a Transport Assessment will need to include for the former ROF site including travel plan, assessment of alternative access options, and identification of wider measure to address existing traffic issues that may be exacerbated by the development (i.e. dealing with more than just site access)

 Identifies a framework for enabling assessment of impacts of development and any proposed mitigation measures (i.e. new transport infrastructure) based on DfT guidance that sets out criteria against which options should be assessed.

 Includes further detailed advice in respect of preparing a Travel Plan

 Includes a new subsection on walking, cycling, horse riding and public transport

 Emphasises the role that reconnecting the rail link could have and its feasibility.

Potential Uses Potential uses are now dealt with alongside the Energy park concept (Chapter 6) and the section (Section 6.4) has been revised to provide clarification regarding the uses identified as having potential.

For Energy generation the revised section now refers to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) and the different consenting regime that now exists for these. The likelihood that there will be NSIPs on the site has meant there are also changes to the Policy Context section (Chapter 4) and the requirements of a Planning

Application section (Chapter 9)

For Logistics the section has been revised to make it clearer that whilst there may be a subsequent role for logistics (where this is specifically related to energy industries or ability to utilize energy generated on the site) this cannot open up the site or prejudice or dilute the Energy park concept.

In addition the section now makes specific reference to the potential role of the New Nuclear Supply Chain in association with Hinkley Point C. This section flags up that the need for significant remediation and infrastructure investment for the site suggests the Energy Park project is likely to be a long-term project extending over the remainder of the Core Strategy plan period (to 2027). However if rapid progress on remediation, progressing the planning application for the site’s redevelopment and delivering any necessary upfront infrastructure is made the site may also provide some short term opportunity for accommodating supply chain businesses associated with the construction of new nuclear build at Hinkley Point.

The draft SPD made no reference to this short-term opportunity and it is considered that some policy guidance should be provided to ensure any supply chain proposals do not prejudice the longer term objectives for the Energy Park.

The new section therefore identifies a potential role for nuclear supply chain uses in an early phase of the site’s redevelopment, particularly where this facilitates the early delivery of key infrastructure for the Energy Park and is compatible with the longer term objectives of the site set out in the SPD.

9. FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH PURITON PARISH COUNCIL AND PURITON RESIDENTS GROUP

9.1 The draft SPD was amended in line with the changes identified above and as set out in the full schedule of representations and subsequently reported to the Council’s Executive meeting on 11th January 2012 for approval and recommendation to Council that the SPD be adopted. The Executive were advised that immediately prior to the Executive meeting a Puriton Residents Group had raised further concerns regarding the content of the SPD and had sought the deferral of this item in lieu of a further meeting. On the officers recommendation the Executive endorsed the opportunity for a further meeting with the Residents Group and Puriton Parish Council to enable officers to explain and clarify the content and role of the final draft of the SPD prior to its presentation at Full Council.

9.2 As a result the Executive unanimously supported that the Puriton Energy Park Supplementary Planning Document should be recommended for adoption by Full Council, subject to no new substantive issues arising from the meeting with the Puriton Residents Group and Parish Council.

9.3 Officers met with representatives of Puriton Parish Council and the Puriton Residents Group on Thursday 26th January 2012 and presented the structure and contents of the final draft SPD. Officers highlighted the key areas of change that had been made following the last consultation period (as set out in Section 8 above).

9.4 It was agreed at the meeting that officers would circulate the full final draft of the SPD to the Parish Council and Residents Group and provide a 2 week opportunity for further comment on the full final draft. It was hoped that the Parish Council and Residents Group would be in a position to formally support the SPD, or, if there remained further outstanding concerns, a further meeting would be held prior to any Full Council meeting. However the importance of adopting the SPD in advance of any planning application for the site was stressed and agreed by all parties at the meeting.

9.5 Subsequently the Parish Council and Residents Group made further comments and requests for clarification on specific areas of the final draft of the SPD and officers have subsequently responded to these. The comments received and the Council’s response is attached in Appendix A7. In responding to the concerns of the Residents Group and the Parish Council the comments have been dealt with in three ways:

1. Where the comments have been agreed and where a further change to the SPD has been made, these primarily related to contextual issues or where further clarification is considered useful. These changes are set out in full in the Council’s response to the Parish Council and Residents Group attached in Appendix A7. Examples include:

 The removal of obsolete references to a new A39 link road;

 Additional text on the benefits of the redevelopment of the site to the surrounding local communities;

 Further information on the role of the Local Impact Report in the case of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects; and

 Additional text relating to the potential impacts of HGV traffic.

2. Where a number of comments raised issues where clarification was sought but no further change to the SPD is necessary. Examples of such clarification include:

 The intentions and terminology of other policy documents i.e. the Economic Master plan, Somerset Waste Core Strategy etc.;

 Confirmation of the flood risk of the site;

 The feasibility of the rail link;

 Appropriateness of promoting cycling and walking to work;

 The potential for local labour; and

 The nature of nuclear supply chain.

3. Where requests for further changes relating to particular issues were made but are not considered necessary or reasonable. These include:

 How benefits and constraints are presented in the SPD;

 The appropriateness of the inclusion of a requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment of all road options;

 Perceived lack of clarity over the Energy Park concept and appropriate uses; and

 The role of logistics in the medium to long-term.

9.6 A further meeting was held on the 20th March 2012 with officers, the Parish Council and Residents Group to discuss the outstanding issues. At that meeting consensus was reached in respect of the SPD with the Parish Council and Residents Group accepting that no further changes above those already agreed were required. Both the Parish Council Residents Group endorsed in principle the SPD as amended albeit concerns in respect of the proposals for the site being advanced by the site owners remain.

9.7 The Puriton Energy Park SPD was formally adopted at the Full Council meeting on 30th March 2012.

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 The adopted Puriton Energy SPD provides an essential framework for ensuring the redevelopment of the former Royal Ordnance Factory site is both achievable and meets the Council’s objectives for creating a focus for energy related business, employment and skills to assist the restructuring of the local economy.

10.2 It will be critical in demonstrating that the Puriton Energy Park concept is deliverable, particularly in light of its constraints including access and contamination and in providing confidence to investors. The SPD sets out how the Energy Park will be sensitively designed having regard to existing landscape and ecological assets as well as the site’s relationship to nearby local communities and surrounding countryside.

10.3 The SPD has been the subject of robust public consultation in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and legislative requirements. This has led to a number of significant changes to the original draft version. Key changes include providing greater clarification on the key components and drivers of the Energy Park and redirecting the focus towards a comprehensive transport strategy that benefits not only the site’s redevelopment but also seeks to address existing issues in the local area.

APPENDICES

A1. List of Persons and Organisations Notified

A2. Summary Leaflet

A3. Notes from Stage 1 Drop In Sessions

A4. Slides from Presentation to Parish and Cluster Meetings

A5. Notes from Stage 2 Drop In Sessions

A6. Notes from Public Meeting

A7. Puriton Parish Council and Residents Group - Further Comments and Response

A1. List of Persons and Organisations Notified

Organisations

Name Organisation Mark Thomas Acorn Developments (SW) Ltd James Whilding Acorus Rural Property Services Nick Miles Advantage South West Libby Lisgo Age Concern Somerset Mr Alan Buttle AJB (south west) Ltd Dale Evans Alder King Ancient Monument Society Anglo Irish Investments Ltd Anglo Irish Investments Ltd Animal Farm Adventure Park Animal Farm Adventure Park G Taylor Architecture by Design Mr Rupert Crosbee Area manager Sustrans Mrs Jane Hennell Area Planner British Waterways Siobhain McCurrach Arthritis Care Asda Stores Ltd Asda Stores Ltd Wendy White Association of Bridgwater Industrialists Marcus Wood Atkins Inspector Shane Carey Avon and Somerset Constabulary Colin Port Avon and Somerset Constabulary David Harley Avon and Somerset Constabulary Barry Hamblin Axbridge Chamber of Commerce Elaine Turner Axbridge Chamber of Trade Maggie Stanley Axbridge Town Design Plan BAE Systems Mr Ian Mellor Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Bath and Wells Diocesan Board Bath and Wells Diocesan Board Bath and Wells Diocesan Board Bath and Wells Diocesan Board G J Berry Berry Associates Bloor Homes Bloor Homes Nick Yeo Blue Cedar Homes Ltd. Bourne Leisure Ltd Mark Slater Bovis Homes Michael Buxton Bovis Homes Chris Marks Braveheart Consultancy Mr D Baker Bridgwater & District Archaeological Society Mr D Gibson Bridgwater & District Civic Society Steve Leahy Bridgwater Chamber of Commerce Dawn Catlow Bridgwater Chamber of Commerce Ed Moll Bridgwater Churches Together/Church Leaders Forum Fiona MacMillan Bridgwater College

Councillor Bill Monteith Bridgwater Eastover Ward Kathie Wilson Bridgwater Forward Mr and Mrs M Wilson Bridgwater Forward Mr W R Cudlipp Bridgwater Forward H A Derek Gibson Bridgwater Heritage Regeneration Partnership John Vieth Bridgwater Industrialists Phil Sealey Bridgwater Senior Citizens Forum Trevor Warner Bridgwater Without Parish Council Martin Hodgson Bridgwater YMCA Keith Walton Bristol & Severnside Rail Partnership D Hayman British Telecom PLC Unknown British Transco Mr James Stacey BS16 5EL Tetlow King Planning Ltd Julia Ridge BSF Programme Director Somerset County Council Geoff Shickle Burnham Chamber of Commerce Mr charles Hall Burnham Development Somerset Ltd Mr C Morris Burnham Traders Association Jeremy Gould CABE (South West) David Mellor CABE (South West) Aaron Smith Caldecotte Consultants Mr P Beard Caravan Club Mrs Stephanie Lord Carleton Lord Carpets Ltd Brian Dinnis Carver Knowles Mark Sanders Carver Knowles Mr Smith Central Romani Travellers' Council Auriol Penniceard CHANGE Nigel Taylor Cheddar Parish Council Mrs Lyn Goodfellow Cheddar Parish Council Mrs A Brading Cheddar Valley Railway Walk Society N K Carter Cheddon Fitzpaine Parish Council C Groves Chris Groves Associates R Ford Clerk Aller Parish Council Mrs L Flowers Clerk Ashcott Parish Council Ms V Young Clerk Ashcott Parish Council Mrs V Brice Clerk Axbridge Town Council Mrs Victoria Brice Clerk Axbridge Town Council Mrs C Morris Clerk Badgworth Parish Council Graham Jarvis Clerk Bawdrip Parish Council Mrs L Smith Clerk Berrow Parish Council Mary Rousseau Clerk Bishops Lydeard and Cothelstone Parish Council Mr D Woolley Clerk Blagdon Parish Council Mr B Poole Clerk Bleadon Parish Council Mr B Hunt Clerk Brean Parish Council Owen Cullwick Clerk Brent Knoll Parish Council 29

Mr A G Hurford Clerk Bridgwater Town Council Mrs K Lang Clerk Bridgwater Without Parish Council Ann Manders Clerk Broomfield Parish Council Mr R Young Clerk Burnham Without Parish Council Mrs E Shaw Clerk Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge Town Council Louisa Purcell Clerk Burrington Parish Council Mrs M Perdue Clerk Burtle Parish Council Patricia Villis Clerk Cannington Parish Council Mrs J A Marshall Clerk Catcott Parish Council Gerald Prince Clerk Chapel Allerton Parish Council Wendy Barritt Clerk Cheddar Parish Council Mr Chris Fry Clerk Chedzoy Parish Council Ms Liza Irwin Clerk Chilton Polden Parish Council Graham Jarvis Clerk Chilton Trinity Parish Council Lindsay Ireland Clerk Churchill Parish Council Paul Passey Clerk Compton Bishop Parish Council Mr R A Young Clerk Cossington Parish Council Jill Loader Clerk Creech St Michael Parish Council Mrs A Brewer Clerk Crowcombe Parish Council Mr Chris Sidaway Clerk Durleigh Parish Council Robert Strachan Clerk East Brent Parish Council Mr B Poole Clerk East Huntspill Parish Council Mrs J Marshall clerk Edington Parish Council Ann Manders Clerk Enmore Parish Council Tina Gardener Clerk Fiddington Parish Council Ann Manders Clerk Goathurst Parish Council J Jeans Clerk Godney Parish Council David Salter Clerk Greinton Parish Council C Pilkington Clerk High Ham Parish Council Mr P M Brimson Clerk Holford Parish Council Caroline Roche Clerk Kingston St Mary Parish Council Alan Parfitt Clerk Loxton Parish Council Robin Leveridge Clerk Lympsham Parish Council H Walker Clerk Lyng Parish Council Mr R A Young Clerk Mark Parish Council Sheila Brown Clerk Meare Parish Council Mrs P Jamieson Clerk Middlezoy Parish Council Gilly Hayward Clerk Moorlynch Parish Meeting Hilary Harris Clerk North Curry Parish Council Mr K Wassell Clerk North Petherton Town Council Mr J H Swayne Clerk Othery Parish Council Mr P Shaw Clerk Otterhampton Parish Council Mr Barry Leathwood Clerk Otterhampton Parish Council Teresa Dane Clerk Over Stowey Parish Council 30

Graham Jarvis Clerk Pawlett Parish Council J Small Clerk Priddy Parish Council Mr B Poole Clerk Puriton Parish Council Richard Kilburn Clerk Rodney Stoke Parish Council Mrs Sue Williams Clerk Shapwick Parish Council Mrs L Rigg Clerk Shipham Parish Council Ms S Keohane Clerk Spaxton Parish Council Diana Brown Clerk Stawell Parish Council Michael Caswell Clerk Stockland Bristol Parish Meeting Mrs A Prowse Clerk Stogursey Parish Council Tony McKenzie Clerk Stoke St Gregory Parish Council Helen Gimbert Clerk Thurloxton Parish Council Helen Moore Clerk Walton Parish Council Alan Parfitt Clerk Weare Parish Council Mr S Emary Clerk Wedmore Parish Council Mr Owen Cullwick Clerk Wembdon Parish Council Peter Hamilton Clerk West Bagborough Parish Council Mrs Alex Richards Clerk West Huntspill Parish Council Mr Mark Smith Clerk Westbury-sub-Mendip Parish Council Alan Hurford Clerk Westonzoyland Parish Council Richard Young Clerk Woolavington Parish Council Mr M Williams Clive Miller Associates Bob Hull Cluttons LLP James Edwards Colliers CRE Felix Marsh Community Council for Somerset Miriam Maddison Community Somerset County Council Mr Richard Parker Compton Bishop Parish Council Concise Construction Ltd Concise Construction Ltd Dave Cornish Connecting Somerset Broadband Programme Manager Somerset County Council Linden Groves Conservation Department Garden History Society Phil Stone Countryside and Coast Manager Somerset County Council Joy Williams Countryside Project Officer Mrs Joy Williams Countryside Project Officer Somerset County Council A T Hayes Court Design Becky Collier CPRE Somerset Debra Harrison CSJ Planning D S Dunlop D2 Planning Limited David Ames David Ames Associates Andrew Penna David Wilson Homes David Wilson Homes/Notaro New Homes Katie Delaney De Pol Associates Ltd. Jeremy Gibbins Defence Estates Operations South Unknown Department of National Heritage

John Routledge Department of Works and Pensions Helen Attewell Development Planning Partnership Mr Tim Roberts DLP Planning S Reading Douglas Smith Partnership Diane Bowyer DPDS Mike Craggs DPDS Conor Lee DPDS Chris Cox DTZ Consulting and Research Mr J Green Durston Parish Meeting Ross Edwards EDF Energy Richard Mayson EDF Energy Edwin Fisher Will Trust Caroline Power English Heritage Donald Rayner English Rural Action Ltd Ensign Group Ltd Ensign Group Ltd David Crowson Environment Agency Rebecca Randall Environment Agency Mathew Crocker Environment Agency Dave Pring Environment Agency Andy Reading Environment Agency Unknown Environment and Public Affairs Committee Women's Institute Jinny Uppingham Equality South West Christopher Silverthorne Estate Manager Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service John Clements Exmoor National Park Authority Ben Thorne Farm Conservation Officer Farming & Wildlife Advisory Group Rupert Cox Federation of Small Businesses Unknown Federation of Young Farmers Mr P S Cairns FEPOW Fellowship Mr Peter Kidman Fernleigh Properties L Murray Flinders Design Tony Fawle Footpath Secretary Sedgemoor Ramblers Unknown Forestry Commission Ralph Willoughby Foster Forward Planning Unit Manager Taunton Deane Borough Council Mr T Thomas Friends, Families and Travellers Support Group Steve Staines Friends, Families and Travellers Support Group Alex Wilson Fulford Land & Planning Julian Crow General Manager First Great Western James Stacey Genesis Town Planning Georgian Group Goodman Simone Wilding GOSW Lynne Roberts GR Planning Consultancy Ltd G Moir Graham Moir Associates Ben Hudson Greenhill & Brownfield 32

Jeremy Bell Greenslade Taylor Hunt Simon Gitsham Greenslade Taylor Hunt N Forrest Greenslade Taylor Hunt Mr A J Preston Greenslade Taylor Hunt Gregory Gray Associates Martin Carnell Group Manager Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Mrs Jo Davis GVA Liz Summers GVA Grimley Hallam Land Management R Hammonds Hammonds Yate Partnership Derek Woodward Hannick Homes & Developments Ltd Philip Wilkinson Haygrove School Unknown Hazardous Installation Directorate Health & Safety Executive Unknown Health & Safety Executive Ms L Payne Heriz Payne Ltd Kim Chatwin Highbridge Residents Association Mr T Moore Highbridge Traders Association Mrs Jacqui Ashman Highways Agency Mrs Jacqui Ashman Highways Agency Mrs Jacqui Ashman Highways Agency Mrs Jo Brown HINKLEY DELEGATE PCAH (Parents Concerned About Hinkley) Simon Dunford Hinkley Project Director EDF Energy Mike Johnson Hoddell Associates Richard House Holiday Resort Unity Unknown Home Builders Federation Jon Bickerton Homes In Sedgemoor Mr Marcus Plaw Hornington Investments Limited Housing Corporation Hudson and PM Asset Management M Handel Humberts Jamie Lewis Hunter Page Planning Mr Daniel Sharp Ian Jewson Planning Chris Jewell Inland Waterway Association West Country branch John Bloomfield Innovia Films David Oliver Insight Marketing Robert Hayter Isle of Wedmore Society Dr M Perring J24 Action Group Mr T Mapstone J24 Action Group Mrs D Perring J24 Action Group Mr G Stone J24 Action Group Mrs M Fooks-Bale J24 Action Group Mr C Perring J24 Action Group W & B Littler J24 Action Group Mrs J Foster J24 Action Group 33

Mrs E Mapstone J24 Action Group Mrs Fielder J24 Action Group Miss E J Penny J24 Action Group Mr W Fooks-Bale J24 Action Group Mr R A Clark J24 Action Group Mr J Thorne J24 Action Group Mrs J Clark J24 Action Group Mr T Foster J24 Action Group Maria Stephens J24 Action Group Mr P Lancaster J24 Action Group Mrs S Wilkey J24 Action Group Junction 24 Action Group J24 Action Group Mrs Jane Clarke Jane Clarke Architectural Services Carole M Stellman JKL Architects and Town Planners Ltd. Mr R Gray Jonathon Rhind Architects JS Bloor & Barratt Strategic JS Bloor & Barratt Strategic Kenmore (Bridgwater) LLP Kenmore (Bridgwater) LLP Catherine Owen King Alfred School Michael Wellock Kirkwells David Staniland Knight Frank Jenny Offord Knight Frank Jennifer Islip Landhold Capital Shan Dassanaike Leith Planning Ltd Sean Wildman Leith Planning Ltd Liz Weaver Level - Innovation in Housing and Planning Mike O'Dowd-Jones Local Transport Plan Team Somerset County Council Mr Shaw Lower Axe and Brue Drainage Boards L Brett Lyndon Brett Partnership Rob Snook Lyndon Brett Partnership Jeremy Damrel Mace Group Mr M Ali Muktar Magna Mr Chris Edwards Manager Quantock Hills AONB Service Mccarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd Mead Realisations Ltd Mead Realisations Ltd Menadorm Menadorm John Meeker Mendip District Council Jonathon Richards Mendip Hills AONB Service Mendip Hills AONB Unit and the Quantock Hills AONB Service Stuart Laurie Mendip Society Prof Stuart Laurie Mendip Society Carli Tuttiett Midland and Western Region Road Haulage Association Andrew Reeve Midland and Western Region Road Haulage Association Miller Turner Investment Miller Turner Investment Management Ltd Miller Turner Investment Miller Turner Investment Management Ltd 34

Alyn Jones Minerals and Waste Policy Manager Somerset County Council Mr C Mitchell Mitchell Architects Caroline Wilson Mobile Operators Association Mark Wood MWA Mr K Doig National Farmers Union Emma Woodhouse National Farmers' Union South West Region Alice de la Rue National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups National Grid Mr H Smith National Gypsy Council Karin Taylor National Trust Glen Gillespie Natural England Barbara Morgan Network Rail Geraint Hughes NEW Masterplanning Limited Andrew Tucker Newsites Manager BT Openreach NHS Somerset Louise Webster NHS Somerset Frances Young NLP Planning North Somerset Council Notaro New Homes Mr Moiz Khanbhai Objective Corporation Unknown One 2 One Personal Communications Ltd Ms Kate Ashbrook Open Spaces Society John Miller Operations Manager First Somerset and Avon Mr Stevens Parrett Drainage Board Consortium Mr Marcus Wood Parsons Brinckerhoff Richard Swinden Partner Peter Brett Associates LLP Paul Lillycrop Paul Lillycrop Building Design Mr P Martin Paul Martin Associates P Rowe Paul Rowe Architectural Services David Lobban PCL Planning Ltd Emma Geater Persimmon Homes Severn Valley Mr Graham Parker PJ Planning Barry Pearce Planning Aid Co-ordinator South West Planning Aid Stephen Carnaby Planning Inspectorate Kate Sewell Planning Potential Miss Robyn Blackburn Planning Potential Ltd Port of Bridgwater J Phillips PPDL Charles St George PPS Group PR Bridgwater Ltd PR Bridgwater Ltd Mr P Reddish PRDesign Andrew Patrick PRO Vision Planning and Design Mark Littlewood Project Manager for Steart Penninsula Environment Agency T Hammick Property Link (South) Ltd 35

Emma Jane Preece Quantock Hills AONB Service Adam Coombs Quod Mary Adamson Relate Ms K Clarke Robinson & Brice Mark Griffiths Royal Mail Mrs S Jeffries Royal Mail Property Holdings Richard Archer Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Nick Laister RPS Planning Francesca Freeman RSPB Taunton S Notaro Ltd Mr K Riensema Safety Regulations Group Civil Aviation Authority Julie Cooper SAGE Pam Earnshaw SAGE N Salmon Salmon Planning Company Neal Jillings Savills Dave Chapple Secretary Bridgwater TUC David Parkin Secretary Sustainable Axbridge Network Mrs Mary White Sedgemoor Bridleways Association Joanna Saddington Sedgemoor Citizens Advice Bureau Mr T Mander Sedgemoor District Council Mr Andrew Woodward Sedgemoor District Council Tom Dougall Sedgemoor District Council Dominique Beach Sedgemoor Saunterers Sedgemoor Volunteer Bureau Bob Sellwood Sellwood Planning Stuart Anderson Senior Planner Willis & Co. Mr Peter Hobley SENIOR RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICER Somerset County Council Rob Ball SEO, Bridgwater Job Centre Plus Helen Wakeling Service and Operations Manager (Adult Social Care Services) Somerset County Council Natasha Barker Severn Estuary Partnership Mr Nigel Bray Severnside Branch Secretary railfuture David Martin Sewerage Planning Manager Wessex Water John Thomson SHAL Housing Ltd Mrs V Norton Sharpham Parish Council J W Shattock Shattock Associates Heather Clay Showmans Guild of Great Britain J Bostock Simmons Building Design Mr N Miles Small Industries Group Roger Brown Smith Gamblin Haworth Stephen Ashworth SNR Denton UK LLP Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Mr Page Somerset Archaeological Society (South) Peter Lacey Somerset Association of Local Councils

Somerset Black Development Agency Somerset Branch Inland Waterways Mrs E Adams Somerset Building Preservation Trust Rupert Cox Somerset Chamber of Commerce Ms S Davidson-Grant Somerset County Council David Clews Somerset County Council Councillor A Ham Somerset County Council Larry Burrows Somerset County Council Mrs Sarah Winfield Somerset County Council Richard Antliff Somerset County Council Sarah Diacono Somerset County Council Councillor Sam Crabb Somerset County Council Mike Hone Somerset County Council Iain Sturdy Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium Mr Andy Sherwood Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium Melanie Roberts Somerset Economic Partnership Somerset Environmental Records Centre Mrs P Mallet-Harris Somerset Gardens Trust Somerset Gateway Somerset Gay Health Peter Grainger Somerset Hedge Group Mr C Buchanan Somerset Industrial Archaeological Society Dominie Dunbrook Somerset Levels & Moors LEADER+ Mr N Stuart-Thorn Somerset Playing Fields Association Somerset Racial Equality Council Somerset Rural Youth Bob Nicholson Somerset Tourism Association Paul Bowkett Somerset Tourism Association Ms Michelle Osbourn Somerset Wildlife Trust David Redgwell Somerset, Wiltshire and Cotswold Transport 2000 Andy Foyne South Somerset District Council Tony James South West Ambulance Service Henning Totz South West Councils Michael Barry South West HARP Planning Consortium Colin Molton South West Homes and Communities Agency Brian Cox South West Law Keith Annis South West Planning Director Redrow Paul Willis South West Reg. Committee of Jehovah's Witnesses Stephanie Hall South West Regional Development Agency Jessica Potter South West Regional Development Agency Mr John Edwards Spaxton Parish Council Martin Drennan Sport England Dr Phillip Edwards Steart Residents Group Laura Ross Stewart Ross Associates/DevPlan 37

Mr Paul Davis Strategic Land Director Persimmon Homes Severn Valley Sue Walker Strategic Land Partnership Simon Steele-Perkins Strategic Land Partnership P Browning Strategic Plans and Policy Group Somerset County Council Summerfield SW Ltd Sustainable Somerset Group Rupert Crosbee Sustrans D Tallis Tallis Surveyors Ian Walker Tamlyn & Son J Venton Tamlyn & Son Mr R Pitman Taunton Access Group David Allwright Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Roger Mitchinson Taunton Deane Borough Council Mr Torsten Daniel Taunton Deane Borough Council Bruce Mitchell Taunton Vale Gospel Hall Trust Mr A H Winter Team Green Growers Ltd Team Greengrowers Team Greengrowers Ltd John Leonard Telereal Services John Leonard Telereal Services Martin Miller Terence O Rourke Miss Rachael Bust The Coal Authority Phillip Thompson The Planning Bureau Ltd. Maggie Smith-Bendell The Romani Gypsy Council Kevin Bird The Silverwood Partnership Joanna Fryer The Town and Country Planning Practice Ltd. Rose Freeman Theatres Trust Trevor Spurway Trevor J Spurway (Architects) Ltd. Mr Peter Rendle Trustee Miles & Hurman Charity Trusts Dan Templeton Turley Associates Unison South West Mr Gooding Upper Brue and Axe Internal Drainage Boards Unknown Victorian Society Ian Durstan Wales and West Utilities Guy Robinson Waste Policy Manager Somerset County Council Waste Policy Team Martin Berryman Water Resource Manager Bristol Water Greg Dyke Wellington Town Council Gillian Sanders Wessex Water Dave Ogborne Wessex Water Derek Meredith West Avon and Somerset Constabulary Unknown West Country Ambulance Service NHS Trust P Cavill West Monkton Parish Council Martin Wilsher West Somerset District Council Clive Goodman Western Power Distribution

Alison Sleightholm Western Power Distribution Emily Harris White Young Green Simon Metcalf White Young Green Lynne Rampton Winscombe and Sandford Parish Council Mr Justin Milward Woodland Trust Denise Boulton Wookey Parish Council Cllrs Baker, Slocombe and Bown Wyndham Ward Sarah Maylor Yarlington Housing Group Yeo Valley Ltd and Holt Farms Ltd Ian Wallace Young Somerset

Individuals

Mr Michael Jackson Peter Foale A M Hillyer Mr Brandon Treloar Graham Lockley Mr Peter Scully Dr Peter Cattermole Julie Jones John Edwards Mr G Liddall Mr & Mrs Cecil Whitehouse Keith Varnham Mrs Jones Mrs A M Fuller Sharon Lewis Mr D B Hosegood Jane Harvey-Hill Angela Tarr Alex Turco Rev Price Simon Hayne Mr Richard Fielder Barry Galloway Daren Marshall Robert Hood Cynthia Galloway Martin Chandler Sue McIntyre Andrea Johnstone Mr Martin Stone Mr Gilbert Penwell Min Wardman Dr Andrew Tye Mr & Mrs J Sayer Mr Mike Newman Mr Ernest Warrender Mr & Mrs E Rowland Mrs S M Dalby Mr Anthony Hughes Mr R C Fisher Mr S Ridler Mr Peter Clayton Alastair Gibson Sue Pow P J Bedingfield Harry Prideaux Ernie Warrender B R Hallett Mr A E Ensor Mr John Whale David Swan A Boyd Mrs W Alsbury Mr E R Parsons Mrs G Davies David Wood Mr R Giles Mr & Mrs A Whitcombe Jim Barnard Georgina Hoole Mrs S J Trusler Caroline Langford Allan Jeffery Patrick Duckett Terry Pope Miss S Merriott Hugh Clancy Russell Walker John Elkerton Clare Wardman Paul Gripton Tucker M W Sutton Mr and Mrs Peakall C Vanstone Julia Chedgey Henry Welch Donna and Wayne Lockie J H Denbee Mr R S Robson David and Cheryl Murray- Smith Mr T Carrott Mr and Mrs A A Lockie John Barker Mr R Lewis Bryony Sadler Brian Wells Jane Saunders Leah Jones Mrs L Savage 39

Nick Van Weede K Moore Brian Treloar Mrs Richards Mr. W. John Rigler Mr Rob Shorthouse Ron Hancock Philip Ham Mr Adams JM Brown Ms Claire ap Rees Mr GB Harding Ian Liddell-Granger MP Sarah Armstrong Brian Britton Ian Tabrett Sue Whytock k chatwin Mr Anthony Strange Mr David Polly Mr Tom Boyd Gav Sadler Jean Whitehouse Mr Peter Montague Mr J Mundell Mr S R Selby Mr Ronald Allen MR THOMAS CAVE Mr S L Baker J F Barattini Mr C Kedge Mr PJ Bell Steve Rossiter Dr John White mr ian prescott Andy Williams Mrs Marjorie Rigby Marco Sapiano Jenny Sturges Mr Mike Holme Mrs Audrey Bull Mr and Mrs Gavin and Penny Houlgate Mrs sue harvey Bill Hawker mr paul edwards Chris and Ruth Marshall Ray Parker Tessa Munt MP Mr Rob Peters Angus Wans Steven Fisher Peter Reed Mr G E Sharpe Nick Yeo Dan Ayres Ian Jenkins Paul Athay Mrs Howe Mr CPS Hooper Alan Guyver MJ Garrett Aileen and Christopher Munday Marsha May P R Woolley Mrs SM Saunders Mr R N Connelly Roy Harbour Tim Adams Mr E Hopkins David Organ Mr and Mrs Roper Mr & Mrs Block Mr D Lott Carolyn Hodge Mrs Diggins Mr David Coles Mr G Sutton Mr M McLaughan David Jenkins Ms Wilma Hamblin Mr Richard Selway Glyn Larcombe Lisa Johnson T J Haywood Mr David Squire J Beauchamp Justin Krause-Davies Michael Dalby Mr and Mrs Peter Simmonds Geoff and Jo Howe Brian Priddle Mr Bruce Poole Mr John Whale Susan and Philip Crocker Martin Lane Mrs Helen Phillips Mr John Whale Jane Hawkings Mr George Cossey Nigel Adlam Mike Jackson Mr Shaun Laws Anne Jeffries Mr Marcus Tottle C Gould Graham Watson MEP J and L Woolcott Richard Gower Miss Sarah Roberts Paul Hill Amanda Goddard Jackie Curtis Mr David Lott Mrs Christine Carr John Malcolm Mrs Sue Whytock Mr Greg Jones Dennis Cording Mr David Harman Luke Turner Robert Topazio Mrs Freda Draper Mr Alex Reed Teressa Garner Mr Steve Smith Mr Brin Bowen Fiona Goldsmith mr mick franks Mr Jim Rawe

Mr & Mrs D Porteus Mrs J Youds Mr Neil Hannaford Mrs Mary Olsen Mr Jeremy Stockley Mr Malcolm Barry Mrs Jill Lisk F and J Lowe Mr F.J Grove Mrs A Hughes Andrew Bolton Roger Day Mrs Hazel Beresford Mrs J G Hurst Ms Judith Fletcher Julie Nicholson John Rogers Janet and Jin Potticary Mr & Mrs Neil Scott Mr Tony Edwards Mr George Pope MR ANDREW KELLY David Kirk Mrs Georgina Sapiano Dr David Temple Dr Philip Jago Mr Peter Oates Mr Andrew Escott Mr Robert Snelling Mr Grant Hawley Mr David Harman Mrs Jenny Gibson John Barnes Cavanna Homes & Ensign Mr David Jones Mr Roger Mason Group Mr Vyvyan Goss mrs julie williams Peter Greig Mr David Hathaway Mrs Shirley Garland Mr S Rainsford Mr Roy Deakin David and Trina Dunderdale Mrs J Lucas Ms Elizabeth Skilton MR PHIL BRYER Mrs Judith Fursland Mr Stephen Bryant Mrs Lyn Goodfellow Mr S Dorrall Mr Keith Scarles Mrs Sarah Jansons Mrs Victoria Houghton Mrs Shelagh Norton Mrs patricia webster Mr Stephen Brown Dr john white Mr Matthew Jackson-Smith Robert Atkins Hudson and PM Asset Mr Christopher Dowey B and D Spicer Management Mr Richard Cuttell Robert Jones Mrs Lynsey Irish Mrs Elizabeth Farmery B R and S A Helps Steve Largent Tim Moss Richard Adams John and Yvonne Tingle Mrs Janice Beasley Trevor & Margaret Davis Mr Nick van Weede Howard Mr T M Jones Mr. Alexander Taylor Mr Neil Garrod Mrs Claire Montague Mr David Barge Mrs sam worner MRS JEAN HOWARD mr martin franks Mrs J Baker Mr and Mrs Fletcher Mr Lance Williams G. A. Holford Susan Moor Mr Nigel Robson Scully Mrs Jane Awty Mr Peter Kirkham Mrs S Butler Mrs Wendy Stother mrs Janet Parry Mr Ron Hancock Mr David Spicer Mr Peter Burke mr Kevin Richardson Mr Philip Griggs M R James Mrs Sue Jones Mrs Julie Vennard Rebecca Rogers Mr Timothy Herold Mrs Jo Hutchins Mr Dave Solomon Mrs Margaret Boyd Mr P C Pappin Mr David Flack Mrs Amy Rivers Mr Brian Stother Tim Walters P R Smith Mrs Jo Brown Miss Rachel Stebbing Mr John Trotman Mr Tony Slade Wyndham Ward Councillors Mrs Karen Bolton Mr and Mrs Pile Dr P R Farmer Mr John Billingham Ian Luckman Nick Birch

Mr R.M.Birkenhead rupert bullock Madeleine and Terry Upham R.M.Birkenhead Mr R.M.Birkenhead David Langford Paul Manchip R.M.Birkenhead Paul Barrett Mr John Lucas Mrs Jo Comer Mr Robin Smith Mr Grant Edwards Mr Carleton Lord Mrs Cicely Smith Mrs L Dorrall Mr Mlchael Randle Norman Salter Miss Sarah Darke Mr Nigel Taylor Heather Strawbridge Mrs Susan Greaves Mr Michael Collins Mr R J Raymond Roy Pumfrey Mr & Mrs Cattle MR MATHEW MORGAN mrs julie williams Elizabeth Peel Debbie O'Keefe Mrs Marie Little Mr Neil Pattemore Mr Paul Webb Gloria Jackson Mr James Ashworth Mr Mathew Morgan Mr Graham Webster Mr Les CHANT mrs lynda laird Stephen Pearson Ms Anne Rivers Mrs Julie Evans Ms Tricia Brough Mr M Salter Mr Stephen Turner Mr Graham Claridge Mrs B Cockerell Mr Terence Howard MR COLIN FITZPATRICK Mrs Ann Hudson Mr Richard Oerton Mr Grant Edwards mr christopher gulliford Mr John Attwooll Mr Michael Addinall Mr Barry Lane Craig Train Kevin Bosely Mr Charles Hall Mr and Mrs M Ladkin Lynn Prout Mr. Lyndon Brett Mr Chris Cousins Mr Simon Howes Ms Carole Stellman Dr Roger Johnson Mr Stephen Kelly MR CHRIS JONES Jillian Luckman Campbell & Catherine Main Mr David Ayres Mrs Sue Butler Mrs Helen Cuttell Miss Jackie Stone Ms Valerie Bannister Mr Clive Stanley Mr and Mrs M Hughes Miss Zoe Allen Miss Victoria Lunnon Paul and Lyn Flecken Pearl and Frank Davis Tessa Miller Mr Simon Edwards Mr Graham Howard Mr Alfred Ng Mr Andrew Taylor Estelle Ingram Miss Lesley Flash Mr Robert Hudson

A2. Stage 1 Summary Leaflet

Puriton Energy Park : Supplementary Planning Document (Summary)

The Council has prepared a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to examine the potential of the brownfield site of the former Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) The SPD elaborates on policies in the Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy that allocates the site as an Energy Park with a priority given for renewable or low carbon energy generation and other energy related or complimentary uses, including green technologies, supply components and support services. The SPD seeks to define, through development principles, the role, function and character of the proposed Energy Park with the objective to achieve sustainable high quality development. The SPD considers a range of matters including:

 Development layout and masterplanning, including the siting of development within the site  Landscape design, open space and patterns of movement;  Development densities and gross floor space;  Building heights and massing;  Quality of design and materials;  Uses and activities;  Traffic and access arrangements, including for public transport, pedestrian and cycle access, and parking;  Phasing, the pattern of expansion and key infrastructure requirements;  The approach to planning control at the site, particularly with regard to permissible uses, and quality of design;  The requirements of planning applications for development, including the scope of the Environmental Impact;  Development constraints and the balance of ‘critical mass’ to achieve viable development:  The potential for creating attractive working environments and drawing on CABE guidance ‘Better Places to Work’;  Telecommunications;  Visibility and profile.

Site Background

The ROF site was constructed in the late 1930s during the rearmament period that took place in the build up to the Second World War, and was used for the manufacture of high explosives until production ceased in 2008. By that time the site had been downsizing for several years and was employing fewer than 100 people compared to at its peak where as many as 1200 people had been employed there, many of which were drawn from the local area.

The demise of the ROF represented the loss of much needed local and skilled jobs from the area and along with other losses in skilled jobs in Sedgemoor over recent times has contributed to greater out-commuting overall particularly to Taunton and Bristol.

Being a large ‘brownfield’ site it benefits from a substantial level of existing infrastructure, being well served by gas, electricity, water and telecommunications.

However there are significant issues in respect of highway access which in the past relied on the local highway network between Puriton and Woolavington. As the draft SPD recognises, the full potential of any redevelopment of the site would not be realised without substantial highway improvements to mitigate impact on the local communities.

The extent of improvements that would be required has yet to be agreed with the County Council or Highways Agency and a number of further technical studies will be required but any technical solution is likely to include a new access road from the site onto Puriton Hill.

The site also benefits from a redundant rail link to the existing mainline and as part of any transport assessment for the site it will be expected that the feasibility of reinstating this link is fully considered.

Scale and Brownfield/Greenfield Proportions

In terms of scale the site within the existing fence line accounts for some 422 acres whilst the BAE ownership extent, identified by the red-line on the aerial map, equates to 680 acres in total. The Core Strategy allocates the whole 680 acres as an Energy Park though the types of uses suggested reflect the positioning of the existing fence line i.e. ecological and appropriate countryside uses are suggested for the peripheral area of the site whilst core employment areas are focussed within the fence line.

In addition to the core of administration buildings in the southern core of the site there are numerous workshops, storage areas and magazines across the site and in total around 400 buildings within the fence. Taking these into account it has been calculated that about 200 acres of the site constitutes previously developed land, equating to about 90 hectares of developable employment land.

In addition the site has a wide range of species and habitats and includes 9 separate County Wildlife Sites and the importance of maintaining and enhancing this ecological value wherever possible is a central theme of the draft SPD.

Site Opportunities

 The highway issue will need to be addressed comprehensively from the outset and offers the potential to improve on an already constrained local highway network and provide for off-site improvements to the strategic network. In addition the opening up of the site will allow for greater pedestrian and cycle linkages between communities;

 The scale of the site is enormous and therefore at the moment so is the level of contaminated and degraded land, the redevelopment of the site provides the opportunity for this to be addressed;

 The scale of the site is also important in terms of attracting inward investment, local employment opportunities and its ability to accommodate large volume space users. It can therefore more viably bear a lower employment density compared to town centre or more constrained sites in Bridgwater;

 Ensuring any redevelopment of the site emphasises the need to maintain and enhance the unique natural environment of the site and its surroundings provides the opportunity for better long-term protection and management of the ecological interest as well as creating pleasant places to live and work; and

 Embedding flood defence and resilience measures and surface water management into the redevelopment could provide long-term flood protection for the wider area.

Key Deliverables

A number of key deliverables can be defined from this vision to inform the redevelopment of the former Royal Ordnance Factory and to help shape the concept of Puriton Energy Park. These are listed below:

 90 hectares of developable land with a focus on land uses for the energy sector;  A combination of passive and active energy producers acting as a catalyst for site wide redevelopment;  High standards of design throughout the site, reflecting the principles of sustainable development, low carbon construction and operation of buildings and integrated renewable energy;  A range of support services, community, recreational and leisure uses;  A new strategic road access linking the site to the A39 corridor as well as improved road infrastructure in and around the site;  Maximising the potential for reconnecting the site to the mainline railway to the west;  The frontloading where appropriate of key infrastructure associated with phased redevelopment;  The development of an appropriate hierarchy of roads and traffic management systems to accommodate a variety of vehicular modes and enabling sustainable modes of transport;  A comprehensive network of pedestrian routes and cycle paths which provide sustainable access into and through the site linking to neighbouring settlements and the wider environment;  Opportunities for habitat enhancement and protection through the delivery of a park around the perimeter of the site enhancing the biodiversity and ecological value of the site;  Incorporating historical elements of the site which are to be retained into the landscape and built form to form points of interest potentially contributing to biodiversity and ecological elements;  Framing the Energy Park against a strong internal landscape structure that incorporates publicly accessible green space and which integrates the ecology and biodiversity aspirations of the park through the use of green corridors;  Development should work with the existing constraints and features that the site provides and deliver a substantial environmental and ecological benefit in providing a sustainable and green setting;  The open spaces around the site should be managed to enhance the areas ecological value for example integrating landscaping with sustainable water management;

 A long term Management Plan safeguarding the site and the surrounding landscape and ecological value in the long term.

Potential Uses

Priority will be given to renewable or low carbon energy generation and other energy related or complimentary uses, including green technologies, supply components and support services. The following breakdown provides a more detailed account of potential uses that could be accommodated within the Energy Park.

Energy Production - A combination of active and passive energy production should be pursued such as:  Combined cycle gas turbine or combined heat and power plant;  Standalone photovoltaic solar parks and buildings;  Anaerobic digestion plant (animal, dairy, human slurry, sludge, solids).

Manufacturing Sector - Clean industrial and manufacturing processes should be pursued such as:  New energy management such as marine, wind and micro-generation technologies;  Automotive low carbon technologies and research;  Chemicals and pharmaceuticals such as genomics, preventative care and biotechnologies.

Research and Development Sector - Plugged in to Universities across the region as well as connecting to other research parks, science facilities nationally and internationally:  Composite technologies;  Aquaponics/Hydroponics – enclosed systems for food and energy production;  Educational facilities accommodating renewable alternative and energy production;

Energy Storage/Research  Electrical flow battery systems;  Non-electrical fly wheel storage systems (large and small);  Pressurised air tank storage systems (large and small);  Pumped water storage;  Electricity to heat through hot water storage;  Electricity to hydrogen through electrolysis creating viable storage and distribution;

Other Potential  Super capacitors and electro-magnets;  Energy from algae through photosynthesis;  Heat recovery systems.

Logistics - Specifically connected to energy related industries or able to utilise or contribute to key infrastructure, the strategic location and facilities of the site together with the national infrastructure nearby provides international and national connections.

Design Principles and Masterplan

The ROF development site has the potential to become a model of good development in the way it is delivered and implemented, a comprehensive master planned approach is necessary to integrate the site within its context and it is essential it makes a unique and robust contribution to the economic growth of Bridgwater and the wider District. The masterplan approach will be critical in defining the perception of the development from its visual impact through to its commercial viability and how it can meet the needs of different users and business needs through a cohesive and flexible approach which can respond to demand.

The prominence and importance of the site requires the highest quality approach in respect of masterplanning, sustainable design, landscape and architecture. The following design principles have been developed to inform the masterplan approach towards the redevelopment of the site.

Design Principles  Ease of Movement and Legibility – accessible to a range of transport modes  Character, Quality & Continuity – strong positive relationship with surrounding areas and local context  Diversity – mix of complimentary uses  Sustainability – achievement of sustainable development, minimising energy use  Adaptability – can accommodate changing requirements  Management – places that are managed and maintained well  Scale and Massing – ensuring buildings reflect the local context and landscape character  Landscape Design – high quality strategic and local landscaping to create attractive and appropriate places

DRAFT MASTERPLAN

Have Your say on the Puriton Energy Park SPD

The public consultation period for this SPD began on Tuesday 22nd March and runs for six weeks, ending on Tuesday 3rd May 2011. This includes the following public events:

 Thursday 14th April 2011 at Puriton Village Hall from 2-30pm to 7:00pm

 Tuesday 19th April 2011 at Woolavington Village Hall from 2- 30pm to 7:00pm

 Saturday 23rd April 2011 at Angel Place, Bridgwater from 10:00am to 2:00pm

To assist you in making representations more easily, we are using an Online Planning portal: http://sedgemoor-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal This allows you to access, read and directly comment on the content of the full draft SPD.

If you are unable to use the online consultation portal, a pdf version of the SPD as well as an electronic copy of the representation form are available from the Council's Puriton Energy Park web page www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/energypark

Hard copies are available at a cost of £10 or electronic copies available free of charge. The SPD is also available to be inspected (alongside the Sustainability Appraisal) at the Council Offices (Monday to Friday 8:45am to 5:00pm at the following address:

 Reception, Sedgemoor District Council, Bridgwater House, King Square, Bridgwater, TA6 3AR (Monday to Friday 8:45am to 5:00pm)

Completed representation forms should be returned to:

LDF Team, Strategy and Business Service, Sedgemoor District Council, Bridgwater House, King Square, Bridgwater TA6 3AR.

Or by email to [email protected]. Please note that copies of all representations will be made publicly available.

All representations must be received by 5pm on Tuesday 3rd May 2011.

Further guidance and information on this, and the Sedgemoor Local Development Framework in general, is available on the Council’s website www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/ldf or by contacting the LDF Team on 01278 435409

A3. Notes from Stage 1 Drop In Sessions

Stage 1 Consultation - Puriton

Puriton Drop-In Session (Held at the Village Hall Committee Room) on 14th April 2011 attended by 150 people

1. Brownfield and Greenfield Land

The SDP identifies that there is significant ecological value on the site and that the proportion of the site is as follows;  422 acres inside fence  680 acres in total  200+ acres of previously developed land The SDP identifies that 90 hectares of land (equivalent of 200 acres) should be allocated for development with the large proportion of land being indentified for habitat enhancement and for development of parkland.

Do you agree with this approach for the Puriton Energy Park?

I Agree 30 I Partially Agree 7 I Disagree 7

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 If the site HAS to be developed into an industrial estate the road has got to come from the direction of the motorway.

 Traffic and access main problem- not use of ROF

 Agree that development is needed but essential that majority is habitat enhancement and parkland.

 Much concern about the volume of heavy traffic. We already have a traffic problem on A39.

 Would encourage this and would like more wildlife habitat.

2. Community, Recreation & Leisure Facilities The council will seek to encourage new services and facilities required to meet the needs of the development site and its immediate surroundings, providing benefits to Puriton & Woolavington residents will be a key concern. Do you agree with this approach and what facilities could be provided on the site to benefit residents? 52

I Agree 26 I Partially Agree 7 I Disagree 1

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Further details of community facilities would help to understand how useful it will be to the villages.

 I do not believe that the council will put our needs as a priority.

 Could you re-design the plan so that this could be on an MPs backyard.

 Road access should not encroach upon the village – Must come from the A38 or preferably from the M5 – The one currently causes huge problems setting out onto the A39 throughout the day.

 Everything mentions Puriton and Woolavington – Why is Puriton having to shoulder all of the changes

 How will shops, cafes, and crèche etc affect existing facilities? Eg. Honeytrees nursery, corner stores? It could take away their trade.

 Listen to the comments of the villagers before you do something and act on them – Do not ignore them.

3. Transport & Accessibility

The site has been closed to the public since the ROF opened, it is intended to provide accessibility into and through the site for both vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists as well as wider connections between Puriton & Woolavington.

Additionally to enable full development of the site and prevent Puriton and Woolavington from being deluged by traffic it will be necessary to provide better access to the site through the provision of a new link road probably to the South of Puriton Village and accessing Puirton Hill, this will provide a better and safer entrance/exit for village residents.

Do you agree with this approach?

I Agree 5 I Partially Agree 6 I Disagree 91

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Access to the ROF site was never an issue, we have green fields and walkways to enjoy – both of which you will take away with the new road. I will be appalled to see HGV’s travelling so close to the school and would consider moving my child out of that school.

 I am strongly against proposed road. The amount of traffic on Puriton Hill is far too much and it is difficult getting out at times – The road will take away an amenity that many of the village enjoy – walking in the fields

 The two junctions from Puriton Hill are accident blackspots. Purtion Hill is already congestion, and with the continuous ever increasing building of industrial building of industrial sites and housing, the new proposed hospital and ambulance station on the A39 and increase in volume of traffic, Puriton and its surrounding areas are spoiling the village. During peak periods along Puriton Hill, so a lot of traffic already divert down hillside ( which has un-manned entrance – exit to the village school) then along by the ROF to Woolavington, usually in excess of 30mph , thus making Puriton an alternation route! Every Friday, Saturday and Sunday the M5 is congested which again has terrible affects on Puriton.

 Very concerned about the new road site. The noise to residents during construction will be detrimental to our lifestyle, plus loss of fields surrounding village will impact on the village life.

 Where are the alternative locations for a road if it is needed? Short term could be the railway line surely a road could run alongside it.

 I do not agree with the indicative proposal to create a connecting road South of Puriton and across fields to the site. The most feasible option is for a service road off the motorway to link to the site. – The traffic issue through the village and more specifically on Puriton Road is bad enough and the road off Puriton Hill will make traffic and congestion worse.

 Access for a site of this size should be direct from the motorway or at least over a bridge from A38. This village already has enough issues and accidents on the A39 this would just encourage more. Access proposed has not been thought through properly.

 Do not agree with a new road along the back of Puriton Park for access to energy park sure there is a more appropriate alternative. Stop dumping things on our village.

 A new access road is required, it should come in from the west (A38) alongside the railway track. Possibly adjacent to landfill site.

 Do not build an access road at the back of Puriton Park find another route – M5

 Use other route for access – not back of Puriton already congested with traffic and bottle neck. Other access to be sourced – not near homes.

 Puriton school has spent 3 years creating a wildlife area in the top area of the school field – a main road running next to it will ruin it. Having helped the children create this I would be devastated to see it ruined by ill thought out planning.

 The proposed route will isolate the village from access to Polden Hill.

 I strongly disagree with the need for a road as planned. Why not open up the old railway track as a new road? This road will be too close to the school. The land to the South of the village is of important historical interest.

 I disagree strongly with the need for a new access road. Why should Puriton and Woolavigton be “deluged by traffic” for an eco park – Its simply not on.

4. Your Views

 Agree that using the site and bringing alternative skilled jobs to the area is good. However, the proposed access route will not solve the transport issues already occurring at M5/ A39/ A38 junctions. – Alternative routes such as directly from the M5 would be better and suit high tech nature of the park.

 I live in Lypress Drive and have views of fields and woodland, I do not understand why a new road would be put alongside an existing road and spoiling the beautiful countryside.

 Why more disruption to Puriton? Leave our green areas alone – go elsewhere – ie. Rejuvenate Bridgwater Town

 A eco friendly development – therefore the transport links MUST be eco friendly. A new road destroying the countryside is NOT an option.

 Strongly disagree with the access road as will cause major access problems in and out of the village with possible gridlock at major times – I think other alternative transport methods ie. Train to transport to and from the site.

 Access via motorway NOT next to our homes.

 I disagree with the SDP that the development needs substantial highway improvement it CAN be developed with the existing road structure.

 The access road seems to be the biggest concern.

 Living opposite the planned road this will be devastating to us as a family and everyone in the village.

 Road from the site to the motorway is blatantly obvious – not around Puriton Park.

 I agree that a new access road is necessary but I do not agree to using new farm land. Why not convert the railway line for use. We do not want any more traffic on Puriton Hill. It is so difficult to get out at busy times at the moment. Hs there been any thought about reducing the energy costs for residents of the villages.

 I will not support any access. Road that is proposed runs along the back of Puriton Park where fields are currently. Surely if a road is needed at all, it could be built alongside the woods beside Puriton Hill on fairness to the land. Then straight along the woods to the entrance of the ROF across the field, avoiding all house on Puriton Park’s boundary. We need much clearer indication of the final proposal before Puriton Park residents will accept re-development of the ROF.

 While an access road is required, I do not agree with the proposed site! Will members of the public be able to use land on the site for recreational use, due to health and safety?!

 Please consider the existing wildlife, footpaths, amenity use of the fields to the South-East presumably any new road will need a footpath, and footbridge, could be sunk? What about proximity to the school?

 No road across green fields use the railway link with the bridge across the M5 – bridge across railway to A38. Keep H.G.V.s out of the village of Puriton, yes the ROF does need to be used but be careful how you do it.

 Disagree with the proposed across road. Concerned about solar park proposal outside the current ROF boundary fence.

 Disagree with proposal. Do not agree with site of proposed access road. Does it have to be so close to Puriton? Why not a sliproad from motorway?

 Can we leave our green land as that. Why create areas inside that we already have outside? Solar park should be inside. No need to spoil all the land outside the factory fence. PLEASE LEAVE IT ALONE.

 I do NOT agree that a new access road is necessary. When the ROF was operating at full output with the staff of over 1,000 people, the ordinary road network coped, it still would, if a new road must be built, then it must not go across those beautiful meadows on the hill which are teeming with wildlife. The meadows are full of wild flowers in spring and summer the old railway access to the ROF could form the route for a new motorway link (22A) so no new road across Puriton Hill and the possibility of loads of new houses which would undoubtedly follow, it would be sacrilege.

 Development on site should ideally be within the confines of the existing perimeter fence – allowing the outer areas for landscaping. Any new road should also provide for the access of residents of Puriton, not merely for access to the site. All development on site should achieve SBD Commercial.

 The consultation process is flawed – all households in Puriton and Woolavington should have been written to. I am against re-development of the ROF – just because it was developed previously doesn’t mean its an acceptable employment site now – it’s too big.

 Excellent idea – brings life and opportunity to the area. Agree new access road, otherwise Woolavington and Puriton will be overwhelmed with traffic.

 Disagree with proposed access road – it will have a huge detrimental impact on the surrounding countryside and housing, depriving residents of their use of public footpaths and bridleways. Why not develop access from the motorway?

 There is enough traffic congestion on the A39 without adding to the problem with another unnecessary road.

 Realizing an access road is needed, why not use existing access? In through Puriton out through Woolavington, also the old railway line use for access from the A38/motorway J22.

 Totally disagree with proposed plans. This will be PARADISE LOST. There must be a better solution that would not destroy a lovely village. How can this be a green energy solution when you are destroying our fields, wildlife, grazing pasture and quality of life. Eg. Pollution, noise pollution and traffic congestion.

 Development of site is inevitable but road should come off M5 and use old railway track.

 Yes, a sensible development of ex ROF is good. But, I believe it is essential is keep access well away from Puriton and Woolavington. Suggest route South of Puriton

Park, which uses green fields, is completely wrong. Please use old railway line with access to A38 ie. Well North of the village.

 Native trees! There are countless nicely maturing trees on this site, planted I believe to screen the site from Puriton and Woolavington when the TNT plant was built. As many of the trees as possible should be retained – far too much of our Somerset countryside has already disappeared beneath concrete.

 How much will all this cost? The site does need to be improved but why put an access road right access a green field area and on to the A39 so the villages will have great difficulty getting out on to the A39. What about the railway line?

 I object to the new road – it will truncate the village from fields used as amenity land and is too close to houses and the school – the village will almost be surrounded by roads. Please use the railway line – or link to the motorway or link to Crandon Lane – or have a green travel plan – use buses, or have a bus shuttle – please don’t surround the village with another road.

 I smell the dirty smell of the worst type of capitalism. This will come back and bite the proposers.

 I agree with the development of the old ROF site. However, I am totally against the proposed for road access to the rear of Puriton Park – Suggest more research is carried out to links to the M5 direct.

 As explained to your planning officer. I would like access to be arranged for horse riders as well as dog walkers and cyclists.

 I agree the ROF site does need improved but do not agree with accessibility. Proposed road – these fields are salt mines.

 Existing bridleways tracks from Puriton and Woolavington exist up to a point. Need to be extended into and throughout site and extended to the North towards Huntspill River.

 What a silly little room to have a meeting!

5. Potential Energy Related Uses

Energy Production – A combination of active and passive energy production should be pursed as: Combined cycle gas turbine or combined heat and power plant; Standalone photovoltaic solar parks and buildings; Anaerobic digestion plant (animal, dairy, human slurry, sludge, solids).

Manufacturing Sector – Clean industrial and manufacturing processes should be pursued such as; New energy management such as marine, wind and micro-generation technologies; Automotive low carbon technologies and research; Chemicals and pharmaceuticals such as genomics, preventative care and biotechnologies.

Research & Development Sector – Plugged in to Universities across the region as well as connecting to other research parks, science facilities Nationally and Internationally: Composite technologies; Aquaponics/Hydroponics – enclosed systems for food and energy production; Educational facilities accommodating renewable alternative and energy production;

Energy Storage/Research – Electrical flow battery systems; Non-electrical fly wheel storage systems (large & small); Pressurised air tank storage systems (large & small); Pumped water storage; Electricity to heat through hot water storage; Electricity to hydrogen through electrolysis creating viable storage and distribution.

Other Potential – Super capacitors and electro magnets; Energy from algae though photosynthesis; Heat recovery systems.

Logistics – Specially connected to energy related industries or able to utilize or contribute to key infrastructure, the strategic location and facilities of the site together with the national infrastructure nearby provides International and National connections.

Are there other energy related uses which you would like to propose or that you believe should be included?

Do you agree with this approach?

I Agree 8 I Partially Agree 9 I Disagree 2

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Workers should only be allowed to work shift patterns of 6 to 10 so traffic reduced – aware from normal peak hours

 Access road should NOT be allowed to go ahead make use of the old rail line or build road away from villages

 The environmental impact of the proposed access road would be a disaster for the people of Puriton.

 Disagree with access road right next to our house. Huge environmental impact.

 No road next to houses across fields access via motorway direction.

6. The Key Deliverables

Detailed below is a list of possible deliverables which the Council would like to see the site providing.  About 90 Ha of developable employment land  Phased delivery of the site and essential infrastructure  Habitat enhancement through the creation of an ecological park  Promotion of sustainable modes of transport, improved road infrastructure and the feasibility of reinstating the former rail link  Opportunities for passive energy production  Community, recreation uses  Publicly accessible green space  Network of footpaths and cycleways linking the site to the villages of Puriton & Woolavington  High quality design and sustainability standards

Do you agree with this list of deliverables, do you have ideas for additional deliverables?

I Agree 21 I Partially Agree 7 I Disagree 4

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Do not agree with this plan!! We will be surrounded if this goes ahead. This used to be a quiet little village and is being SPOILT in more ways than one.

 If you’re trying to make an eco-friendly place, why use lorries is not use the railway - we have got one, haven’t we?

 The new road is not strictly necessary but a new access junction (e.g. a roundabout on the A38/39 link road) is.

 Includes so we residential – possibility of a retirement village. Cycle-ways should also link to Bridgwater via A39 cycletrack and to the levels and moors.

 I disagree with the need for a new road – where is the information to prove there is a need?

Stage 1 Consultation - Woolavington

Woolavington Drop-In Session (Held at the Village Hall) on 19th April 2011 attended by 150 people

1. Brownfield and Greenfield Land The SPD identifies that there is significant ecological value on the site and that the proportion of the site is as follows;  422 acres inside fence  680 acres in total  200+ acres of previously developed land The SDP identifies that 90 hectares of land (equivalent of 200 acres)?? should be allocated for development with the large proportion of land being indentified for habitat enhancement and for development of parkland.

Do you agree with this approach for the Puriton Energy Park?

I Agree 25 I Partially Agree 3 I Disagree 6

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 It should all be returned to green land. (2)  Excellent use of an old war-horse – well done!

2. Bio-diversity & Ecology

Analysis of the site has highlighted how bio-diverse elements feature strongly, it is an intention that this should be a strong basis from which to develop the site and improve and enhance existing features.

Creating a strong landscape structure connecting the existing elements could form the basic structure for the future of the site.

Do you agree with this approach?

I Agree 29 I Partially Agree 2 I Disagree 2

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Suggest involvement by Somerset Wildlife Trust i.e. Living Landscapes (2)  The general public should be able to view Somerset Wildlife Trust from access routes without fences (2)  Good idea to involve Somerset Wildlife Trust – Do not put up new buildings (1)

3. Your Views

 Concerns representing existing habitat & wildlife – Flora inc. rare orchids etc. Suggest coordinate with English Nature & RSPB to create wetland area birdlife & conservation please. No overdevelopment. The old ROF was a wonderful nature reserve – wildlife left to flourish.  A height restriction should be a part of any plan.  Consider an education park to include schools in the research and development including primary, secondary and further education  The whole traffic/vehicle access issues around both villages needs to be addressed before the development begins. It is almost impossible to get out onto the A39 to get to Bridgwater as it is. (2)  Counteracting statement - Strongly disagree with the issue onto the A39 – people have forgotten traffic leaves when the ROF was open.  Very concerned as to adequate demolition of site – Potential for explosives to be found anywhere on site – Who remembers what went on in 1940?  Puriton Energy Park is much needed. I have a question to ask about anaerobic digestion plant regarding the odour produced. Taking care of wildlife is important also suggest sports units included and a swimming pool.  Special road – North of site to join up with A38

 The large percentage of Puriton village will oppose any development road (or otherwise) which will cut Puriton village off from the countryside: my advice would be to i)re-open rail link ii) develop slip roads to the side from the motorway.  Agrees that railway should be opened – on the whole a good idea – better than a wind turbine. (2)  Agree site should be developed to provide local jobs and provide areas for walking and leisure enjoyment. A by-pass road is essential for this development as the existing road linking the two villages is full of bends and has had fatal accidents along it. Cycle paths to avoid road use would be excellent.  If there is no junction on the M5 the site should not go ahead (2)  As destruction and construction is relatively short term, no problem in the long term. Rail link must be used to levy traffic.  Be good to have a safe place to ride – Bridleways and access lacking in the this area.  Very, very concerned about traffic proposed access – This cannot with any sanity be from the A39 – Must be from the M5, A38, old rail line or from the North  Woolavington – Bawdrip – Puriton has issues relating to traffic – A major essential is a by-pass road.

4. Community, Recreation & Leisure Facilities

The council will seek to encourage new services and facilities required to meet the needs of the development site and its immediate surroundings, providing benefits to Puriton & Woolavington residents will be a key concern

Do you agree with this approach and what facilities could be provided on the site to benefit residents?

I Agree 39 I Partially Agree 2 I Disagree 2

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Agree new facilities etc. – Will be good but don’t need gas turbines and anaerobic digestion etc.  Existing wildlife habitats to be preserved and enhanced, pond area included. Walks similar to Apex Park in Burnham – Also provide car park access.

5. Transport & Accessibility

Do you agree with this approach?

I Agree 26 I Partially Agree 6 I Disagree 19

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 A39 Puriton Hill is suffering very severe over-use already – existing access from Puirton is already very dangerous – also Silver Fish is still not resolved. A38 access to site or M5 or old rail line is best.  Considering the site of the ROF future development – I do not feel that the proposed route is acceptable – i.e. Morrisons etc – needs a separate road in – for example the old railway route and separate sliproad on the other side of the motorway. This would give a better future for the site and its residents.  Why do we need cycle paths through this? Just put it back to farmland and keep the roads safe from increased traffic.  Proposed link road to the South of Puriton would have major consequences on the village. However, I am very concerned about the increased traffic through the village. The other link option – M5 North is better.  Roads, roads, roads! We are a rural area – this is an industrial site (proposed). A road to connect to A38 would be best – Junction 23 is bad and also Silver Fish.  Railway line should be re-instated to take heavy traffic off roads.  New link road essential before site activity – rail link extension even more important.  Agree (as above) – too much for A39 link rail link / A38 best option emphasize we are a rural area.  Road should be from the North of the site to join up with A38 at East Hunspill and East roundabout.  Would be very strongly against proposed link road shown on plan. Suggest utilizing rail link (or area close to it) to link directly to M5 ( or A38 North of the village).

 New rail road from the motorway for volume of traffic and excess to the site. All leisure traffic should be kept within the site, with very light traffic coming on to existing road with a minimum weight restriction.  This is vital and will navigate traffic through Puriton itself. Either route to A38 or from A39.  Traffic on the A39 is awful as it is getting out of Puriton and Woolavington is painstaking work. Putting a road through Greenfield behind a school and houses would be detrimental to the wildlife living there. A slip road off of the M5 North of Puirton would be a much more suitable place.  Think a road from the site by-passing Puriton & Woolavington vital. Think would be better going across levels to A38 rather than joining A39 at top of Puriton Hill. A39 there at the top of the hill would be more dangerous.  A38 and A39 can not cope with traffic use at the moment. A new junction called 23A, access roads to and from Puriton are a nightmare at the moment with extra traffic it will cause gridlock – sort the roads first.

6. Potential Energy Related Uses

Other Potential – Super capacitors and electro magnets; Energy from algae though photosynthesis; Heat recovery systems.

Are there other energy related uses which you would like to propose or that you believe should be included?

Do you agree with this approach?

I Agree 21 I Partially Agree 6 I Disagree 2

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Low cost energy for the two villages should be established at an early stage.  Concern about reflection from solar panels.  Please do not angle panels up towards the houses on raised Woolavington area – No anaerobic digestion.  Fully agree with solar energy whose over it is an the site! Woolavington & Puirton end.  This is not the right site for gas turbine/digestion NOR for new buildings for offices. What is meant by logistic distribution?  Definitely not an anaerobic digestion plant.  Concern about; - Digestion Plant – Wind Turbines (2)  Not happy with any “greenfield” used for industrial.  Concerns regarding odor from anaerobic digestion plant.  Possible pollution from chemicals and pharmaceuticals.  Much more sensible – the wind park  All clever stuff – with far more potential than wind turbines – which have only 25% or less generation availability.  Traffic to and from on a large scale will certainly impact on the area.  I support the sighting of solar panels and very good use of “natural” energy!

7. The Key Deliverables

Do you agree with this list of deliverables, do you have ideas for additional deliverables?

I Agree 25 I Partially Agree 6 I Disagree 6

Reasons – Partially agree or disagree

 Don’t believe this is a good use of land for solar panels/gas turbines/digestion etc. Solar panels should be put on existing buildings at current parks eg. Express Park – Return to farmland.

A4. Slides from Presentation to Parish and Cluster Meetings

Royal Ordnance Factory, Puriton The Puriton Energy Park Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

A5. Notes from Stage 2 Drop In Sessions

Stage 2 Consultation - Puriton

Held at St Michaels Church Hall 19/09/11 2-8pm 97 attendees

1. Brownfield and Greenfield Land

The SPD identifies that there is significant ecological value on the site and that the proportion of the site is as follows;

 422 acres inside fence  680 acres in total  200+ acres of previously developed land

The SPD identifies that 90 hectares of land (equivalent to about 200 acres) should be allocated for development with the large proportion of land being identified for habitat enhancement and for development of parkland.

Do you agree with this approach for the Puriton Energy Park?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE 4

I PARTIALLY AGREE 2

I DISAGREE 39

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

1. This site should be returned to nature reserve. This happened to a previous ordnance factory in Pembrokeshire, Wales 2. Return to the natural land 3. The SPD suggests that new development would cover size of old development. However, since ROF built Puriton has expanded and is closer to site. Site needs to be smaller. 4. I understand that a covenant was in place, when the ROF was built, that the land would be returned to its original farming use. What is the situation re this covenant?

5. Site should be returned to its natural state, i.e. full removal of all buildings post 1937, as agreed at that time. All other discussions are not required. 6. Whilst the ROF may be a prime site for renewable energy provision, there should be a clear gap between the village and the site. Ongoing developments both from Bridgwater and the ROF will close the gap and if new roads to access ROF are built, it would only be time before further developments are applied for and existing brownfield and Greenfield/undeveloped is lost. 7. When purchasing our house we were assured, following legal searches, that should ROF close, the site would be returned to its natural habitat. 8. The figures that are being quoted are quite misleading. 9. Covenant should be looked into as it keeps cropping up. This should be done before moving anything forward.

2. Transport and Accessibility

To ensure the site’s potential is maximised the SPD requires a comprehensive transport strategy to be developed that deals not only with site access but the wider transport impacts (including existing problems and cumulative issues arising from Hinkley Point C and other planned/committed development in the locality. Therefore any Transport assessment will be required to include:  The baseline situation and evidenced trip generation assumptions  Comprehensive traffic modelling taking into account existing issues and cumulative impacts  Strategic Travel Plan that seeks to promote more sustainable modes of travel  If a new road is required, assessment of all reasonable alternatives  Full consideration as to how any new transport infrastructure will address existing issues in the villages  Assess impacts on residential amenity, natural environment and character of the area  A comprehensive phasing programme.

Do you agree with this approach?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE 4

I PARTIALLY AGREE 1

I DISAGREE 37

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

1. I think the road should join the M5 where the railway line is. 2. Like the idea of opening area to the public, but not opening it for mass transport. 3. Any road developments (favoured proposal appears to link to the South of ROF to Puriton Hill) will cause further traffic congestion on Puriton Hill and add to existing disruption the villagers face when trying to access and exit the village. 4. I strongly object to the road in option 3. A39 will not cope with the additional traffic. It will have the same environmental impact as option 1! 5. The proposed road link is unnecessary and will encourage building on green belt. 6. I think the roads should go straight to the motorway and bypass Puriton altogether. 7. Transport is a major issue – from Puriton being ‘cut off’, amount of traffic through the village and along Puriton Hill. Morrisons, EDF as well as Energy Park will all negatively affect Puriton lives. Links need to be away from village. 8. Preferred road option – high pressure gas main runs parallel to the fence north of the Woolavington road - Why not use the same entrance to the site – why is it necessary to create a new entrance? – This also would push the route to the south of the village further away from the edge of the village 9. Traffic is the big issue, must be controlled. One-way system. 10. Road linking to ROF site is vital – it must be north of the two villages. Anything south would ruin Puriton. 11. We agree that if the use of the site is inevitable the oinly access should be on the NORTH SIDE of the village. What about a new road from site to A38, but not through West Huntspill – meeting A38 nearer car auction. (x2)

3. Biodiversity and Ecology

Analysis of the site has highlighted how bio diverse elements feature strongly, it is an intention that this should be a strong basis from which to develop the site and improve and enhance existing features.

Creating a strong landscape structure connecting the existing elements could form the basic structure for the future of the site. 81

4. Do you agree with this approach?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE 4

I PARTIALLY AGREE 1

I DISAGREE 24

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

1. What does this mean? Plain English may help. 2. Hear hear! 3. Water park. Moving large amounts of earth? 4. If this is the proposal, allow the land to return to a natural habitat for people to enjoy.

5. The Key Deliverables

Detailed below is a list of possible deliverables which the Council would like to see the site providing.

 About 90 hectares of developable employment land  Phased delivery of the site and essential infrastructure  Habitat enhancement through the creation of an ecological park  Promotion of sustainable modes of transport, improved road infrastructure and the feasibility of reinstating the former rail link  Opportunities for passive energy production  Community, recreation uses  Publicly accessible green space  Network of footpaths and cycleways linking the site to the villages of Puriton and Woolavington  High quality design and sustainability standards

Do you agree with this list of deliverables, do you have ideas for additional deliverables?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer and suggest other deliverables below:

I AGREE 2

I PARTIALLY AGREE 8

I DISAGREE 13

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

1. I agree with the final 3 points only 2. Me too! 3. I agree with 7, 8, 9 of what is mentioned, but not the first 5. 4. Definately need a footpath and cycleway between the 2 villages. 5. All a bit vague.

6. Potential Energy Related Uses

The SPD sets out the potential of the site for a range of uses appropriate to the Energy Park Concept. These include the following:

Energy Production - A combination of active and passive energy production should be pursued such as Combined Cycle gas Turbine (CCGT), Combined Heat and Power Plant, Energy from waste uses

Manufacturing Sector - Clean industrial and manufacturing processes should be pursued such as: manufacture of components such as solar panels, wind turbines etc

Research and Development Sector - Plugged in to Universities across the region as well as connecting to other research parks, science facilities nationally and internationally: research and development related to emerging green technologies and linked to wider educational facilities and science parks nationally and internationally.

Energy Storage/Research - Pressurised air tank storage systems (large and small); Pumped water storage; Electricity to heat through hot water storage; Electricity to hydrogen through electrolysis creating viable storage and distribution;

Other Potential - Heat recovery systems etc.

Are there other energy related uses which you would like to propose or that you believe should be included?

Do you agree with this approach?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE 3

I PARTIALLY AGREE 1

I DISAGREE 31

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below: 1. Would any of these developments benefit the village and help reduce their current energy costs? 2. If systems such as anaerobic digester or incinerators are on the site, smell and health issues would be a major concern. 3. You cannot assume manufacturing of solar panels is a clean process. 4. Wind turbines are massive. Road network will need to be decent to accommodate. 5. I strongly object to ‘energy from waste uses’ proposal (x2) 6. Concerned with energy development/generation. Zone 5 – too much development, not enough details. Energy from waste uses can cover anything – from biomass digesters to animal waste. 7. Agreeing to this would be signing a blank cheque. This is a list of potential bad neighbour uses disguised as an energy park. This needs to be worked up more, and be more honest with the proposals. 8. This is not the right place for this kind of enterprise. 9. I consider that with wind farms, solar energy parks and heavy transport going through the village we have had enough of all the above. No more please. (x2)

7. Community, Recreation and Leisure Facilities

The Council will seek to encourage new services and facilities required to meet the needs of the development site and its immediate surroundings, providing benefits to Puriton and Woolavington residents will be a key concern. Such uses could include:

 small scale retail  sports and leisure facilities  public transport interchange  administrative centre  enhanced community facilities

Do you agree with this approach and what facilities could be provided on the site to benefit residents?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE 2

I PARTIALLY AGREE 7

I DISAGREE 22

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

1. We have all the above already – except admin centre – better putting the money into supporting those things we have. 2. We already have a multi sports hard court, sports centre, football pitches etc. Why are you trying to encouorage our children along a busy road with no footpaths or cycle routes. (x2) 3. Empty promises? 4. Already have a sports centre in Puriton – why do we need another? (x3)

8. Anything else?

Use this space to tell us anything else about your village, town or community that you think we should know. What are its strengths and weaknesses? Are there any particular issues we haven’t picked up on? Or maybe you have a brilliant idea you like us to hear about? Whatever it is, write it on a post-it and place it here.

1. We would like Puriton to remain as a village and not become yet another suburb of Bridgwater by the creation of unnecessary ‘link’ roads.

2. Bridgwater and its surrounding areas have already undergone too much massive construction work. Villages need to be retained – think of our needs and not money.

9. Your Views

This space is for you to give us your general comments about what you’ve read on these boards. Please write on a post-it and place it here. Alternatively please fill in a comments sheet.

1. We on Puriton Park are a friendly, caring community, capable of organising ourselves without detriment to others. A road at the back of Puriton Park with all its construction noise, pollution etc would be extremely devastating, particularly to the elderly on that particular side and inconsiderate to our village. 2. Option 3 road would cause considerable environmental impact on a very beautiful strip of land. This option should be thrown out! 3. Needs to be in plainer English. 4. How would you maintain the energy emphasis on the park going forward?

Stage 2 Consultation - Woolavington

Held at Woolavington Village Hall 21/09/2011 between 2pm and 8pm Attendance: 40

1. Brownfield and Greenfield Land

The SPD identifies that there is significant ecological value on the site and that the proportion of the site is as follows;

 422 acres inside fence  680 acres in total  200+ acres of previously developed land

Do you agree with this approach for the Puriton Energy Park?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE

I PARTIALLY AGREE

I DISAGREE

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below: n/a

2. Transport and Accessibility

Do you agree with this approach?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE

I PARTIALLY AGREE

I DISAGREE

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

 H Road around Puriton (Option 2) would be completely unacceptable. This would cut the village off from the existing countryside. Also ruining the views for the residents of Cypress Drive.  Traffic modelling to include, besides accessibility to cyclists and walkers, access to local horse riders from Woolavington across the site to Puriton and beyond? x2  Access avoiding houses (where possible) is essential before major development commences

3. Biodiversity and Ecology

Creating a strong landscape structure connecting the existing elements could form the basic structure for the future of the site.

Do you agree with this approach?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE

I PARTIALLY AGREE

I DISAGREE

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below: none

4. The Key Deliverables

Detailed below is a list of possible deliverables which the Council would like to see the site providing.

Do you agree with this list of deliverables, do you have ideas for additional deliverables?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer and suggest other deliverables below:

I AGREE

I PARTIALLY AGREE

I DISAGREE

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:

 Please include local horse riders in the network of footpaths and cycle ways linking the site to Puriton and Woolavington. x2  On green areas – please include ‘green’ woodland/playing fields for the local primary school in Woolavington

5. Potential Energy Related Uses

The SPD sets out the potential of the site for a range of uses appropriate to the Energy Park Concept. These include the following:

Energy Production - A combination of active and passive energy production should be pursued such as Combined Cycle gas Turbine (CCGT), Combined Heat and Power Plant, Energy from waste uses

Manufacturing Sector - Clean industrial and manufacturing processes should be pursued such as: manufacture of components such as solar panels, wind turbines etc

Research and Development Sector - Plugged in to Universities across the region as well as connecting to other research parks, science facilities nationally and internationally: research and development related to emerging green technologies and linked to wider educational facilities and science parks nationally and internationally.

Other Potential - Heat recovery systems etc.

Are there other energy related uses which you would like to propose or that you believe should be included? 90

Do you agree with this approach?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE

I PARTIALLY AGREE

I DISAGREE

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:  Safety of storage?  Like the R&D idea. Clean and no heavy transport requirements.

6. Community, Recreation and Leisure Facilities

 small scale retail  sports and leisure facilities  public transport interchange  administrative centre  enhanced community facilities

Do you agree with this approach and what facilities could be provided on the site to benefit residents?

Please place a dot next to the relevant answer.

I AGREE

I PARTIALLY AGREE

I DISAGREE

If you partially agree or disagree please place comments on post-its below:  The retail requirements would need to be looked at quite carefully so that they didn’t remove the opportunity for increased custom in Woolavington and Puriton.  As a parent governor at Woolavington School, any addition to facilities for young people would be appreciated.  Area needs more leisure and recreation facilities, particularly for young people.

7. Anything else?

 Existing bridleways from Puriton and Woolavington exist up to a point, but the tracks are not official and need to be extended into and through the site and north towards the Huntspill River.

8. Your Views

This space is for you to give us your general comments about what you’ve read on these boards. Please write on a post-it and place it here. Alternatively please fill in a comments sheet

 A far reaching project, which should bring extra facilities and energy to the area.  This site is a ‘Brownfield’ site and where not contaminated should consider residential building (in part). Better than continuing to gobble up green field sites.  A new network of footpaths around area for Puriton and Woolavington.

 Road access will be extremely difficult following, as it does, the opening of Morrison and the building of Hinkley Point. A cycle/footpath between Puriton and Woolavington would be good.  Local primary school – please be aware of any pollution/noise/chemicals that would be harmful to children  All seems quite vague at the moment. Major concern re road/access. Old bridge/rail links to A38 or Puriton Junction 23 seem logical. Access track to join B3148 dangerous obscured bends/visibility. Bad idea through village of Woolavington.

A6. Notes from Public Meeting

Puriton Energy Park SPD Public Meeting 22/09/11 7:15pm

Attendance: Stuart Houlet, Stuart Martin, Cllr Anne Fraser, Doug Bamsey, estimated 120 members of the public

1. Welcome and Introduction by Andrew McKay, Chairman of Parish Council. (2mins)

2. Presentation on Stage 2 report by Stuart Houlet (30mins), after which questions were taken from the audience.

3. Q and A session. Where possible, names of questioners have been included. (75mins)

Q: (Cllr Mark Healey) What is involved in Charles Gee’s current work on site? There are rumours about an alleged road on the crown of Puriton Hill, are these true? If the railway line is reinstated, will it be used to import waste for incineration?

A: Charles Gee have submitted a retrospective planning application for temporary use of the site, and the Highway Agency has put in a holding objection. This application will now go through due process.

The District Council has no information on any road proposal that would join Puriton Hill on the brow of the hill, but if this indeed being discussed, then the site promoter may have details. The southern access road that has been the focus of up to now would cut across Hillside and link to the middle of the three existing junctions.

Incineration is not a method favoured by SDC for the ROF site. Instead, more technologically advanced types of creating Energy from Waste (EFW) are being sought. The SPD emphasises the need for cutting edge technologies and the need to take into account the impact on local residents.

Q: (Malcolm Barry, Puriton Park resident) Can Parish Council be involved in future planning talks and decisions? This would help to get residents on SDC’s side. Beautiful village of Puriton will be ruined if a new road is built.

A: It should be noted that it is not SDC promoting the road, but BAE Systems. The detailed transport assessment that the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) will request to be carried out as part of any planning application will be key to the redevelopment of the site, and will need to take account of impacts on local people. The Parish Council will have an opportunity to engage with BAE Systems as part of planned consultation from November and to continue involvement in the SPD.

Q: (Tessa Miller, Puriton Park resident) Has the Council thought about matching development to existing infrastructure rather than infrastructure provision to fit new development?

A: If this strategy were adopted, it would be impossible to make use of such a prominent brownfield site, as there are already existing infrastructure issues within the village that need to be addressed (e.g. Hall Rd junction).

Q: (Name not recorded) Charles Gee moved onto site without planning permission. What are they doing on site and why aren’t SDC stopping operations?

A: Charles Gee are not currently carrying out any significant works on the ROF site. Noise and traffic movements that locals have noticed recently are in relation to building of the Solar Park to the west of the site rather than from Charles Gee. A retrospective planning application has come in after being invited by SDC and this will now go through due process.

Q: (Name not recorded) What does the SPD do to maintain the Energy Park Concept? Does a new road mean new housing development? Parish Plan could help with harnessing some of the potential benefits of private sector investment.

A: It is expected that there will need to be an element of control for future uses and this can be done through appropriate legal agreements as part of any consent. In addition having the SPD in place will make it easier to assess future planning applications in relation to whether they fit the Energy Park concept, as the SPD will detail preferred uses for the site.

No significant housing development is envisaged in or around Puriton in the Core Strategy, the strategic Development Plan for Sedgemoor up to 2027. Normally housing would be required to finance the building of a new road, but in this case the redevelopment of the site would pay for the new access.

BAE consultation in November will be an ideal opportunity for Parish Council to engage with the promoter and discuss some of the potential benefits that BAE’s investment could bring.

Q: (Katie Newell, Parish Councillor) Traffic will increase not only in Puriton, but also in surrounding areas (e.g. Dunball).

A: SPD will require a comprehensive transport assessment to be carried out as part of any planning application. This will include the impacts on both the local and strategic networks.

Q: (Simon Langley, Parish Councillor) If BAE are required to do traffic modelling, why not do this in conjunction with other large developers such as EDF, Morrison etc

A: Any transport assessment will have to be a joined up process, as impacts from all large developments like the ones mentioned will have to be taken into account. But SDC should raise this with SCC to ensure there is joined up thinking at a strategic level. 96

Q: (Bob Hughes) How do the proposals for a roundabout at top of Hall Rd, as detailed in the Parish magazine, fit in to these plans?

A: Cllr Mark Healey explained that the main traffic problem will be at J23 of M5. In order to be proactive in solving the village’s traffic issues, MH had the drawings seen in the Parish magazine done privately and has asked County Council to support this concept with discussions ongoing with EDF. Cllr MH also feels that Charles Gee are likely to be doing transport work for EDF in the future, and specific questions should be asked of Charles Gee and EDF in this regard.

Parish Councillor assured the audience that other ideas to improve traffic issues will be considered in the same way Cllr MHs idea was considered by the Parish Council.

Q: (Name not recorded) What are the arrangements for dealing with additional traffic arising from new Morrison depot?

A: There will be three different road work projects:

 Silver Fish signalised junction

 Link road between A38 and A39 over railway line

 Rebuilding of Cross Rifles roundabout

Q: (Sandra Tizzard, Parish Councillor) How will the bridge over the railway improve traffic coming off J23 of the M5? NE Bridgwater and other developments have already increased traffic in the area.

A: The road over the railway will be open by 2012 thanks to significant private sector investment at NE Bridgwater. Redevelopment of the ROF site can provide benefit for the local area in similar ways, and the SPD will help shape this process.

Q: (Mr Randall) Morrison’s will be opened before road is going to be finished. What happens in the meantime?

A: The traffic lights at Silver Fish junction will help alleviate traffic problems on Puriton Hill.

Q: (Ms Redman) Morrison will be fully operational by March 2012. Why are road works at bottom of Puriton Hill scheduled in October to coincide with Morrison starting to operate?

A: It is important to realise that while new development needs to assure a problem isn’t made worse, it cannot be expected to fully resolve pre-existing problems such as Puriton Hill traffic. However, used in the right way, private sector investment may go some way to relieve the existing issues to some degree at least.

Q: (Abbey Miller, Puriton Park resident) Confidence in the Council is low, because residents feel Morrison’s traffic impacts haven’t been resolved ahead of the site being operational. Locals fear the same is likely to happen at the ROF site.

A: Expectations on new development need to remain realistic. Comprehensive up front development of infrastructure is not possible especially in the current climate due to lack of funding. A trigger points approach is usually employed to try and strike a balance.

A: (Cllr Anne Frasier) Some really good ideas regarding the ROF were voiced this evening and will be taken on board. It is a good idea to organise joint meetings with EDF, Morrison, Parish Councils, County Council etc to talk through the issues and join up thinking. Urge you to keep dialogue going so best result can be achieved.

Q: (Cllr Mark Healey) We should attempt to meet BAE systems to ask about their plans in more detail.

A: BAE’s public consultation on their proposed plans will start in November. A similar set up to this public meeting may be arranged at that time via the Parish Council.

Q: (Tessa Miller) Confidence is key for local people. Bridgwater Vision showed ambitious plans for the town, but reality is a Morrison’s warehouse and Splash closed/NDR built despite public opposition.

A: Morrison’s is a landmark building for Sedgemoor, and will provide significant number of jobs for the local community. Consultation will always involve a degree of compromise. This SPD process is about enabling local people to have a say over the planning application for the ROF site that will come before the Council next year, and it is hoped that they will take advantage of the opportunity.

Q: (Katie Newell, Parish Councillor) Villagers and parish councillors need to consider the broader issues. Any Information on environmental impact assessment would be much appreciated.

A: Information on Environmental Impact Assessment will be publicly available on the SDC website.

Q: (Name not recorded) New road proposals do not mention of how one would access the new road from the village?

A: The Transport Assessment will need to take into account all current transport issues, including how any new road may be accessed from within the village. It is not the role of the SPD to set out the detailed access arrangements that is the role of the planning application. BAE Systems consultation will provide some opportunity to look at the details of how a proposed access road will work.

Q: (John Barnes) All alternative routes would be built on green field land apart from the railway link.

A: There will be some intrusion, whichever solution is chosen. Environmental Impact Assessment will consider these issues. The reinstatement of the rail link is promoted in the SPD.

Q: (Name not recorded) Was appropriate research done to support the Energy Park concept, and will more research be done to assess economic demand for this type of development in this location?

A: The Energy Park concept stems from Economic Masterplan, which sets out focus on energy/low carbon/renewable technologies sector. The Core Strategy has a review mechanism that can take account of changes such as a shift in economic demand.

4. Closing words by Andrew McKay, including acknowledgement that a Puriton Parish Plan should be developed as soon as possible. (2mins)

A7. Puriton Parish Council and Residents Group - Further Comments and Response

100

Response to Puriton Residents Group and Puriton Parish Council

This paper provides a detailed response to the comments of the Puriton Residents Group (received 29th February 2012) and Puriton Parish Council (received on 1st March 2012) on the final draft version of the Puriton Energy Park SPD (dated 14th February 2012). For the sake of convenience the SDC response and proposed action is highlighted (italics and in red) below the original comments of the Group. The additional points made by the Parish Council are detailed and responded at the end of this paper.

Section 2 - Strategic and Local Context

We would applaud the insertion of Section 2 which better provides for a description of the local habitation. However, it is not clear as to what the strategic deliverables for Puriton and Woolavington will be.

We would point to para 2.2.5 as a clear marker that the proposals should take into account the local priorities of the local communities through active engagement and ongoing planning exercises. It specifically identifies addressing local traffic and accessibility issues. In addition the SPD as read as a whole sets out a number of key deliverables for the site that will benefit the local communities as well as the wider area including local and high skilled jobs, improved accessibility, green infrastructure enhancement, addressing a long-term contaminated and degraded site and benefits to the local economy.

Section 4 - Planning Policy Context

4.5.2 –It would be useful if “traditional sectors” is expanded on and better defined; this influences the type of land uses that would be considered acceptable for the Energy Park.

The reference relates to the District wide Economic Masterplan and is therefore relevant to Sedgemoor as a whole in terms of aspiration for diversifying the employment base. Traditional sectors will include manufacturing and distribution uses and of course there remains a need for the District as a whole to continue to modernise and strengthen in these areas building on strategic strengths. However the Masterplan also recognises the need to diversify into new and expanding sectors such as the energy sector. The point to stress here is the Masterplan is District wide whilst the SPD sets out in some details the types and nature of uses that will be appropriate for the site therefore it is the SPD that influences the land uses for the Energy park and the types of operation and quality standards of those uses.

4.5.3 - Creative digital and media industries – Is this being proposed as part of the Energy Park?

As above this reflects the commitment for transformation within Sedgemoor into new and emerging employment sectors and a suggested area of growth for Bridgwater as a whole. Whilst clearly the energy related business reference is directly relevant to the Energy Park given the nature of the SPD and the site’s allocation, digital and media industries are not and there are no proposals.

4.7.5 to 4.7.8- Policy MIP1: Major Infrastructure Proposals

Section 6 clearly indicates that a generation based development in excess of 50MW output as a single operator would fall within the definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project that would be considered by the IPC/MIU as opposed to SDC. Given the understood proposals for a CCGT by BAE Systems with an output far which is understood to be far in 101

excess of this 50MW threshold we would request some re-assurance as to how the protective provisions that are discussed within the SPD will be upheld given your statement that these documents may have limited status with the IPC/MIU particularly as the current proposed phasing would have the road access being part of the same application as this power plant. With this in mind, can we have more detail regarding what the Local Impact Report would contain and who would carry out such a study?

It is important that the SPD acknowledges that it (and the Core Strategy) does not have the same status for decision-making by the Infrastructure Planning Commission as it would for planning applications where the District Council are the determining body. However this does not mean they have limited or no status instead they will inform the Local Impact Report (to be prepared by SDC) which the IPC (or successor body) must have regard to. Indeed the fact that we have undertaken an SPD for the site provides additional confidence that we will be able to evidence any local impacts that may arise from a nationally significant infrastructure project. We will be able to demonstrate through the Local Impact Report the wider strategy for the site and the need to consider the key issues as identified in the SPD including any impacts on the local communities.

Please see the attached guidance on Local Impact Reports published by the IPC for your information. A link to this will be added to the Policy MIP1 section of the SPD.

Action – add weblink to LIR Guidance under para 4.7.7 on page 16

4.7.15 - The listing of these Core Policies implies that they are of secondary importance to those noted in greater detail earlier on in this section. As discussed at our last meeting we would wish to see Policies D14 (Natural Environment) and D16 (Pollution Impacts of Development and Protecting Residential Development) given greater prominence than it currently has.

The listing of the policies as set out in the SPD has no bearing on their importance an in making a decision on a planning application all relevant planning policies will be considered (para 4.7.15 makes this clear).The counter argument to the point being made is that you end up replicating substantial elements of the Core Strategy in the SPD and diluting the point being made – that there is an important policy context from the Core Strategy that needs to be considered. After all if Policies D14 and D16 are added in more detail does that mean Policy D10 (Transport Impacts) is less important because that isn’t included in greater detail (and so on).

However Policy S1 is shown in greater detail because this is the key strategic policy of the Core Strategy and the starting point in determining if development is in the right place; Policy MIP1 again is strategic as it sets out specific requirements for NSIPs; Policies D11 and P1 are specific to the ROF as the site is named in both. The confusion comes from the inclusion of policies D2 (Design) and D4 (Energy) in this section as these are district wide and generic policies (i.e. they do not have a place specific element) and so would been more appropriate under ‘Other Relevant Policies’ as well. Para 4.7.15 can also be tightened up to use ‘full’ consideration in the penultimate sentence.

Action – (1) Remove specific paragraphs under Policies D2 and D4 and add these to the list of policies under ‘Other Relevant Policies’ (2) add the word ‘full’ to the penultimate sentence so it reads “...prepared taking these into full consideration”.

4.14 –We are still unclear as to what is being proposed with respect to the use of the ROF site as a strategic waste site within the draft SCC Waste Core Strategy and how this influences the land uses within the Energy Park and the access routes to the site. We would 102

still expect to see greater clarity here as the wording within the SCC Strategy would appear to continue to outline a single preferred access route.

The Waste Core Strategy prepared by Somerset County Council merely identifies the potential of a wide area centred on Bridgwater and including the ROF site for a strategic waste facility, there are no proposals. However Section 6 of the SPD identifies the role that Energy Recovery from waste could have for the site including benefits in respect of reinstating the rail link. No specific reference was found in the Waste Core Strategy relating to a preferred access route and the SPD in setting out the more detailed advice in respect of transport assessment for the site would take precedence over this.

Section 5 - Site Analysis

5.2 - We would prefer to see the benefits and constraints relating to the development listed separately. Section 3.5.9 of the draft SPD specifically notes that the noise from the M5 as a constraint and we would wish this listed here.

Benefits and constraints are not listed separately because depending on how they are dealt with determines whether they are benefits or constraints, hence we see the combined list as opportunities. The reference to noise from the M5 relates to influences on landscape character. Whilst we acknowledge that noise of the M5 is an issue for the local community in Puriton we do not believe noise from the M5 is a constraint for the redevelopment of the site.

5.4.1 –We understand that the Environment Agency have required flood risks to be readdressed. We understand that the original flood risk assessment was based upon a 1 in 60 year flood risk. Our understanding is that the new assessment would need to be based upon a 1 in100/200 year flood risk. Can you confirm if this will be the case?

The reference to 60 years is in relation to the requirement demonstrate development is safe taking climate change into account over the lifetime of development (60 years for commercial) rather than a 1 in 60 year flood probability. Flood risk assessments demonstrating development over its lifetime is safe would need to be based on 1% annual exceedance probability (1 in 100 year) for fluvial flooding and 0.5% annual exceedance probability (1 in 200 year) for tidal flooding.

The wording of paragraph 5.4.3 that deals with this issue is based on the suggested wording of the Environment Agency in responding to the draft SPD.

5.6 – Transport and Accessibility

We would applaud the inclusion of this new section detailing Transport and Accessibility assessment requirements for the development. Whilst we recognise that you have indicated that comprehensive assessment will be required we would wish to see specific comment included regarding the need for comprehensive environmental impact assessment and assessment on residential amenity for the various road options as opposed to an EIA focussed on just for the developers preferred (commercially most expedient?) option.

There is no requirement for undertaking a full EIA of all road options set out in legislation and therefore if this was included in the SPD it is likely to be ineffective and subject to challenge. The EIA is required for the development proposals as submitted as part of the planning application. However residential amenity and environmental impact are matters that are clearly identified in this section as areas that should be included in the assessment of alternative access road options (see para 5.6.10 onwards) as part of the Transport Assessment. In addition the access options will need to be assessed under reasonable 103

alternatives as part of the EIA and para 5.6.11 highlights this. Therefore a comprehensive assessment of the options is required by the SPD.

In addition, whilst we recognise that you have removed reference to a preferred route within this section of the SPD, reference is still made to the original route in Section 6.3. We would wish this removed as well.

Apologies this is an oversight and will of course be removed.

Action – Amend bullet 5 of 6.3.1 to read: “A comprehensive transport solution that addresses existing strategic and local highway access, capacity and safety issues that would otherwise be exacerbated by the site’s redevelopment”

5.6.2 - Whilst we still support the general concept of reinstating the rail link we are still unclear regarding the realism of such reinstatement occurring and what overall benefit such a reinstatement would attract. Members of our group have had experience of similar road/rail hubs being little used by distribution operations and especially by smaller specialist operations as are likely to be present on the ROF. An example is Eurohub at Corby in Northamptonshire, where the only significant use made of it was for the transportation of motor vehicles (something which we would understand would not fit with the concept of an Energy Park). None of the distribution operations that went on that site, despite being constructed specifically with the facility of a rail siding off the main line, ever used that facility. The main reason for this was that most of their suppliers did not have the facility to despatch goods by rail.

The SPD correctly highlights the opportunity of the rail link given this is a relatively unique benefit and initial feasibility work has not ruled its reinstatement out. Clearly this will depend on the business case for the end users on the site and there is some suggestion that energy recovery uses will see this as beneficial. As the SPD states in para 5.6.25 given there is some uncertainty it would wrong to rely upon it in the transport assessment assumptions.

5.6.4 - Does the "role of softer transport measures...... including cycling and walking " refer to workers on the site or to the wider public. If it is the latter the planners need to be aware of the demographics of the area. Our recent parish plan survey indicated that, of the respondents to that survey, 49% are over the age of 60 and are not likely to be able or willing to walk or cycle to local towns. If it refers to the working population on the site, commuting between local towns and work is often impractical because of the travelling time. In both cases therefore there will be considerable reliance on the private car or public transport.

However, the same parish plan survey did reveal that many people would like to see more facilities for walking and cycling, both for leisure purposes and for travelling to and from work.

A development of this scale requires a comprehensive transport solution that covers all modes of transport. The SPD sets out the opportunity for improving cycling and walking not just to the site but between the existing communities where linkages are deficient. This is consistent with the national policy agenda that encourages more sustainable modes of travel. Furthermore the site is well related to a number of local communities and Bridgwater and a significant number of people may relish the opportunity to travel to work by walking and cycling if this is safe and convenient, and to use improved linkages to access local services including leisure and recreational facilities within the local communities and part of the wider redevelopment of the site.

104

5.6.5 - Will the residents group will have an input to this?

It is the responsibility of the local planning and highway authorities to agree the scope of the Transport Assessment but there will be opportunities for updates and discussions on its progress through the suggested parish working group or the Local Liaison Group. As para 5.6.12 states it will be important that there is appropriate consultation with the local communities and stakeholders where wider traffic improvements are proposed that affect the villages.

5.6.7 - This section concentrates on use of private cars but very little mention of HGVs is made. Does this mean that the SPD envisages little or no lorry traffic or ignores them?

The principles listed come from the national guidance. They relate to reducing traffic overall and do not specifically mention HGVs though this is implicit. The impact of HGVs is a matter that will be assessed as part of the Transport Assessment as the nature and level of trips arising from the development is a central part of the traffic modelling and is obviously a key determinant of what mitigation is required. There are some minor changes that can be made to this section to highlight HGV traffic impacts.

Action – (1) Amend bullet 2 of para 5.6.2 to read “Cumulative impact with other developments ongoing and planned in the area including the Morrisons Regional Distribution centre and new nuclear build at Hinkley Point, including significant numbers of HGV movements. (2) Amend bullet 1 under para 5.6.7 to remove “especially by car”. (3) Amend bullet 1 under para 5.6.9 to read: “Comprehensive traffic modelling that takes into account existing conditions in the area, the scale and nature of traffic generation (including HGV movements) arising from the proposed development, the cumulative impacts from planned development (including Hinkley Point C and North East Bridgwater) and associated traffic mitigation traffic measures”

5.6.9 - Transport assessment links to the road options plan stated as figure 1. We should ask to see this to ensure it doesn’t include the evaluation notes of each route as included in the last SPD draft as, as discussed at the last meeting, these notes were considered incomplete and biased towards a particular option.

The road options plan will not include any evaluation notes and will simply present the options graphically. A draft figure is included below for information.

105

With regard to bullet point 4 the reference to mitigation measures between Puriton and Woolavington again implies a preferred road option. We would wish this wording changed.

We do not consider that this implies a particular route but merely identifies that whatever the transport solution for the site that there may be a requirement for further mitigation of the local highway network between Puriton and Woolavington. The emphasis of this bullet is on ensuring that the solution cannot only be about the site it must take into account the need for wider mitigation (where appropriate) and potential impact on the local highway network. To make this clearer reference to Puriton and Woolavington could be removed.

Action – Amend bullet 5 under para 5.6.9 to read: “Any proposed mitigation will need to consider the area as a whole and where appropriate set out a comprehensive package of

106

mitigation for the local highway network. This could include measures to improve circulation locally including junction improvements and traffic systems.

Section 6 -The Energy Park Concept

We accept that there is no standard definition of an “Energy Park” hence why we have been keen to see more detail provided as to what end uses are being envisaged. We still feel that this section is a very vague (even more so now that example land uses have been removed) and potentially liable to allow applicants to find loopholes whilst also not providing a feel as to the balance of end uses which will be accepted.

Example land uses have not been removed (see section 6.4). Section now includes clearer priorities for development proposals of how they should contribute to an Energy park concept i.e.emerging technologies, renewables friendly culture, advanced environmental, economic and social performance, clean energy, going beyond routine economic development. This all points to development that ‘ups the bar’. It is also important to emphasise that whilst this section outlines a concept the SPD must be read as a whole so the concept needs to be read alongside the key deliverables, the design principles etc. Together this represents a significant level of policy advice to inform proposals. What the SPD cannot say is what the Energy park will definitively look like and consist of at this stage although it can set high level parameters that development proposals will need to meet (as it currently does).

For example, would there be any restriction on the size of operations engaged in energy production and manufacturing and advanced engineering particularly given the definition in Section 6.1 of suitable usesas those with “high energy consumption”. We would interpret this as being heavy industry and not necessarily the high quality end use promised?

Again the SPD needs to be read as a whole, if it doesn’t meet the concept or doesn’t meet the design principles or the wider objectives set out in the SPD (including high quality and sustainable design) then it would not be appropriate for the Energy Park. It would not be expected for example that the whole of the site would become a power station as this huge land take would not meet the requirements of the SPD. High energy consumption does not necessarily mean heavy industry, in a modern sense this could mean large scale computing or server facilities requiring lots of energy for operations. Heavy industry is not a use which is identified within the SPD and any consideration of industrial uses would refer more to clean industrial processes and we believe the SPD is clear on this aspect.

Furthermore, the residents group still holds significant concerns regarding the logistics end use. There needs to be clearer definition on what is meant by "logistics relating to the energy sector" and "other energy supply chain businesses". At our last meeting it was clearly indicated that logistics uses would need to be specific to the defined energy uses. However 6.9.1 now includes an additional end use defined as “…or able to utilise or contribute to key infrastructure delivery”. We would consider that the wording significantly dilutes down the energy use related logistics.

Both logistics relating to the energy sector and where it could contribute to key infrastructure has been referenced in the SPD since the original draft and is consistent with the Core Strategy which sets out a sequential approach for employment proposals, starting with brownfield sites. The wording has not been diluted indeed now it is explicitly clear that logistics will not be appropriate to open the site or dilute the concept of the Energy Park. Before the wording could have been interpreted to mean that the delivery of key infrastructure would have justified logistics in the first phase of development. The final draft makes it clearer that logistics even where key infrastructure could be delivered or it is directly 107

related to the energy sector cannot be in the early phases of development or prejudice the priority for energy related uses for the site.

Again the SPD needs to be read as a whole - even in the circumstances at a later phase when logistics may be seen as complementary and ancillary to the Energy park as a whole and may offer the opportunity to deliver key infrastructure that until then has not come forward (i.e. the rail link), if it does not accord with the SPD objectives as a whole (i.e. satisfy transport impacts of development, promote high design, local and higher skilled jobs etc etc) then it would still not be appropriate.

6.1.4 - How does a CCGT fit into enhancing landscape with stack heights at least within the region of 60-80m high (e.g. West Burton B).

The design principles section deals specifically with building heights and identifies that any tall elements that are operationally required should be located in the northern sections of the site furthest away from local residents. There would also be a requirement for strategic landscaping and screening to minimise visual impact. Of course technology is emerging all the time that allows for much more innovative ways of dealing with processes and encouraging cleaner solutions, this opens up a wider range of design options. Again the key deliverables of the SPD states the requirement for high quality design throughout the site. It is also worth remembering that the site is a brownfield site occupied by a number of unattractive and tall buildings so it is not just realistic but also essential that development enhances the character of the landscape.

Although we have only limited knowledge of the example quoted its context immediately adjacent to a substantial and long standing coal fired gas power station is very different to that of the former ROF and the concept of the Energy Park.

6.1.5 –Whilst it is clear how these proposals will benefit Bridgwater it is still very unclear how they benefit Puriton. Surely now that you have added Section 2 which indicates the local context some consideration and detailing of the benefit to this context should be included particularly as they will the areas most adversely impacted by the redevelopment.

Agree that this para could be amended to specifically identify some benefits to the local communities that should arise from the redevelopment of the site.

Action – Amend para 6.1.5 to read: “Overall development on the site should accord with the aims and objectives of the Core Strategy and meet SDC’s wider aspirations including raising the image and economic profile of Bridgwater, enhancing the context and providing greater accessibility to jobs, services and facilities for those local communities closest to the site as well as improving the reputation of the wider District as a place to live, work and invest.”

6.2.1 –We would wish clarification regarding what would be the targeted opportunities associated with Hinkley C?

This relates to renewable and low carbon energy related uses as part of the Somerset Low Carbon Cluster. Hinkley new nuclear build provides an opportunity to capture inward investment in areas such as energy related research and development and manufacturing. There are also links with nuclear supply chain which are discussed below under 6.12.

6.2.4 - If the expected number of jobs created is circa 2000, the likelihood is that the majority of these will use private cars, except for those living in the immediate area. Since the level of unemployment housing within the parish, it is unlikely that many local residents will find employment on the site. 108

Bridgwater is well related to the site and in addition to the immediate local communities would have benefited from the ROF being a significant source of local employment in the past. The redevelopment of the site provides opportunity for local employment to be secured (through local labour agreements) beyond just Puriton and with enhanced public transport, cycling and walking links between the site, local communities and Bridgwater also provides opportunities for sustainable modes of travel. As paragraphs 6.2.5 and 6.2.6 outline there are key issues around out-commuting and the retention of graduates and skilled people and these are drivers for the redevelopment of the site. The opportunities for residents of Puriton and Woolavington as well as other nearby villages to find employment on the site would be high.

However whilst local labour agreements and strategic travel plans will support these objectives of the SPD to an extent, through the Transport Assessment the role of the private car will be considered and realistic assumptions are made as part of the traffic modelling. .

6.3.1 - Please see our previous comment above regarding the key deliverable connection to the A39.

6.12–New Nuclear (Hinkley Point C) Supply Chain

There is obvious enthusiasm for maximising the employment potential associated with the construction and operation of Hinkley Point C. At out meeting we were encouraged by your comments regarding the largely minimum extent that the ROF would have as part of the overall long term supply chain whilst acknowledging it would have some limited importance short term. It is still not clear the nature of such uses and how long a durationthese short term uses would be considered acceptable and how they would fit into the phasing of infrastructure provision.

Section 6.12 specifically sets this out and provides the control that this will not be acceptable if it prejudices the delivery of the Energy Park concept or unacceptably impacts on local communities, the environment or raises unaddressed transport issues. Para 6.12.3 sets out the likely links of supply chain businesses with the construction sector and the types of uses including storage, lay out areas and temporary offices. In terms of duration this will correspond to the ten year construction programme of Hinkley Point C. As outlined in para 6.12.5 uses whichmay be considered suitable will be subject to temporary consents and/or legal provisions which could range from between 3 and 5 years to allow for a review at specific points depending on the circumstances.

8.4 Second bullet point - Encourage uses in the evening ... does this mean logistics traffic 24/7?

This relates to objectives about ensuring places are vibrant and active to avoid concerns over safety and security and fear of crime. It is aimed at community uses and businesses which may draw in activity in the evenings and hence provide natural surveillance and policing. Section 6.11 highlights the support services that may be viable on the site where evening activity is likely to be beneficial.

109

Additional Comments raised by Puriton Parish Council

Please note that Puriton Parish Council fully supports and endorse the submission already presented to you by Mr Ewan Tweedie which has resulted from a recently held joint meeting of the Project Group and members of Puriton Parish Council.

Noted

In addition to those comments The Parish Council also would like to place particular emphasis on the comments relating to Section 6 of the SPD in that is of the view the definition of the Concept of an Energy Park is still much too vague and as a result there are loopholes in the projected use of the site allowing development that would not necessarily provide a balanced usage nor the quality of jobs envisaged.

Section now includes clearer priorities for development proposals of how they should contribute to an Energy park concept i.e.emerging technologies, renewables friendly culture, advanced environmental, economic and social performance, clean energy, going beyond routine economic development. This all points to development that ‘ups the bar’. It is also important to emphasise that whilst this section outlines a concept the SPD must be read as a whole so the concept needs to be read alongside the key deliverables, the design principles etc. Together this represents a significant level of policy advice to inform proposals. What the SPD cannot say is what the Energy park will definitively look like and consist of at this stage although it can set high level parameters that development proposals will need to meet (as it currently does).

Likewise it wishes to place greater emphasis in respect to the comments made in Sections 4 and 5 relating to Infrastructure. Any new route in to the site must give full consideration to the residents of the surrounding communities and ensure that cost is not the overriding or deciding factor in any route put forward. There is a duty of care to the residents of the Parish and it is of vital importance that any new infrastructure is not detrimental to the quality of living that the residents currently enjoy. It is vital that any necessary new infrastructure gives paramount priority to the residents wellbeing and this must be got right.

See response above. Comprehensive assessment is required and this includes consideration of any impact on residential amenity and the impacts on the wider communities as detailed in the SPD. Cost will not be an overriding factor if any route is inappropriate or its impact is unacceptable.

Quote from SPD section 6.12.4 - 5

“However if rapid progress on remediation, progressing a planning application for the site‟s redevelopment and delivering any necessary upfront infrastructure is made the site may also provide some short to medium term opportunity for accommodating supply chain businesses associated with the construction of new nuclear build at Hinkley Point.

However any such use should not prejudice the delivery of the Energy Park concept or unacceptably impact on the local communities, the environment or raise unaddressed

110

transport issues. Where supply chain proposals are deemed acceptable the opportunity for time limited consents and appropriate legal agreements to be imposed will be considered.”

Finally the Parish Council wish to make particular reference to the above statements in as much that they are fully scrutinized with respect to the current infrastructure. The current use by Charles Gee, the lack of consideration to the original one way HGV traffic agreement when ROF was operational, that are currently ignored by HGV traffic. We are aware that this is being advertised by Charles Gee as a logistics site for Nuclear industry and fear that the infrastructure that currently exists will be over burdened. A section with regard to the one way agreement and limited HGV access should be considered together with highways, and an thorough examination of any issues regarding the safety of local people, lack of pavements and being able to move safely around the village, without the threat of heavy plant movement, and associated logistic transportation endangering the peace of the village.

Whilst these comments are noted, this is the purpose of the transport assessment – to assess impact and identify appropriate mitigation which could include one way traffic agreements amongst a package of local highway measures. We have stressed in para 5.6.12 in the SPD that appropriate consultation with the local communities and stakeholders should be undertaken on such issues.

SH/SM/DB - 8th March 2012

111