Paul Butt Planning 8 Hyde Copse Marcham Oxfordshire OX13

Home , Marcham

Please reply to: Mr P Butt BA(Hons) DipUP DipUD MRTPI Paul Butt Planning Direct Line: 07760 210952 8 Hyde Copse Marcham Email: [email protected] Oxfordshire My ref: 2018-257 OX13 6PT

Your ref:

Planning Policy, Vale of White Horse District Council, 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Milton OX14 4SB.

7 January 2019 Dear Sir/Madam,

Comments on the submitted Uffington and Baulking Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031 Submission Version October 2018 (the Plan).

Further to your consultation ending at 5pm on Thursday 24 January 2019, on behalf of Mr Randal Joseph Pakeman I would make the following comments on the Plan as it relates to the Uffington Trading Estate (the UTE). For information the UTE is outlined in bold on the plan below.

Uffington Station (the UTE) is allocated as a business site in the Local Plan 2011 under saved Policy E8 as one of the ‘Local Rural Sites’ and saved Policy E11 as one of the ‘Rural Multi-User Sites’:

“which seeks to retain key local rural multi-user sites for business purposes” (para. 11.65 of the Local Plan 2011).

However, the UTE is not an employment site that is saved in the adopted LPP1 nor in the emerging LPP2. Para. 5.122 of LPP1 states:

“A number of employment allocations from the former Local Plan 2011 will also be saved. Some other smaller employment sites are no longer fit for purpose (for example, Pioneer Road / south of Willes Close and north of Park Road / south east of Volunteer Way) and it may be appropriate for these sites to be redeveloped in accordance with Core Policy 29.”

Paul Butt BA(Hons) DipUP DipUD MSc MRTPI T: 07760 210952 E: [email protected]

Where there is no reasonable prospect of land or premises being used for continued employment use LPP1 Core Policy 29 ‘Change of Use of Existing Employment Land and Premises’ allows for the UTE to be changed to a mixed use enabling development which incorporates employment space, and if this is not viable then the extent to which the proposed use generates new employment will be considered in determining the relevant planning application.

Since 1981 the UTE has a long and difficult planning history of planning applications and appeals having had to be made…costs being awarded against the District Council three times for unreasonable behavior in seeking to prevent or restrict employment development at UTE… for Classes B1, including B1(a) (offices), B2 and B8 uses very many of which both Baulking Parish Meeting and the Vale of White Horse District Council (the District Council) have consistently objected to in regards to business development at the UTE. The objections related to matters of large vehicle accessibility, light, noise, and the absence of passing places along the highway, which are again variously referred to in the Plan, and having sought to severely restrict employment development on the site. For example:

• BAU/7616/8 - this application was the subject of an allowed appeal following the District Council’s refusal in 1995 for the construction of a building of 488sqm for Class B1 or B2 uses (the existing more modern building comprising Units A and B next to the main access into the UTE) because of a general restraint on employment generating development outside settlements in rural areas. • BAU/7616/11 - this planning permission allowed the erection of two business units (Units G and H) next to the building allowed at appeal in 1995 under BAU/7616/8. It also allowed for the erection of Units E and F, and an extension to Unit C. The planning permission was subject to limiting conditions imposed by the District Council restricting the occupation of Units G and H to a specific user (Putra Modern (Europe) Ltd who no longer occupy the units), requiring three passing places on Station Road, amongst other matters, and a S106 planning obligation dated 19 May 2004 restricting the total amount of floorspace, including mezzanine flooring, on the UTE to not exceed 2,714 square metres. • P16/V3119/FUL – this application proposed the demolition of the extension to the 1979 joinery workshop and the 1981 vehicle store and plant maintenance building and the erection of Units J and K for Class B1 (business) or B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage or distribution) uses. Baulking Parish Meeting objected to this application three times and on the grounds of an “Overall increase in proposed development at the site, and the consequent impact primarily of traffic on the immediate locality” and “natural light reduction and probable noise” on Junction House, and “Access and traffic down a single-track country lane…must be subject to some conditions”, and “The number of Units within the site will mean the volumes of traffic can only increase, along with light and noise.”

It would appear that the references to UTE in the Plan derive from the continuing objections of Baulking Parish Meeting to employment development at UTE, including in relation to the matters of large vehicle accessibility, light, noise, and the absence of passing places along the highway which are variously referred to in the Plan.

As a result of the planning history, continuing objections made and the planning restrictions placed on the UTE, the development of the UTE has not progressed apace with the planning permissions that have been achieved. Whilst this may well have something to do with the location of the UTE not being ‘fit for purpose’ as the LPP1 appears to suggest, and its origins as a tip which can be a costly consideration in building on the site, it is understood that in any event no employee at the UTE resides in the Plan area.

Due to the long and difficult planning history of planning applications and appeals having had to be made for Classes B1, including B1(a) (offices), B2 and B8 uses very many of which both Baulking Parish Meeting and the Vale of White Horse District Council (the District Council) have consistently objected to in regards to any more business development at the UTE, the restrictions in the planning permissions, together with the continuing restrictive contents in Policy EE1 ‘Commercial Development’ of the Plan, and which appears to be aimed at continuing to restrict commercial development the UTE, Mr Pakeman is considering making a planning application for a partial or complete residential redevelopment of the UTE. Whether the new homes include facilities for employment through homeworking, as supported by Policy EE3B “provided they do not create nuisance and do not significantly increase vehicular traffic through the settlements”, or

Paul Butt Planning Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 794832. VAT Registration Number 128 8681 76 Registered office address: 8 Hyde Copse, Marcham, Nr. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX13 6PT T: 07760 210952 E: [email protected]

Incorporates employment floorspace in accordance with LPP1 Core Policy 29 remains to be seen.

Comment 1:

The Plan is a ‘non-allocating’ plan (para. 4.8.1 of the Plan refers). However, added to the Planning Practice Guidance section on neighbourhood planning on the 13 September 2018 is the following:

"In the context of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, what does ‘policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement’ mean for neighbourhood plans?

In order for a neighbourhood plan to meet the criteria set in paragraph 14b of the Framework, the ‘policies and allocations’ in the plan should meet the identified housing requirement in full, whether it is derived from the standard methodology for local housing need, the housing figure in the area’s strategic policies, an indicative figure provided by the local authority, or where it has exceptionally been determined by the neighbourhood planning body. For example, a neighbourhood housing requirement of 50 units could be met through 2 sites allocated for 20 housing units and a policy for a windfall allowance of 10 units. However, a policy on a windfall allowance alone would not be sufficient.

Allocations are sites clearly outlined with a site boundary on a policies map with accompanying site allocation policies in the plan setting out, as a minimum, the proposed land use and the quantum of development appropriate for the site. Policies and allocations within other development plan documents, for example strategic site allocations or windfall development set out in a strategic or local plan, will not meet criterion 14b of the Framework. Housing requirement figures set for designated neighbourhood areas should reflect any relevant allocations already set within the strategic policies.

Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 41-097-20180913

Revision date: 13 09 2018"

See: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning--2

To my mind given the clear need for housing identified for Uffington and Baulking in the Housing Needs Assessment 22 May 2017 (the HNA) accompanying the Plan, and for “in the region of 19 dwellings” (Policy H1 of the Plan), the guidance in Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 41-097-20180913 means that a 'non- allocating' Neighbourhood Plan which relies on a windfall allowance alone would not be sufficient to meet the criteria set in paragraph 14b of the Framework.

The Plan relies on the HNA in proposing, in Policy H1 in the region of 19 new dwellings from 2018 - 2031, although in the pre-submission draft of the Plan this was “at least 19 dwellings”. No specific sites are identified in the HNA, whether on infill or brownfield sites. Rather, the Plan relies on a past increase of 9% (30 dwellings) over the decade 2001 – 2011 (from 326 dwellings in the Plan area to 356 dwellings) to predict a similar rate of growth of 9.5% (or 34 dwellings rounding up) per decade over the Plan period itself, 2011 – 2031 (68 dwellings in all over the Plan period rather than the 67 referred to in the Plan). There are a number of reasons why a predicted rate of growth of 9.5% per decade is likely to be an over-prediction, and the proposal for in the region of 19 dwellings to 2031 is likely to be an underestimate.

Firstly, since December 2016 Baulking has been considered by the Vale of White Horse District Council in LPP1 to be ‘Open Countryside’ and therefore it is unlikely that any new dwellings will be permitted in Baulking under the strategic policies in the LPP1 and despite the Plan’s Policy H3 for housing specifically in Baulking. Policy H3 would only permit housing development in Baulking if it complied with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, which includes LPP1, and also meets an evidenced ‘local need’ (what amounts to a ‘local need’ is not defined in the Plan). In any event just one dwelling was permitted in Baulking in the decade between 2001 - 2011, involving the change of use of an existing building.

Secondly, the Plan assumes a higher rate of growth (9.5% per decade) over the Plan period, slightly more than has been achieved in that relied upon in the Plan of 9% between 2001 - 2011, and without any apparent evidence for a continuing rate of growth being able to be achieved. In para. 5.8.4 of the pre- submission Plan it referred to ‘Infill’ development and stated: Paul Butt Planning Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 794832. VAT Registration Number 128 8681 76 Registered office address: 8 Hyde Copse, Marcham, Nr. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX13 6PT T: 07760 210952 E: [email protected]

“Based on map assessments and discussions with residents it appears unlikely that all 19 dwellings proposed in the HNA could be accommodated within the existing built area and that some extension into adjacent areas would be necessary for this quantum.”

In para. 4.8.3 of the Plan it now states that:

“In Uffington there has been a steady stream of infill building over the past 50 years, with the majority within the last 15 years. Typically, there have been 1-2 buildings in this category built each year. There are some opportunities for further limited infill, particularly where the scale and density is consistent with existing dwelling spacing and appropriate to the location (see Section 5 for further details of size and style).”

No ‘infill’ sites are identified in the Plan, and ‘infill’ building plots do tend to ‘dry-up’ over time. In any event the pre-submission Plan accepted that in any event some extension into adjacent areas will be necessary to accommodate even 19 dwellings.

Para. 4.8.3 of the Plan contradicts the previous statement in the pre-submission draft that an extension outside the existing built area into adjacent areas will be necessary to accommodate even 19 dwellings. The Plan appears to be based on the ‘hope’ that infill plots will come forward for 19 dwellings, having accepted that this is unlikely, rather than ‘planning’ for it.

Of the total requirement identified in the Plan of 67 additional dwellings over the Plan period 2011 - 2031, para. 4.7.1 of the Plan states:

“48 dwellings had already been completed, or received planning permission, by March 2018, through a development of 36 homes at Jacks Meadow and 8 other dwellings in Uffington plus 4 single dwellings in Baulking, leaving a balance of 19.”

It should be remembered that the Jacks Meadow [Lea] development was only allowed by the District Council as a “suitable extension to the village” (para. 7.1 of the Planning Committee report) because of an absence of a five-year housing land supply in the District at the time, an application on which Uffington Parish Council had many concerns. The Planning Committee report also noted of the 44 local resident objections that this was an “unusually large response of objections” (para. 6.12). I am struggling to identify the 4 single dwellings completed by March 2018 in Baulking, and in any event the Plan proposes 19 new dwellings be built.

Thirdly, para. 4.7.4 of the Plan advises:

“the HNA surveys indicated that there is a demand for affordable housing”.

However, it is unlikely that any affordable housing will be secured from the ‘non-allocating’ Plan. Para. 4.7.4 goes on to advise:

“There are limited sites in the Plan area capable of triggering this affordable housing threshold” but does not identify any sites capable of triggering the threshold of 11 or more dwellings. The Written Ministerial Statement also means that developments of 10 or fewer dwellings would likely not require affordable housing to be provided.

In summary:

1 (a) It is considered that the Plan has not met the Basic Condition of having regard to advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State in Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 41-097- 20180913 of the Planning Practice Guidance.

1 (b) In relation to affordable housing it is considered that Policy H1 will not secure any of the local affordable housing need that is identified in the HNA and in the Plan in the remainder of the Plan period.

Comment 2:

The Plan is limited in its scope. The main focus of the Plan is on protection of the area’s principal environmental assets - the surrounding countryside setting of Uffington and Baulking and the open landscape of the Vale and White Horse Hill, Local Green Spaces and Common Land - together with employment land, with the only employment land referred to in the Plan being the UTE.

In summary:

2 (a) The Plan does not allocate any land for housing. Indeed, it envisages very limited opportunities for housing. As such, coupled with its extensive protectionist policies, it is considered that the Plan fails to promote sustainable development, a further Basic Condition.

Comment 3:

Para. 1.4 of the Plan is headed ‘Uffington & Baulking Villages’ with para. 1.4.1 headed ‘Uffington Village’ and para. 1.4.2 headed ‘Baulking Village’. However, para. 1.4.3 is for some reason headed separately as ‘The Canal and Railway’ and states:

“There is now a small trading estate near the site of the brickworks and old station (see Section 6).”

It is not clear whether the “small trading estate” is the UTE and if so this ought to be clarified in para. 1.4.3.

More importantly, para. 4.8.4 of the Plan refers to the UTE as the only significant brownfield site in the Plan area, para. 4.8.4 recognising that the re-use of brownfield sites “is a national priority for new building”, but states “it is not in a residential area” and that “Uffington and Baulking villages currently do not have any significant brownfield sites”. Para. 4.8.4 advises: “Uffington and Baulking villages currently do not have any significant brownfield sites, though before 1996 Uffington had two, which have since been developed: Freeman’s Close and Waylands.” Uffington Parish Council did not object to either of these developments on the grounds of loss of employment land (Freemans Close being developed in 1996 on the former Belmont Garage site and Waylands in 2007 on the Uffington Garage site). It is noted that the Parish Council welcomed the inclusion of shared ownership affordable dwellings in the Freemans Close development. Just to remind it is understood that in any event no employee at the UTE resides in the Plan area.

It is somewhat confusing for the Plan to refer to ‘Uffington & Baulking Villages’ in para. 1.4 and include the UTE under this heading in para. 1.4.3, but then to say that the UTE is the only significant brownfield site in the Plan area and that Uffington and Baulking villages do not have any significant brownfield sites. To my mind whilst the UTE does not lie within the built-up area of either of the villages, it nevertheless is not an isolated site in the Plan area. Indeed, on page 34 of the Plan it states of Baulking village:

“Whilst Baulking is identified in the VWHDC LPP1 as ‘open countryside’, it is a sustainably located, not isolated, settlement with considerable synergy with Uffington less than a mile away. Limited additional housing is required in order to enhance or maintain the vitality of the small rural community, both present and future, which supports and uses the services available in Uffington.”

In fact there are a number of residential properties in the area of the UTE, including Junction House, adjacent to the UTE to the West, The Old Engine House, adjacent to the UTE to the East, and Station House just over the railway bridge.

In March 2018 the Court of Appeal confirmed a High Court judgement into the lawful interpretation of isolated homes in the context of para. 55 of the then NPPF. Justices McCombe and Lindblom agreed with Justice Lang that the Inspector at the appeal for 2 detached dwellings at Lower Green Road, Blackmore End in Essex had made no error in law. The Inspector had taken a ‘narrow’ view of the meaning of isolated is so much as it concerned the physical separation of the site as opposed to a more functional interpretation relating to access to services. In his Judgement, Justice Lindblom states the word isolated “is itself generally used to describe a location”. Paul Butt Planning Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 794832. VAT Registration Number 128 8681 76 Registered office address: 8 Hyde Copse, Marcham, Nr. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX13 6PT T: 07760 210952 E: [email protected]

He then goes on to say: “The word isolated in the phrase “isolated homes in the countryside” simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. What constitutes a settlement for these purposes is not defined in the NPPF. There is no specified minimum number of dwellings, or population. It is not said that a settlement boundary must have been fixed in an adopted or emerging local plan, or that only the land and buildings within that settlement or development boundary will constitute the settlement. In my view a settlement would not necessarily exclude a hamlet or a cluster of dwellings, without for example, a shop or post office of its own, or a school or community hall or a public house nearby, or public transport within easy reach. Whether, in a particular case a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement or village for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgement for the decision-maker.” In respect of the specific case he concluded: “That Blackmore End is indeed a settlement, and that there are dwellings a short distance to the north of the appeal site, others a short distance to the south, and another on the other side of the road to the west, is obvious when one looks at a map. And it is not contested, or contestable, that If the word ‘isolated’ in paragraph 55 of the NPPF means physically isolated in being isolated from a settlement, the Inspector was entitled – as a matter of fact and planning judgement, if not simply as a matter of fact – to conclude at the end of paragraph 9 that the “development would not result in the new isolated homes in the countryside to which Framework paragraph 66 refers.” He then goes on to say: “In the circumstances, there was no need for “special circumstance” to be identified to justify a development of “new isolated homes in the Countryside”. This was not such a development.” In summary:

3 (a) It is considered that para. 1.4.3 should be clearer if it is referring to the UTE, rather than to an unspecified “small trading estate”.

3 (b) It is considered that as a matter of fact and planning judgement the UTE, like Baulking, is not isolated in terms of para. 79 of the updated 2018 NPPF…“Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside…” from either Uffington or Baulking villages. The UTE is closer to Uffington village than Baulking such that a partial or complete residential redevelopment of the UTE would equally support and use the services available in Uffington, as page 34 of the Plan confirms.

Comment 4:

Policy EE1 of the Plan as it relates to the UTE lacks robust, proportionate evidence to support it.

Policy EE1 states:

“Policy EE1 – Commercial Development

EE1A – Proposals for uses offering local employment opportunities in Use Classes B1 (offices), B2 (general industrial), B8 (storage & distribution) as well as tourism and leisure will be permitted, dependent on location and consistency with Development Plan Policies and the NPPF.

EE1B – Where not already permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) or policies in the Development Plan or NPPF, strong justification will be needed before change of use of retail or other existing employment developments to alternative uses will be supported.”

Whilst on the face of it Policy EE1A is permissive of ‘local employment opportunities’, it is caveated by ‘location’ and variously elsewhere within the Plan where it refers to: "the allowable usage of new site units will be determined by the constraints of large vehicle accessibility, and the desire to keep light and noise factors to a minimum, in this open countryside environment" (para. 6.3), and "some improvements in cycle safety on the roads leading to the estate will be necessary – for example by means of warning signs and passing places" (para. 7.7.1). It appears that Policy EE1 A is aimed directly at the UTE and many of these constraining matters have all been variously dealt with in the planning history and Paul Butt Planning Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Company Number: 794832. VAT Registration Number 128 8681 76 Registered office address: 8 Hyde Copse, Marcham, Nr. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX13 6PT T: 07760 210952 E: [email protected] found to be unnecessary. It appears Baulking Parish Meeting are trying to reopen the prospect of revisiting these matters in the Plan to object to or restrict employment development at the UTE under the guise of a new Policy EE1A in the event the Plan is made.

In addition, para 6.3 of the Plan states:

“6.3 Future Commercial Development

It makes sense to use the Uffington Trading Estate to the full, utilising its current profile of existing business units and seeking to enhance its potential to offer greater local employment through further expansion. However, the allowable usage of new site units will be determined by the constraints of large vehicle accessibility, and the desire to keep light and noise factors to a minimum, in this open countryside environment. This policy has been supported by the community as part of the CLP of 2015.42

42 Community Led Plan Section 12 (see Reference Document A).”

However, the Community Led Plan in Section 12 is about ‘Health & Crime’ and not about future commercial development. Section 11 is about ‘Employment’ but this makes no reference to the UTE nor the allowable usage of new site units being determined by the constraints of large vehicle accessibility, nor the desire to keep light and noise factors to a minimum. This reinforces the concern that Baulking Parish Meeting are trying to reopen the prospect of revisiting these matters in the Plan in order to object to or to restrict employment development at the UTE for reasons that have been found to be unnecessary at appeal in the past.

In addition, EE1B would require "strong justification" before a change to alternative uses will be supported. However, in the adopted LPP1 advises in Core Policy 29 ‘Change of Use of Existing Employment Land and Premises’ that where there is no reasonable prospect of land or premises being used for continued employment use a change to a mixed use enabling development which incorporates employment space, and if this is not viable then the extent to which the proposed use generates new employment will be considered in determining the relevant planning application, is allowed. Policy EE1B adds a further requirement for a strong justification to change the UTE to an alternative use above that of the adopted LPP1 Core Policy 29.

In summary:

4 (a) It is considered that Policy EE1A should be reworded to omit the words “on location” or insert “other than in the case of the Uffington Trading Estate” after “on location” as it appears this policy is aimed directly at the UTE and Baulking Parish Meeting are trying to reopen the prospect of revisiting these matters in the Plan to object to or restrict employment development at the UTE. Without either of these changes Policy EE1A fails to promote sustainable development, a Basic Condition.

4 (b) It is considered that Policy EE1B also fails to promote sustainable development, and is also not in ‘general conformity’, a further Basic Condition, with the strategic policies in Core Policy 29 of the adopted LPP1.

In conclusion it is considered that:

• the main focus of the Plan is on protection of the area’s principal environmental assets rather than on meeting identified market and affordable housing needs in accordance with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State; • whilst on the face of it employment Policy EE1 is permissive, in reality it is a protectionist policy designed to prevent rather than contribute to the achievement of sustainable development at the UTE, and is not in ‘general conformity’ with the strategic policies contained in the development plan.

To my mind the making of the Plan would not meet these three highlighted Basic Conditions. If it helps the Inspector found similar shortcomings in the Wantage Neighbourhood Plan. The Inspector found that:

“The Framework (para 183-4) explains that neighbourhood planning gives local communities “… direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood … Neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community”. In this case the plan falls short of doing that.”

Para 183-4 has been replaced by para. 29 of the 2018 Framework:

“Neighbourhood planning gives communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area. Neighbourhood plans can shape, direct and help to deliver sustainable development, by influencing local planning decisions as part of the statutory development plan.”

In this case the Plan falls short of doing that as the making the Plan cannot meet the Basic Conditions.

I hope these comments help.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Butt BA(Hons) DipUP DipUD MRTPI Paul Butt Planning Ltd

Chartered Town Planner