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).