Norton-Juxta-Kempsey Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030

Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030

0 Consultation Statement March 2021 Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

This page has been left intentionally blank

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. The Parish Council and Steering Group ...... 3 3. Aims of the Consultation...... 4 4. The stages of Consultation ...... 5 Residents’ Questionnaire ...... 5 Business Questionnaire ...... 8 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan Website ...... 9 Local Green Space Landowner Consultation ...... 10 Public Event 21st and 22nd February 2020 ...... 11 Regulation 14 Consultation ...... 13 5. Appendices ...... 17 Appendix 1 Survey Results...... 17 Appendix 2 Formal Notification and Poster ...... 42 These two documents were displayed on all Parish Council notice boards ...... 43 Appendix 3 List of statutory Consultees Consulted ...... 44 Appendix 4 Front cover of Summary Booklet delivered to all households ...... 46 Appendix 5 Article in Local Magazine ...... 47 Appendix 6 Responses to Regulation 14 Consultation ...... 49

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

1. Introduction 1.1. This statement has been prepared by Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) to accompany its submission to the local planning authority, Wychavon District Council, of the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Neighbourhood Plan (“the Neighbourhood Plan”) under Regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (“the Regulations”).

1.2. The Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by the Parish Council, a qualifying body, for the Neighbourhood Area covering the whole of the Parish of Norton-juxta-Kempsey, as designated by Wychavon District Council on 11 January 2017.

1.3. Under Regulation 15(2) of the Regulations, “consultation statement” means a document which: • contains details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan; • explains how they were consulted; • summarises the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; and • describes how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

1.4. This document is intended to provide a record of the consultations which have taken place during the preparatory stages of the Neighbourhood Plan, as well as an account of how the main issues and concerns emerging from these consultations have been considered and addressed.

2. The Parish Council and Steering Group 2.1. Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council is the ‘qualifying body’ responsible for preparing and submitting the Neighbourhood Plan.

2.2. Initially the Parish Council approached those that had been involved in developing the Parish Plan to commence working on the Neighbourhood Plan. Some of this group volunteered to assist with the early stages of identifying key issues and devising a questionnaire, but there has been a core group of four residents (including parish councillors) that form the Steering Group that committed to delivering this Neighbourhood Plan. Throughout the Plan making process several other members of the community have engaged in and input into the Plan for limited periods of time dependent on their area of interest and range of commitments.

2.3. Members of the Steering Group came from a range of backgrounds and had a wealth of experience to input into the process; all members of the Steering group were male.

2.4. From December 2018 all meetings were facilitated and attended by Planning Consultants, Brodie Planning Associates (BPA) who were appointed by the Parish Council to provide professional independent planning advice and to assist with the Plan making process.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

2.5. The Steering Group were directly involved in drafting the residents’ and business questionnaire and analysing its results; researching and undertaking assessments to inform the Green Space Background Papers, drawing relevant conclusions; reviewing and editing the body of the Background Papers and Plan; and developing policies under the guidance of Brodie Planning Associates.

2.6. Meetings were held on a regular basis during the process and the Parish Council was kept up to-date with the process with frequent updates provided by members of the group at Parish Council meetings. At various stages throughout the process local residents were updated quarterly through the parish newsletter and as the Plan progressed and documentation could be shared through a webpage on the Parish Council website and also through updates placed on the Parish Council’s social media page. After each meeting the minutes and relevant documentation were circulated to the Steering Group. All material produced by BPA on behalf of the Steering Group was reviewed and where necessary edited by the Steering Group at meetings and shared with the Parish Council for sign off ahead of publishing.

3. Aims of the Consultation 3.1. The aim of the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Neighbourhood Plan consultation process was to involve as many people in the community as possible throughout the consultation stages of the Plan. It was critical that the Plan was informed by the views of local people from the start of the process.

3.2. From the outset the Steering Group engaged with as wide a range of people as possible, using a variety of approaches and communication and consultation techniques. This included: public meetings; residents’ questionnaire; local business questionnaire; liaison with the school; an open weekend at the Parish Hall and St Peters Garden Centre to review shortlisted local green spaces and the overall vision and objectives for the Plan; leaflets were delivered to every single household in the parish to promote the events and awareness of the Neighbourhood Plan along with posters and sandwich boards placed throughout the parish; updates were also published in the quarterly parish newsletter, on the parish council website and through social media. The group devised a detailed consultation strategy to ensure that the community were kept updated and could be involved in the process where possible.

3.3. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 it was decided that the best way to reach out to the community for the Regulation 14 consultation was to produce a summary booklet of the Plan including the draft policies with a tear out response form; this was in place of a drop in event to reduce the risk of spreading the virus. A booklet was delivered to every household in the parish and gave people the opportunity to read a summary version of the Plan, respond if they wish and either request to view a hard copy of the full Plan or view all the documentation on the Neighbourhood Plan page of the Parish Council website. Stakeholders and other interested parties were emailed links to the documentation on the website; and where email addresses were unknown they were sent letters.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4. The stages of Consultation

4.1. In autumn 2016 the Parish Council initiated the Neighbourhood Plan process; this was in response to the adoption of the SWDP (February 2016), which identifies several strategic locations for housing, employment and infrastructure growth in and immediately adjacent to the parish. There was concern in the local community about the effect such large scale development would have on the parish and therefore there was an appetite for the local community to have more influence over the future development of the parish and to preserve the individual identity of each if its settlements.

4.2. The Parish Council established a small Steering Group which comprised councillors and local residents; people that had previously been involved in developing the Parish Plan and had shown an active interest in community planning were approached to join the group. Several volunteers initially showed an interest but not all have been able to commit to the entire process. In October 2016 the Parish Council sought to formally designate the parish as a Neighbourhood Area; this was subsequently approved in January 2017.

4.3. The process got off to a fairly slow start but once established the steering group met monthly to devise a resident questionnaire that could be delivered to every household in the parish to enable them to gain a full understanding of the planning issues that mattered most to the community and to inform the overall direction of the Plan.

Residents’ Questionnaire

4.4. The Steering Group undertook a parish wide residents’ survey in April 2018. A questionnaire was delivered to every address in the parish (990 homes) and each household was asked to respond. The questionnaire was heavily promoted with a feature in the parish newsletter, posters throughout the village and the parish council website.

4.5. The survey generated a 22 percent response rate with 216 responses. There was a good spread of responses from residents in each of the settlements within the parish; 50 percent were from Brockhill which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the parish’s population, 22 percent from Littleworth (the second largest settlement) 12 percent from Norton, 7 percent Hatfield and 3percent from each of the following: Woodbury Residents’ questionnaire.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Park, High Park and those that stated other. Full results of the survey can be viewed at appendix 1.

4.6. The survey asked about specific topic areas that had been identified by the Steering Group including: the level of support for future housing and employment development, footpaths and connections, the use of existing community facilities and the planned railway station in the parish. It also asked specifically about greatest concerns in the parish so that the plan could, where possible, look to address these. The group also wanted to understand how new changes would affect how people moved around and viewed the parish.

4.7. The results of this survey were used to identify the overarching direction of travel for the Plan along with identifying key policy areas.

4.8. The survey identified that local residents’ greatest concern was becoming part of Worcester City and that the planned housing growth and new railway station and their associated impacts, are the greatest challenges faced by the area. Other issues highlighted included: limited facilities and services; the current lack of infrastructure in the parish; the increase in traffic volume causing congestion and exacerbating parking issues in and around the rural settlements; the loss of the irreplaceable countryside to development; damage to valuable habitats and its impact on wildlife, and the overall loss of the area’s rural identity.

4.9. The Plan has therefore developed policies to ensure that new development takes account of the areas rural heritage, key landscape features and maintains the identities of individual settlements and hamlets by retaining undeveloped gaps and creating where necessary landscape buffers. A policy to encourage the retention and enhancement of trees and hedgerows has also been developed to ensure new development takes opportunities to strengthen this defining characteristic of the area.

4.10. The open countryside, green spaces throughout the parish and the hedgerows and trees all contribute not only to the character of the area, which is important to the local community, but they are also critical as a habitat, they help mitigate the effects of climate change and they also provide a space for recreation. Therefore, a policy has been developed to ensure new development takes opportunities to include green infrastructure and integrate it into the existing networks of green space and provide further enhancements.

4.11. The initial survey highlighted how important green spaces and the countryside were to the community therefore a full green space audit and assessments have been undertaken as part of the evidence base. Subsequent community engagement at open events and through an online survey in February 2020 confirmed that the Plan should include a policy designating and ultimately protecting important local green space for the duration of the Plan. All of the spaces proposed to the community were supported by at least 97 percent of respondents.

4.12. The initial survey in 2018 took place before the completion of the Parkway Station and sought to identify how many households would use the station and how they would access it. Although 88 percent of the 144 respondents raised concerns over the potential impacts of the Parkway on the rural road network, a large number (60 percent) stated they would be likely to use the station on a fairly

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

regular basis with almost 50 percent stating they would use a car to access the station. However, 32 percent stated they would walk to the station and 19 percent stated they would cycle; this is most likely influenced by how far people live from the station. At the time of drafting the Parish Council continue to be in discussion with County Council regarding further improvements for accessing the station by foot and cycle and alterations to the road network including parking restrictions to prevent problems in the narrow lanes and to neighbouring businesses and residents. The community would also like to see improvements in bus services connecting to the station.

4.13. Aside from concerns over traffic generation caused by the Parkway station 58 percent of respondents pre-empted the SWDP Review and identified that the station would most likely attract additional housing. Other potential impacts respondents identified included: the effect on house prices; potential increase in noise; increased crime risk; litter; loss of the rural landscape and the other potential development the station may attract. Many of these elements will require ongoing monitoring as the SWDP Review evolves and the future scale of development is better understood.

4.14. 60 percent of respondents stated they would be likely to use cycle paths if they were provided in the parish, therefore a policy supporting new cycle paths has been included. This policy also supports improvements to the network of footpaths in the parish as these are well used; 62 percent of respondents use the Public Rights of Way in the parish more than two times a month with 35 percent using them more than five times a month. Of those that don’t use the footpaths the main reason given by just 13 respondents was that they are overgrown; other useful suggestions from the community included improving signage and maintenance.

4.15. Increases in heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements and the associated environmental damage they cause in terms of damage to pavements, verges, noise and pollution were also highlighted as a concern. There are a number of businesses operating in the area that have fleets of HGVs and it is anticipated that this will increase with future development in the area. Therefore a policy to ensure that impacts are fully understood and mitigated has been developed.

4.16. The household survey asked about the level of use of some of the community facilities in the parish; it identified that the garden centre is the most well used facility followed by the pub. The Parish Hall is also well supported and used on a regular basis by a number of people. There were suggestions to increase the range of activities on offer in the hall to increase its popularity further including various classes and social events and the suggestion to reduce hall hire charges. There was also a suggestion of improved sports facilities.

4.17. The most sought after new facility identified in the residents’ survey is a shop for basic provisions and/or a Post Office; this was also the most supported option for a new business that could locate in the parish, with 59 percent of respondents supporting the idea. The Parish Council have already started research into such a community business. It is noted however, that the urban extension in the SWDP is expected to provide a small retail outlet within the site that may also address this matter.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4.18. Given that the community facilities are of great importance a policy has been developed to protect the existing facilities in the parish and to support the development of new appropriate facilities that are in keeping with the parish’s rural character and scale of the settlements.

4.19. Not surprisingly, given the extent of planned growth in and adjacent to the parish, there was no overall mandate to allocate further housing; 50.5 percent of respondents stated ‘no’ to allocating housing and 25 percent stated ‘possibly’, only 19 percent said ‘yes’ and a further six percent didn’t answer the question. Overall smaller schemes were considered preferable to larger schemes if further housing is required and low-cost starter homes, bungalows, low cost family homes and executive homes were the most supported housing types.

4.20. The survey also asked households to identify where in the parish further housing growth would be most supported and although no areas scored highly the more supported areas were north of the Worcester to London railway line with between 11 and 16 percent of households stating this was their preferred location.

4.21. The parish is going to also see an increase in employment sites by 2030 as two parcels of land are allocated in the adopted SWDP (2016) for employment use to the north of Brockhill Village. Therefore, unsurprisingly 49 percent of households were against further employment sites being allocated through the Neighbourhood Plan and 21 percent didn’t answer.

4.22. The results from the survey defined the key areas of research and policy development for the Neighbourhood Plan.

Business Questionnaire 4.23. The group also undertook a business survey in April 2019. The survey was sent to 24 known businesses with premises in the parish; 7 responses were received (a 29 percent response rate). The full results are set out at Appendix 1.

4.24. The respondents were from all different sectors, demonstrating the range of employment opportunities in the parish. They were from manufacturing, waste management, fleet logistics, finance, pub/restaurant, education, agriculture/horticulture, tourism, catering and retail sectors. Three of the respondents employ a significant number of people (100+). However, across the seven businesses of the 438 employees only 63 live in the parish (14 percent); resulting in a high level of in commuting to the parish and this is primarily done by private car or van (82 percent of staff). Despite high levels of reliance on motor vehicles all employer’s had sufficient parking except one company at Court Farm.

4.25. HGV movements were a concern raised by residents and five of the businesses stated that they generated HGV movements each week with one estimating that they generate 170 HGV movements per week. One other respondent left this question blank and given the sector they operate it in it is anticipate that they generate at least 170 HGV movement per week possibly more.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4.26. Three of the seven businesses hope to increase their workforce in the next 12 to 24 months, but only one anticipates that they may require additional workspace in the parish of Norton-juxta- Kempsey. They indicated that at this stage they intend to retain their existing premises and add a new workspace, offices, nearby. Five business intend to stay in the parish whilst two indicated that they may need to relocate. One company suggest that they may need to relocate out of the parish to find a larger site, the second company may be looking to sell the business – however given the nature of the business this does not mean the business will relocate just the current management.

4.27. The survey also asked about the strengths and weaknesses of locating in the parish. Transport and road linkages were seen as the area’s greatest strength. This could increase further with the Parkway providing another means of accessing the area. However, almost as important was the environment, the area has a rural feel and it is important that this is not lost. The greatest weakness was public transport – again this could be partially addressed through the parkway and any subsequent improvements in bus connections to the area, however some of the business are well removed from the station.

4.28. The final question asked more specifically about the impact of the station which at the time of the survey had not yet opened. Only one company felt that it will be a very positive addition in a great location, and two felt that it will impact them and raised concerns over the volume of traffic it will generate and possible impact of car parking. These responses clearly reflect the businesses locations within the parish and proximity to the station.

4.29. The results from this survey were supportive of the conclusion drawn from the resident’s survey, that there was little evidence to justify a policy for allocating additional employment sites but instead policies to protect existing and to allow for appropriate rural diversification have been developed.

Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan Website 4.30. To try and keep the community as informed as possible a dedicated section of the parish council website was developed in late 2019 and regular updates were published along with the evidence base as it became available; this was supported by links to the site promoted through social media. At key stages and where there was more substantive news information was also published in the quarterly Parish Newsletter delivered to every household.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Screen shot of NJK Neighbourhood Plan page.

Local Green Space Landowner Consultation 4.31. As sites were assessed and shortlisted for inclusion as Local Green Space it was considered important to notify landowners of the Steering Groups intention to designate them as Local Green Space in case they had not all been involved or were not aware of the process and any subsequent implications.

4.32. The landowners of 15 sites initially shortlisted were written to in early February 2020 prior to the public consultation at the end of February. Having reviewed the consultation responses and undertaken further assessments a further four new sites were added to the shortlist. The landowners of these sites were written to in September 2020 to notify them of the intention to include them in the draft plan as Local Green Space. More information relating to this and how it affected the final list of designated sites is contained within the Green Space Background Paper that accompanies the submitted Plan. All the local landowners of sites proposed to be designated as Local Green Space in the draft Plan were also notified of the Regulation 14 consultation.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Public Event 21st and 22nd February 2020 4.33. At a meeting in December 2019 the group agreed to an additional stage of community consultation in the form of a public event to be held in two different venues in the parish across one weekend. One at the Parish Hall located in Littleworth to tie in with the coffee shop opening hours to attempt to generate a higher footfall and one at St Peter’s Garden Centre on a Saturday afternoon again to generate the maximum footfall. The group used the event to share and seek community consensus on the Vision and Objectives for the plan that they had derived from the residents’ questionnaire. They also wanted the community to be involved in reviewing the fifteen areas of Local Green Space they had identified and shortlisted for designation of Local green Space and to identify whether there were any other spaces that they had missed.

Promotional flyer delivered to every household in the parish 4.34. Once again this event was heavily advertised with a flyer delivered to every household in the parish, posters, and sandwich boards located in the parish, editorial in the Village Newsletter, online on the Neighbourhood Plan page of the parish website and on the parish council’s Facebook pages. The events were attended by over 120 people with 124 paper responses completed over the two days. The survey was also posted online along with a copy of the boards that had been on display and a further 37 on-line responses were completed over an extended period. The survey was predominantly completed by adults, but four children did complete the survey. This represents 6.9 percent of total parish population (as at Census 2011); that is 9.0 percent of the adult population (as at Census 2011).

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4.35. Additional adverts and reminders were posted through social media and on the website.

4.36. The results of this event were used to progress the Plan along with refining the green space policies. Full results from this consultation are also published at Appendix 1. Facebook and website adverts

4.37. 100 percent of those that attended and responded were in support of the Plan’s Vision and support for each of the five objectives ranged from 94 to 100 percent. The group felt confident in continuing to research and develop policies to meet the overarching vision and objectives on this basis.

Open weekend 21st and 22nd February 2020

4.38. The community were also presented with 15 shortlisted local green spaces including photographs of each, a brief explanation of their use and a map showing where they are all located. There was very strong support for designating the identified sites as Local Green Space by those attending the event; each site had at least 97 percent of attendees in support. A further five new sites were suggested as a result of this consultation and one site was reassessed. Of the additional site assessments that were undertaken four sites were considered to meet the criteria for designation as

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Local Green Space, therefore 19 sites were proposed in the Draft Plan for the Regulation 14 Consultation. More details of this are contained within the Green Space Background Paper.

Regulation 14 Consultation 4.39. Following on from all the consultation that had fed into the process the Steering Group with the help of BPA were in a position to run the Regulation 14 consultation on the draft Plan in October and November 2020. The consultation commenced on 19th October 2020 and ran for 6 weeks until 5.00pm on Monday 30th November 2020.

4.40. It was decided that in light of the Covid-19 pandemic the Steering Group would not be able to hold public events to share the draft Plan with the community. Instead, to ensure that every household was made aware of the consultation and had the opportunity to comment on the proposed policies in the Plan, a summary booklet including a tear out response form was delivered to every single household in the parish. Additional funding was sought to print these documents from Locality. Residents that were keen to see the full Consultation Plan and the background documents could either access this online on the neighbourhood plan website or request to borrow a hard copy from the parish clerk. The response form was also available to complete and submit online for those that did not wish to post it back at one of the drop off points or to the parish clerk’s address.

4.41. Letters were sent via email to Stakeholders and where necessary in the post (see appendix 3 for full list of consultees). It was advertised in the parish in the following ways: • Awareness was raised prior to the survey going out in the Parish Newsletter and on the Neighbourhood Plan website and through a teaser campaign on the Parish Council Facebook page; • Posters were placed on all parish notice boards (see appendix 2); • A double page feature was run in the South Worcestershire Voice Magazine November edition (see appendix 5); • A summary booklet containing an overview of the Plan, the policies and a responses form was delivered to every household in the Parish in time for the 6-week consultation commencing on the 19th October (see appendix 4 for front cove; the full document is on the Neighbourhood Plan website); • All the information was posted on Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan website and information and a link was provided on the Wychavon District Council’s website; • It was promoted on the several local community Facebook pages; • 3 post boxes were located across the parish with posters for returning response forms one at the Retreat pub, the Parish Hall and St. Peter’s Garden Centre.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• The response form was also available to complete and submit online as well as version that could be printed and completed and either scanned and returned to an email address or posted into one of the collection boxes or to the parish clerk. • Regular reminders were posted on social media and the Parish Council website halfway through the consultation and a week before the end to remind people to contribute to the process and complete a response.

Examples of social media posts raising awareness and reminding locals to respond.

4.42. Part way through the consultation the government announced a second national lockdown which meant that two of the venues for returning paper copies of the survey would be closed from 5th November for four weeks. An updated online message was drafted to ensure that members of the community that wished to submit a paper response form could still arrange to do so if they were isolating or unable to submit an online response. Postal options which were already explained in in the booklet included posting to the parish clerk, posting though a parish councillor door, posting at the collection box at St Peter’s Garden Centre or phoning the clerk to arrange collection; therefore,

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

the lockdown was not considered to affect the local community’s ability to respond to the consultation. The ability to respond online was unaffected by the lockdown. 4.43. Copies of the following documents were made available for the duration of the consultation on the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan website with links to the site from the District Council’s website. Hard copies were also kept in the parish by members of the Steering Group and could be borrowed upon request by contacting the parish clerk.

• Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Neighbourhood Plan Summary Booklet • Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish draft Neighbourhood Plan for Consultation • Green Space Background Paper • Response Form (pdf) • Response Form (online version to complete and submit)

Website with survey and documentation

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4.44. In summary the Regulation 14 consultation had 100 respondents: 7 stakeholders, 5 agents and 88 residents. The stakeholders that responded were: Severn Trent Water, Natural England, National Grid, Worcestershire County Council, West Mercia Police, Wychavon District Council and Stoulton Parish Council. The agents were: Savills on behalf of St Modwen, Trustmgt, Barton Willmore, RCA Regeneration and Savills on behalf of The Spetchley Estate.

4.45. For completeness all the comments received are contained in a table at appendix 6 by policy area / chapter along with any associated response and action.

4.46. The following stakeholders confirmed that they had no comment to make or felt the Plan raised no issues: Severn Trent Water, Natural England, and Stoulton Parish Council.

4.47. No response was received from 54 statutory consultees: including Equality and Human Rights Commission, Historic England and Environment Agency (West) Sustainable Places (for full list of statutory consultees contacted see appendix 3).

4.48. Detailed comments were received from Statutory Consultees including: Wychavon District Council, Worcestershire County Council, and West Mercia Police and where relevant amendments have been made to the Plan, these are set out at appendix 6.

4.49. At the same time that the Regulation 14 consultation took place Wychavon District Council undertook a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Opinion consultation on the draft (Regulation 14) Neighbourhood Plan with the three statutory environmental consultees.

4.50. On the requirement for an HRA Appropriate Assessment (AA), all three statutory consultees agreed with Wychavon District Council’s conclusion that a HRA AA is not necessary.

4.51. On the requirement for a full SEA, all three statutory consultees agreed with Wychavon District Council’s conclusion that a HRA AA is not necessary.

4.52. Therefore, on the basis of the above, Wychavon District Council were able to confirm that neither a full SEA nor a HRA AA is deemed necessary in the preparation of the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Neighbourhood Plan.

4.53. In summary all the issues and concerns raised during the Regulation 14 consultation have been dealt with and responded to. Where considered necessary changes have been made to the submitted Plan and these are all captured in appendix 6.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

5. Appendices

Appendix 1 Survey Results – Results of Residents Questionnaire April 2018

Question Response Response Number % of Total Options code of 216 responses 1 In which area of the Brockhill 1 109 50% Neighbourhood do you live? Norton Village 2 26 12% Littleworth 3 48 22% Hatfield 4 15 7% High Park 5 6 3% Woodbury Lane 6 6 3% Other 7 6 3% Other - where? 8 2 1% Added to Others

2 For how long have you lived Up to 5 years 9 65 30% in the Neighbourhood? 6 to 10 years 10 26 12% 11 to 15 years 11 23 11% Over 15 yrs 12 102 47%

3 Do you or your children use Yes 13 101 47% the facilities at Norton No 14 77 36% Parish Hall?

4 If yes – what activities have Fireworks 15 74 34% you attended there in the Children’s Events 16 38 18% last year - and how many Public Meeting 17 24 11% times for each? Coffee Shop 18 81 38% Pantomime 19 24 11% Exercise Class 20 15 7% Council Meeting 21 16 7% Other 22 51 24%

5 What would encourage you Local Events 23 107 50% to use Norton Parish Hall Community Events 24 96 44% more in the future? Childrens Events 25 47 22% Sports Event 26 42 19% Other Suggestions: 27

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

6 What other facilities in the Garden Centre 28 195 90% Neighbourhood have you Sports Club 29 32 15% used in the last year - and Sports Field/Courts 30 62 29% how many times for each? Churches 31 51 24% Allotment 32 12 6% Pub 33 132 61% Other: 34 10 5%

7 Have you visited the "Coffee Yes 35 106 49% at WRfive" coffee shop & No 36 106 49% bar?

8 What events or activities in Bridge nights 37 5 2% the coffee shop and bar Snooker nights 38 19 9% would encourage you to use Group daytime 39 29 13% it (or use it more often)? meetings Folk singing nights 40 19 9% Computer guidance 41 22 10% Cooking events 42 58 27% Quiz nights 43 79 37%

9 What are your two biggest Emergency 44 6 3% concerns about the Services Neighbourhood? Lack of facilities 45 62 29% Personal safety 46 9 4% Crime 47 25 12% Speeding cars 48 115 53% Dog fouling 49 61 28% Flooding/Drainage 50 29 13% Vandalism 51 14 6% Possibility of 52 101 47% becoming part of Worcester City instead of being in the Wychavon district. Others (Please 53 State)

10 How do you find out about Parish Newsletter 54 185 86% what things are happening Notice boards 55 98 45% in the Neighbourhood? Word of mouth 56 83 38% Social Media 57 45 21% Other (please state 58 what)

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

11 What do you think are the challenges facing our 59 Neighbourhood?

12 If more cycleways and cycle Yes 60 129 60% routes were made, would No 61 87 40% you be likely to use them?

13 Do you regularly use the Yes 62 147 68% public rights of way, No 63 37 17% including footpaths and If yes, no. of bridleways within the times/month: Neighbourhood? Once or less 64 35 24% Two to four times 65 59 40% Five/more 66 75 51% If no, please tell us why. Not interested 67 2 1% Overgrown 68 13 6% Livestock 69 3 1% Other (please state 70 what)

14 The Worcester Parkway Are you likely to use the Worcester Parkway station on a station construction has regular basis? started and is planned to be operational in 2019:- Yes 71 129 60% No 72 80 37% If yes - how would you access the station from where you live? Car 73 106 49% Bus 74 30 14% On foot 75 69 32% Bicycle 76 42 19% Other (please state 77 what) If yes - how many times/month

Once or less 78 64 30% Two to four times 79 48 22% Five/more 80 26 12%

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

15 When the Worcester Parkway Attract additional 81 126 58% station is operational how housing do you think it will affect Increase 82 82 38% our Neighbourhood? employment opportunities Attract additional 83 88 41% business developments Create parking 84 118 55% hazards Increase the 85 191 88% amount of traffic passing through the Neighbourhood Not cause any 86 8 4% problems Other 87 39

16 If new residential Low cost starter 0 0 developments are to be homes built in the Neighbourhood, Essential 88 71 33% in addition to those in the Desirable 89 74 34% South Worcestershire Undesirable 90 64 30% Development Plan (SWDP), Bungalows 0 0 how would you rate the Essential 91 48 22% importance of these types of homes? Desirable 92 120 56% Undesirable 93 36 17% Association homes 0 0 to rent Essential 94 18 8% Desirable 95 50 23% Undesirable 96 129 60% Low cost family 0 0 homes Essential 97 60 28% Desirable 98 87 40% Undesirable 99 63 29% Executive detached 0 0 homes Essential 100 24 11% Desirable 101 110 51% Undesirable 102 62 29% Sheltered Housing 0 Essential 103 17 8% Desirable 104 68 31% Undesirable 105 110 51%

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Self Build 0 0 Essential 106 9 4% Desirable 107 73 34% Undesirable 108 105 49% Retirement Homes 0 0 Essential 109 29 13% Desirable 110 114 53% Undesirable 111 55 25% Retirement Village 0 0 Essential 112 19 9% Desirable 113 86 40% Undesirable 114 93 43% Special Needs 0 0 Housing/Flats Essential 115 9 4% Desirable 116 94 44% Undesirable 117 92 43% Low Rise Flats 0 0 Essential 118 2 1% Desirable 119 25 12% Undesirable 120 169 78% High Rise Flats 0 Essential 121 0 0% Desirable 122 1 0% Undesirable 123 194 90% Student 0 0 Accommodation Essential 124 0 0% Desirable 125 9 4% Undesirable 126 187 87% Residential Caravan 0 0 Park Essential 127 0 0% Desirable 128 9 4% Undesirable 129 188 87%

17 Please consider the 14 types Low cost starter 130 825 of potential housing and homes number them in the column Bungalows 131 830 headed "Level of Association homes 132 1628 Importance" from 1 to 14 to to rent show which you think is the Low cost family 133 876 most important for our homes Neighbourhood and which Executive detached 134 1134 you think is the least homes important. 1 should be the Sheltered Housing 135 1486 Self Build 136 1507

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

most important and 14 the Retirement Homes 137 1176 least important. Retirement Village 138 1544 Special Needs 139 1548 Housing/Flats Low Rise Flats 140 2071 High Rise Flats 141 2465 Student 142 2286 Accommodation Residential Caravan 143 2459 Park Any Commets 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

18 If new housing is to be built in Area 1 158 54 25% the Neighbourhood, in what Area 5 159 50 23% general area(s) do you think Area 9 160 24 11% they should be built? Please Area 2 161 63 29% refer to the map of the Area 6 162 45 21% Neighbourhood provided, Area 10 163 27 13% for the locations of the numbered areas. Area 3 164 52 24% Please mark each answer Area 7 165 23 11% box for any area(s) where Area 11 166 14 6% you think more housing Area 4 167 74 34% could be built. Area 8 168 26 12% Area 12 169 21 10%

19 Would you be prepared to Yes 170 40 19% accept that more housing than is currently included in No 171 109 50% the SWDP could be built within the Neighbourhood, Possibly 172 54 25% if it meant more community Why? 173 facilities would be also provided? - and why?

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

20 Where is your normal place of At home 174 67 31% work? Within the 175 5 2% Neighbourhood? Within 7 miles 176 67 31% radius? (covers Worcester & Pershore) Further away than 177 66 31% 7 miles?

21 Would you like to see more Yes 178 64 30% opportunities for No 179 106 49% employment within the If "Yes", where Neighbourhood?(In addition would you prefer to to the business park see business planned adjacent to the ring developments? road - see coloured map) (refer to plan for numbered locations) Area 1 180 24 11% Area 5 181 25 12% Area 9 182 7 3% Area 2 183 32 15% Area 6 184 25 12% Area 10 185 11 5% Area 3 186 23 11% Area 7 187 9 4% Area 11 188 6 3% Area 4 189 33 15% Area 8 190 8 4% Area 12 191 6 3%

22 What type of business, if any, Local shops 192 127 59% would you like to see Light industrial - i.e. 193 54 25% coming in to the small Neighbourhood? manufacturing units Offices 194 31 14% Caravan storage 195 10 5% Heavier industrial - 196 6 3% i.e. manufacturing, etc. Pub 197 65 30% Fast food outlets 198 10 5%

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Hotels/business 199 32 15% accommodation. Recycling 200 20 9% Retail park 201 28 13% Storage and 202 10 5% Distribution Warehouse None 203 39 18% Business Park 204 20 9% Heavier industrial - 205 4 2% i.e. manufacturing, etc. Other 206 3 1% If other, please 207 state what:

23 In what areas (if any) would Area 1 208 81 38% you prefer to see no Area 5 209 50 23% developments at all? i.e. to Area 9 210 83 38% preserve the land as it is? Area 2 211 81 38% Please mark each answer Area 6 212 68 31% box for any area(s) where Area 10 213 105 49% you think more housing could be built. Area 3 214 55 25% Area 7 215 94 44% Area 11 216 67 31% Area 4 217 55 25% Area 8 218 105 49% Area 12 219 65 30%

24 If new houses are to be built Smaller 220 166 77% in the Neighbourhood, developments. would you prefer to see a number of smaller Fewer but larger 221 24 11% developments or fewer but developments. larger developments?

25 If you had the opportunity to To within the downsize your current Neighbourhood? housing or accommodation Yes 222 43 20% and relocate, would you? No 223 83 38% Possibly 224 42 19% To outside the Neighbourhood? Yes 225 38 18% No 226 66 31% Possibly 227 42 19%

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

26 Do you have any other comments concerning this Com questionnaire or the Neighbourhood Plan? If so, ment please add them below.

Mapped responses for questions 21 and 23 are showed overleaf.

Responses to open ended question have been addressed in policy sections and where they have not raised planning matters they have been dealt with in the aspirations section of the plan.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Results of the Employment Survey April 2019 • A total of 24 surveys were sent out and 7 responses were received all from different sectors, demonstrating the range of employment opportunities in the parish. A 29% response rate.

Agriculture/Horti culture, Tourism, Catering, Retail

Manufacturing

Waste Education Management

Pub / Fleet Logistics Restaurant Finance or Business Services

• Three of the respondents employ a significant number of people (100+). However across the seven businesses of the 438 employees only 63 live in the parish (14%).

7 110 20 6 40 1 5 17 5 4 5 2 159 Companyref 3 35 2 100 0 1 8 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Axis Title

How many people work in the business How many of the employees live in the Parish?

• This results in a high level of in commuting to the parish and this is primarily done by car or van.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

12, 3% Travel to work 1, 0% 1, 0% 18, 4% 16, 4% 30, 7%

Live on Site Walk Cycle Car or Van Moped or Motorbike Lift Sharing 363, 82% Other: Bus then walk

• 82% of staff travel to work by car/ van with 4% using a moped/ motorbike. It is encouraging to see that 7% of people are in a lift share – it assumed these also come by a car/ van and if they came in their own car or van, car or van usage would be even higher. Only 4% cycle and 3% walk, perhaps reflecting the relatively low levels of staff residing in the parish. One person lives on site and one catches public transport; this reflects the limited bus service. It is unknown at this stage whether the new Parkway Station will affect people’s commuting patterns. • Despite high levels of reliance on motor vehicles all employer’s had sufficient parking except one company at Court Farm. • Five businesses stated that they had HGV movements although one didn't provide a number of weekly movements and could well be the largest.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Approximately how many HGV movements per week do you have?

7 20 6 5 8 4

3 Companyref 2 170 1 15

0 50 100 150 200 Number of HGVmovements

• Three of the seven businesses hope to increase their workforce in the next 12 to 24 months. They provided estimates set out below. In terms of company ref 3 this is a 13% increase on existing staff, a 40% increase for company ref 4 and a 12% for company ref 5. All others hope to remain the same size over the next 12 to 24 months.

Increase workforce in 12-24 months by 25 20 20

10 Numberofstaff 5 2 2

0 3 4 5 Company ref

• Despite those hoping to grow over the next two years only one firm think they may require additional workspace in the parish of Norton Juxta Kempsey, company ref 4. At this stage they intend to retain their existing premises and add a new workspace, offices, nearby. • When asked about the potential of relocating five businesses intend to stay in the parish whilst two indicate that they may need to relocate. The first, company ref 3 suggest that they may need to relocate out of the parish to find a larger site, the second company ref 5 may be looking to sell the business – however this does not mean the business will relocate just the current management. • The survey also asked about the strengths and weaknesses of locating in the parish.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• Transport and road linkages were seen as the area’s greatest strength. This could increase further with the Parkway providing another means of accessing the area. However, almost as important was the environment, the area has a rural feel and it is important that this is not lost. • Car parking, local traffic volume, and available premises were seen as a strength by almost half of respondents. As highlighted in an earlier question only company ref 4 saw parking as a weakness and also available premises again relating to their aspirations to find another site for offices in the parish. Local traffic volume was seen as a weakness by company ref 3. The remainder were neutral or had no opinion on these matters. • Broadband connectivity and speed had a more even spread as being both a strength and a weakness. Company ref 3 and 5 saw it as a weakness. • The majority were neutral or had no opinion about proximity to markets / customers except company ref 7 who saw its location as a strength. • Labour supply was considered a strength to company ref 7, whilst it was considered a weakness to company ref 3 and 5, the remainder were neutral or had no opinion.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Norton-Juxta- Kempsey area as a business location?

Transport / Road Linkages 6 0 1 Local environment 5 0 2 Car parking 3 1 1 2 Local traffic volume 3 1 1 2 Available Premises 3 1 2 1 Broadband connectivity and speed 2 2 1 2 Proximity to customers / markets 1 0 3 3 Labour supply 1 2 2 2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strength Weakness Neutral No Opinion

• None of the following criteria were seen as strength for locating in the area. One business (ref 4) said access to local business networks was a weakness. The remainder were neutral or had no opinion. • Local Planning policies were seen as a weakness for company ref 5, who appear to have had an issue with Planning Notices in the parish. The majority were neutral on this matter. • Two companies considered access to business support services as a weakness in the parish, company ref 3 and 5. The remainder were neutral or had no opinion. • The majority were neutral about vocation training, with just under half having no opinion. • Local business services were seen as a weakness by companies 3 and 4. The remainder were neutral or had no opinion. • Public transport was seen as a weakness by the majority only Company 2 and 6 had no opinion on this.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• One business, ref 4 said workforce qualifications were a weakness although it is noted in an earlier question that 2 members of staff live in the parish. The remainder were neutral or had no opinion. • The only other matter that was raised was a concern about being better notified by the council of planning matters relating to the parish rather than a notice on fence.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Norton-Juxta-Kempsey area as a business location?

Local business networks 1 3 3 Planning policies 1 4 2 Business support services 2 3 2 Vocational training 0 4 3 Local business services 2 2 3 Public transport 5 0 2 Workforce qualifications 1 3 3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strength Weakness Neutral No Opinion

• The final questions asked about the likely impact of the new railway station in the parish. Two feel it will make no difference, companies 1,2 and 7 feel it is unlikely to impact them, although they would welcome any increased footfall. Company 5 feels unable to predict any impact at this stage. Company 3 feel that it will be a very positive addition in a great location, and companies 4 and 6 feel it will impact them and raise concerns over the volume of traffic it will generate and possible impact of car parking. These responses reflect the businesses locations within the parish.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Results of public event February 2020 • Events were well attended with 124 paper responses completed over the 2 days • A further 37 on-line responses were completed • 6.9% of total parish population (as at Census 2011) responded to survey; that is 9.0% of the adult population (as at Census 2011). 4 children completed the survey.

Q1. Do you support our Vision for Norton-Juxta-Kempsey by 2030? By 2030 the essentially rural character within the separate settlements of Littleworth, Hatfield, Norton and Brockhill in the parish of Norton-Juxta-Kempsey will have been preserved by appropriate development and by ensuring that existing and proposed infrastructure reflects the community’s needs.

• Over whelming support 100% of respondents support the Vision • Comments include wish to maintain the village and rural life and support for protecting improving green spaces and trying to avoid unnecessary buildings/housing. • I fully support all efforts to preserve the characteristics of our villages, the individuality and the space in which children are growing up

Q2. Do you agree with our Natural Environment Objective? To protect and enhance the local natural environment including green and open spaces, bridleways, footpaths, cycle routes and views.

• Over whelming support 100% of respondents support your Natural Environment Objective. • Two suggestions of including tree planting and one regarding the importance of hedgerows -we have already developed a trees and hedgerows policy. • One comment not planning related but regarding overgrown hedges on Woodbury Lane. • A few go on to comment about the importance of green space in the Parish to youngsters and others.

Q3. Do you agree with our Traffic Impact Objective? To ensure that development has free and safe flow of traffic with minimum impact on the road system and parking. Encourage walking and cycling routes.

This was one of the most 2 2 commented on objectives. Matters respondents, respondents, raised by individuals were: 1% 1%

• Need for traffic lights on the Agree railway bridge by the Disagree 157 Retreat. Blank • Suggestion of traffic lights respondents, 98% to slow traffic (no mention of location). • Concern regarding the traffic through Norton when the station is opened – pedestrian and cycle traffic is dangerous over the bridge.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• Need for pedestrian footpaths from Littleworth to the railway station – not safe to walk. • Need pedestrian footpaths along church lane/Woodbury lane to railway station with improved lighting. • Suggest walking and cycling should be prioritised over vehicular traffic and another respondent stating their support for encouraging walking and cycling. • Concern that area will become rat run. • Suggest Wadborough Lane restricted to one-way traffic only. • Increase traffic calming down Church Lane. • One objection to white lines, questioning their effectiveness. • Parking at village school of concern particularly when lorry or bus comes at same time. • Question: Does this include Woodbury Lane and connecting road systems to new Parkway Station via Church Lane and junction by Retreat? • The majority of responses are associated with the Active Travel Corridor that was previously presented by Highways.

Q4. Do you agree with our Local Facilities Objective? To encourage and enhance a strong sense of community by maintaining, supporting and improving existing facilities for a range of age groups.

• Over whelming support 100% of respondents support your Local Facilities Objective. • One suggestion to monitor the inclusion of sport/leisure facilities in the new development that is allocated in the Parish.

Q5. Do you agree with our Local Economy Objective? To protect and enhance existing employment opportunities and support and encourage small scale and appropriate developments.

8 1 respondent, • Although some respondents, 1% people objected to 5% this nobody went on to make a comment specifically relating to Agree the economic Disagree objective only one respondent 152 Blank underlined the words respondents, 94% small scale.

Q6. Do you agree with our Housing Objective? To influence the development contained within the SWDP. To support appropriate infill development within the designated settlements.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

2 respondents, 5 respondents, 1% 3%

Agree Disagree 154 Blank respondents, 96%

There were several comments relating to housing • Small infills but no further big developments i.e. like the Hidage • Always work within the realms that Norton is a village and not another St Peters estate or an extension of St Peters. It would be a terrible shame to be gradually absorbed into Worcester • No development please! We are already oversubscribed. Rather they didn’t build in this area and protected the area. • Any influence to control the SWDP. This should be No 1 priority please. • Need better infrastructure. The local infrastructure cannot and will not cope with planned growth. • Numerous brownfield sites in Worcester area that are not filled by industry so would look to ensure that developed prior to greenfield sites. • All the settlements in the parish should have an individual feel.

Q7. Do you support the inclusion of the following sites to be designated as Local Green Spaces?

• Overwhelming support for all spaces

Local Green Space (including Support Other Comments map ref) War Memorial at the junction • Important community asset / focus for village of Church Lane and Hatfield 99% I blank • Important historical landmark Lane (Map Ref 1.) • Is it already protected as a historical monument? • Must be protected. Grounds, including grave yard, • A very important part of village life and bringing 2 blank the community together. surrounding St James the Great 98% (Map Ref 2.) 1 object • Don’t really care for churches. • Beautiful calm area • Enables grieving relatives to reflect pay respects • Needs a cycle path to avoid busy main road Grass verge and hedgerow at • It’s very picturesque , important to retain this Regiment Close (Map Ref 3.) 99% I blank • Thought should be given as to how this space could be enhanced, wildflower planting for pollinator species etc

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• Part of our village / important to retain this • Similarly to Regiment close consideration should be given for enhancements that contribute to Biodiversity Net Gain, adding value as a Natural Grassed areas either side of Capital asset. As the bus stops are near any Crookbarrow Road (Map Ref 4.) 99% I blank enhancements should come with information boards for people (especially younger generation) to improve connections with the wider environment • Make this a village green • Maintains the green-ness of area • This site has a 'street tree' function, we know trees are needed for improved health but ask for improvement, look to MAGIC for surrounding Land in front of Norton College 1 disagree 97% habitat that could improve the functionality. (Map Ref 6.) 4 blank • Open spaces such as this are important to keep • Not too bothered • Totally agree • It’s a very good barrier for the residents Green space at High Park - off 1 disagree 98% • Important to keep this B4084 (Map Ref 7.) 2 blank • Green space – vital- prevents depression • Norton is a rural space which must include farmland • Would make a great space for some trees, Farmland adjacent to north contribution to improve air quality and access to increase wellbeing with circular walks east of Brockhill Lane (Map Ref 99% 1 blank 8.) throughout for local dog walkers, this may take some of the pressure off the Norton Sports Club, 1 and 2 • Important to keep land such as this • Pretty area for walking • Needs better management and cleaning of dogs mess • It’s the only sports/ social/ community facility for miles Former football ground, • No other football size areas available within Brockhill (Map Ref 9.) 99% 1 blank Brockhill • Planting required to shelter the field from the gun club • This is an area which is important to keep • Needs to be used more for events. More park benches. Cricket Ground, Brockhill (Map • Historic 99% 1 blank Ref 10.) • This is an important area for the community

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• I value this space, and it is vital it is preserved as Croquet Lawn, Brockhill (Map a croquet lawn Ref 11.) 99% 1 blank • It’s a sport for all ages but is manly used by the senior citizens • This is an important area for the community • Community asset • Important to users • Most important area for gardeners • Many of the allotments aren't used or have become abandoned. The new Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) that is being piloted will be aimed at not only large land Allotments, Wadborough Road, owners but small holding, allotment owners and 99% 1 blank Littleworth (Map Ref 13.) even those with gardens. This will be widely beneficial when trying to decide how best land should be managed for positive environmental outcomes. |Please see link for details and a broad overview of ELMS https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eustice- unveils-plans-for-future-greener-farming • These are an important part of village life • Community asset, well used, important for Parish hall land including community 99% 1 blank playing field (Map Ref 14.) • No buildings please • Excellent community area • No buildings please • Excellent community area, well used. • Very important to provide nature/green area/ Norton Juxta Kempsey First forest school for youngsters • Although only accessible during school hours School, playing field, 99% 1 blank Littleworth (Map Ref 15.) (not to the public) this is a valuable space and could be enhanced through environmentally focussed school activities • This is important for the health and education of all children, sports, exercise etc • Iconic view and part of Norton. TPOs. Birds natural habitat • Yes, important to keep an open space • Provides an attractive area to road Trees at Salamanca Drive (Map • Enhancements opportunity should be Ref 16.) 99% 1 blank community led, get the people at Salamanca drive to decide on pollinator planting, get the children involved, improve community sprit whilst educating • More benches

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• Ideal for dog walking • Park needs more care/upkeep/ concern over rubbish • It is important for families to have access to park Area between Ypres Close & area and allows kids to congregate away from the road, important for children’s health Nive Gardens and Area 1 disagree 98% • Habitat for wildlife. Beautiful oak tree too! between Seine Close & Nivelle 2 blank Grove (Map Ref 18.) • If park was improved then yes keep it. If it's just somewhere for dogs to mess and youths to gather then no. • Support if improved. If it's just somewhere for dogs to mess and youths to gather then no don’t support.

Q8. Have we missed any green spaces that you think should be designated as Local Green Space?

• Possibly more areas near Hatfield and the fishing area (to be assessed) and Stonehall Common (the latter is outside the parish) • The land between 97 & 99 Wadborough Rd, Littleworth for tree planting to alleviate flooding (5 respondents) now assessed • Can roadside hedgerows be preserved? – We have developed policy for hedgerows • The green junction outside the Retreat – already assessed • The view of Malvern Hills from Crookbarrow Rd (2). Not to be lost to mass development – this relates to SWDP allocation • The Tump field accessible over the railway bridge on the public footpath in Norton (2). Outside the parish) Public bridleway – public right of way • Pound farm vast area not suitable for Local Green Space designation • The fields behind St James Close/Orchard Grove –Now assessed • Land in front of black and white cottage by roundabout - already assessed • Site of statue proposed - already assessed • Norton Hall parkland purchased by Merton College (Designated park land) – vast area not suitable for Local Green Space designation • Grassed and tree’d areas along road from the Retreat into Littleworth (2 respondents) already assessed- reviewed • Paddock which is a wildlife haven behind Cambrai drive (Deer, badgers, foxes, pheasants are often seen) Photos available from residents of Cambrai Drive (2 respondents) Now assessed • End of Brockhill Lane and Norton Road. Footpath condition is bad. Footpath to train station is important – this relates to SWDP allocation and new station • Keep Brockhill Lane to Norton Road footpath please. New footpath to the train station this relates to SWDP allocation and new station • Footpath between gardens of St James Close and Farmer Gills fields (including ditch) – public right of way • Grass area with poo bin on the sharp bend leaving Brockhill village after barracks towards the retreat. (2 respondents) Now assessed

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Who answered? Gender: more women than men responded - women over represented compared to census.

Blank, 7, 4% Other, 1, 1%

Male, 61, 38% Female, 92, 57%

Age of respondents Captured a range of ages – low in the 18-29 year olds only 2% of respondents (9.2% of population in 2011 census) and over represented by 45-59 year olds compared to census (37% of respondents compared to 22.8% in census) and by 60-74 years olds (34% of respondents compared to 12.4% in census), this could be a reflection of demographic change over the last 9 years and the fact we are an aging population.

70 59 60 54 50

30 26

20 9 10 3 1 3 3 0 Under12 12-17 18-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-84 85+

Occupation of respondents – good spread of different types of people.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Other 4

FT Education 3

Unemployed 1

Retired 52

FT Carer 0

FT Parent 2

PT Work 24

FT Work 73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Where respondents live – Good coverage of parish

Number of Street / postcode Settlement respondents Cambrai Drive / WR5 2PN Brockhill 3 Corunna Close / WR5 2PW Brockhill 5 Crookbarrow Road / WR5 2PA Brockhill 3 Dunkirk Drive/ WR5 2SG Brockhill 6 Gallipoli Drive / WR5 2PJ Brockhill 2 Gazala Drive / WR5 2SF Brockhill 4 Keren Drive /WR5 2SD Brockhill 6 Mandalay Drive/ WR5 2PL Brockhill 5 Nive Gdns Brockhill 1 Nivelle Grove / WR5 2GD Brockhill 3 Penisula Road /WR5 2SE Brockhill 8 Ramillies Dr Brockhill 1 Rolica Flds Brockhill 1 Salamanca Drive / WR5 2PQ Brockhill 3 Sobraon Crescent WR5 2GL Brockhill 2 Talavera Rd / WR5 2SB Brockhill 9 Toulouse Dr/ WR5 2SA Brockhill 8 Vimiera Clo / WR5 2QP Brockhill 10 Brockhill Total 80 Norton Road / WR5 2PD Broomhall 1 Regiment Close / WR5 2PB Broomhall 1 Yew Tree Court / WR5 2NW Broomhall 1 Broomhall Total 3 Hatfield / WR5 2PZ Hatfield 7

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Hatfield / WR5 2QU Hatfield 1 Hatfield Bank Hatfield 1 Hatfield Lane / WR5 2PY Hatfield 8 Hatfield Total 17 Orchard Gro / WR5 2QH Littleworth 6 St James Close / WR5 2QF Littleworth 9 The Hidage / WR5 2QG Littleworth 5 Wadborough Road / WR5 2QB Littleworth 3 Wadborough Road / WR5 2QE Littleworth 3 Wadborough Road / WR5 2QJ Littleworth 10 Littleworth Total 36 Barbel Crescent/ WR5 3QU Norton 1 Church Lane / WR5 2PR Norton 2 Church Lane / WR5 2PS Norton 4 Woodbury Lane / WR5 2PT Norton 3 Norton Total 10 Whittington / WR5 2RL Whittington 2 Whittington / WR5 2RP Whittington 1 Whittington Total 3 WR5 2 Grand Total 151

One detailed response sets out that the Plan should consider Defra’s 25yr Environment Plan that sets out policies for connecting people with the environment to improve health and wellbeing, and suggests when considering open space as GI please consider the following:

GI Implementation • Reference to, or commitment to produce, a GI strategy (including gathering evidence and monitoring of implementation) for the LPA Plan area.

• Policy points that show the council expects GI to be central to the planning process right from the beginning.

• The policy sets requirements on what development proposals must include, but allows for flexibility and innovation in implementation. Some examples include; a site % of GI and what ecosystem services that GI should provide and a recommended a level of tree canopy cover in an urban space. Specifically excluding private gardens is a good strategy.

• GI policy points reiterated throughout all sections of the planning document, not just isolated in the GI policy. This shows that the LPA wants to see GI considered in all aspects of development.

• Policy points should require the on-going management and maintenance of GI assets in perpetuity (or a suitably long time). It should also include a funding mechanism. For example, use of planning obligations (S106), Community Infrastructure Levy or, Infrastructure Delivery Plans or Reference to

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

inclusion of GI in lower tier plans e.g. Area Action Plans / supplementary guidance. See Guidance on TIE relating to GI in plan-making.

• It should include a mechanism for securing GI (e.g. planning obligations) and protecting it from future development (e.g. conservation covenant agreement, LNR declaration, Fields in Trust designation, green space designation in neighbourhood plans or Town and Village Green registration.

• Policy points should include the requirement for monitoring and evaluation of new GI especially in the case of habitat creation.

• Policy supporting GI that is of benefit not only to people and nature but also the local economy. Ecosystem services and multifunctional GI

• The policy or supporting text acknowledges the potential for GI to be multifunctional and provide ecosystem services such as climate change adaptation, health and wellbeing, flood management, air quality, alternative transport links, growing food, and habitat creation.

• The GI should be used to provide a biodiversity net gain for development (ideally there should be a separate ‘Net Gain’ policy). The developer funds provided to meet the requirement of a biodiversity net gain should also be dedicated to fund GI implementation.

• GI should be used for habitat creation and improvement, specifically those habitat types impacted by the development.

• The policy should require the design of GI to connect isolated areas of green space and habitat, and the GI network should itself be connected to the wider landscape1. GI accessibility, quantitative and quality standards

• Policy should set GI accessibility, quantitative and quality standards, ideally we would like to see the ANGSt referenced with ‘or replacement documents’. This provides us with a ‘hook’ that we can get the NE National Framework of Green Infrastructure Standards included in future planning document.

• Policy should reference a GI quality standard, ideally the Green Flag Award.

• The policy should require that GI be safe, convenient and accessible for people of all abilities or reference an accessibility standard. Although not all areas will be able to provide this (such as some wildlife areas), the aim is to get the majority of areas accessible to all at least in part.

• The policy or supporting text should acknowledge that formal sporting facilities are not considered as GI and should be an additional provision, separate from areas of GI where there is potential for the sporting activity to impact the GI or the people and wildlife using it.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix 2 Formal Notification and Poster

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

These two documents were displayed on all Parish Council notice boards

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix 3 List of statutory Consultees Consulted • Highways Agency • Severn Trent Water • PSSC Canal & River Trust • Worcestershire County Council • Forestry Commission • Natural England • Historic England • Place Partnership • NHS • Planning Inspectorate • Community Services Manager, Wychavon District Council • Cllr Rob Adams, District Councillor (Wychavon) and County Councillor (Worcestershire) • Cllr T Rowley, Portfolio holder for Planning Policy, Infrastructure and Flooding, Wychavon District Council • Cllr A Steel, Chairman of Localism and Community Funding Advisory Panel Wychavon District Council • Western Power Distribution (Midlands) • Age UK Herefordshire & Worcestershire • National Grid UK Gas Distribution • Network Rail (Western Region) • Environment Agency (West) Sustainable Places • CPRE (Wychavon) • Community First • Ancient Monuments Society • National Farmers Union • Worcester Diocese • Worcestershire County Youth Support • NHS South Worcestershire CCG • Sport England • Home Builders Federation • Worcestershire Partnership • Worcestershire Wildlife Trust • Hereford & Worcester Chamber of Commerce • Skills Funding Agency • Learning Difficulty/Vulnerable Adult Support Service • Older Peoples' Support Service (OPSS) • Physical Disability Support Service (PDSS) • Voluntary & Community Sector Co-ordinator, Worcestershire County Council • Worcs Federation of Women’s Institutes • Federation of Small Businesses • Equality and Human Rights Commission • Fields in Trust • The Crown Estate • The Sports Partnership Hereford & Worcs • Member Engagement Officer in Legal & Democratic Services Worcestershire County Council • Homes and Communities Agency • The Coal Authority

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

• Marine Management Organisation • Superfast Worcestershire • Worcestershire County Association of Local Councils (CALC) • Virgin Media • Churches Together in Worcestershire • Wales and West Utilities • Worcestershire Local Economic Partnership (LEP) • Worcester University • Drakes Broughton and Wadborough with Pirton Parish Council • Stoulton Parish Council • Whittington Parish Council • Kempsey Parish Council • St Peter's Parish Council • Malvern Hills District Council • Worcester City Council • Wychavon District Coucnil

Local Green Space landowners have also been contacted as part of the consultation.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix 4 Front cover of Summary Booklet delivered to all households

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix 5 Article in Local Magazine

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Appendix 6 Responses to Regulation 14 Consultation

NJK Regulation 14 Consultation Record of Responses Received Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object Minor Amends/ Edits - contained within relevant policy sections.

Responses from Statutory Consultees to overall Plan: 9 responded, 2 support, 5 makes comments and 2 make no comment. 62.00 Severn Trent 22.10.20 No comment 66.00 Natural 12.11.20 General Extract from their letter dated 11/11/20 “Natural England does not Comment Comment noted. No action England have any specific comments on the draft Norton-juxta-Kempsey required. Neighbourhood Plan.” 78.00 Avison 23.11.20 General Extract from their letter dated 23.11.20 "An assessment has been Comment Comments noted No action Young - on carried out with respect to National Grid's electricity and gas required. behalf of trasnmission assets which include high voltage electricity assets and National Grid high-pressure gas pipelines. National Grid has identified that it has no record of such assets within the Neighbourhood Plan area." 79.01 Worcestershi 25.11.20 General Extract from WCC letter dated 25.11.20 Comment Comment noted. No action re County "Worcester Children First make the following comment, thank you for required. Council - the notification of the Reg 14 consultation on the Norton-Juxta- Education Kempsey neighbourhood development plan. We have no specific objections or reccommended changes to the plan" 79.02 Worcestershi 25.11.20 General Extract from WCC letter dated 25.11.20 Comment Comment noted. No further re County "WCC welcomes reference to Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy Reference to WWCS action. Council - and the saved policies of the County of Hereford and Worcester is made. Minerals and Minerals Local Plan. Waste We note that there is waste management development in the Plan area (https://gis.worcestershire.gov.uk/website/WasteCoreStrategy/ ). Policy WCS 16 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy should be taken into account to ensure that the Neighbourhood 49

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Development Plan (NDP) in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area. In addition to the consideration of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 182, which sets out that where the operation of an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development the agent of change should be required to provide any suitable mitigation. We also note that the plan area includes areas that are proposed as Mineral Safeguarding Area and Mineral Consultation Areas in policy MLP 31 and MLP 32 of the Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan Publication version (see webmap https://gis.worcestershire.gov.uk/Website/MineralsLocalPlan/?l=1 ). The MLP is currently undergoing public examination." 79.03 Worcestershi 25.11.20 General Extract from WCC letter dated 25.11.20 Comment Comment noted. No action re County "The agricultural heritage of the Parish is referenced throughout the Requirements for requierd. Council - draft NDP. Traditional farmsteads and the setting of traditional the Historic Historic farmsteads contribute to local distinctiveness and countryside environment are Environment character. Suggest referencing the historic environment within an considered to be integrated Environment Objective that takes account of the role of adequately covered the historic environment in the development of settlement and the by SWDP24. open countryside." 88.01 Place 30.11.20 General Design - It is important that new development in the Parish is of high- Comment NJK1 deals with the No action Partnership quality design and will therefore be supported where the following is built envirnoment. required. on behalf of demonstrated in planning applications: As does SWDP21. West Mercia 1. The proposed scheme uses materials appropriate to the local area; Police 2. Local distinctiveness and a strong sense of place is created; 3. Opportunities to achieve enhancements to the existing built and natural environment are taken; 4. Where appropriate, green space is provided and/or improved; 5. Detrimental impact on the street scene and local amenities is avoided; and 6. Proposed developments, where appropriate, should demonstrate how they will achieve a safe low-crime environment through the 50

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

application of Secured by Design standards and principles.

Other criteria could be added to the list above or changes made to the wording of course, but it is hoped that the example above helpfully illustrates what could be done with such a policy. If the Parish Council does choose to include a new policy on design in the NJKNP, we would like to request on behalf of WMP that Part 6 above is included. In this respect, Secured by Design (SBD) is a long-running flagship initiative of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (formally Association of Chief Police Officers). Its objective is to design out crime during the planning process. It is a highly respected standard in the sector, supported by numerous public authorities and professional bodies nationally. SBD is therefore a vital guidance resource for planners. SBD was created in 1989, is available online, regularly updated and consequently there is no danger of it ceasing to exist during the lifetime of the Neighbourhood Plan.

We can finally provide reassurance that the inclusion of both the suggested policy (Part 6 included) would be in accordance with and be supported by: • Paragraphs 8, 20, 35 - 37, 91 (b), 95 and 124 - 131 of the NPPF; • The National Design Guide (2019). • Objective C and Policy SWDP21 of the SWDP; • Objective 18, Policy SWDPR 7 and Policy SWDPR 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review – Preferred Options (November 2019) (SWDPR); and • Policy 5H – ‘Principles to follow to create a safe environment’ - South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document – Overarching Design Principles (adopted March 2018)." 86.02 Place 30.11.20 General Implementation – Comment Comments noted. No action Partnership WMP are committed to continuing to work in partnership with the Parkway is currently requierd. on behalf of Parish Council on crime and antisocial behaviour issues. at an emerging stage 51

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

West Mercia Neighbourhood policing is an important priority and one to which and this matter Police WMP would like to see considered for community funding alongside should form part of a the other projects highlighted. In view of this, please could the later NP review following be added to the list on page 55: 17. Neighbourhood policing when SWDPR49 is More broadly, using developer contributions for police infrastructure formally adopted. has been confirmed as compliant with the statutory tests of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 122. This is demonstrated by the 12 Secretary of State decisions and 24 Planning Inspectorate decisions summarized in Appendix 1 to this response. In this respect, paragraphs 91 and 127 of the NPPF confirm that developments should deliver environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. Furthermore, the South Worcestershire Infrastructure Study Update (October 2019) provides a section on how planning obligations should be spent in relation to emergency services infrastructure. The identifies the need for an ‘on-site Police post, equipment and vehicles’ because of Worcestershire Parkway being identified as a strategic growth area of 5,000 dwellings in the SWDPR. Hence why the proposed policy (SWDPR 49) for the site in the SWDPR references emergency services infrastructure specifically. Delivery of this new infrastructure cannot take place in isolation from the rest of the Parish though. Hence the requested reference on page 55 of the Neighbourhood Plan will also provide a helpful ‘hook’ to underline why further discussions on this are necessary. 88.01 Wychavon 30.11.20 General Extract from email “The officer response is generally supportive, and I Support Comments noted No action District hope that the comments are helpful. Understandably the parish and agree when the required. Council council and the community have had to grapple with the emerging Parkway position is Parkway new settlement proposals, and it is difficult to reflect this in more clearly the first draft of the neighbourhood plan. The comments relating to understood it may this are made in a positive manner and officers involved in the SWDP be appropriate to Review and the strategic site masterplanning are willing to work with undertake a minor the parish council further on this. More information will be review of the NJKNP forthcoming in the community liaison meetings on the Parkway site at that stage. 52

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

and the overarching point is that the neighbourhood plan can be reviewed following new information. If not for the Reg 16 stage, then a minor review of the NJKNP once ‘made’ to reflect the clearer position relating to Parkway.” 88.02 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para 1.8 amend to reflect the revised timetable of the SWDP review and later Comment Update as suggested. Update as District Footnot adoption date of 2023 suggested. Council e 1 88.03 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para 1.9 replace word “quality” with “character” as reference is being made to Comment Incorrect pargraph Update as District the rural nature of referemce made. suggested. Council the buildings, rather than quality of them. Para 1.6 - update as suggested. 88.04 Wychavon 30.11.20 General The NP focus is on a shorter timescale and the plan period to 2030 Comment Noted. No action District reflects that of the adopted SWDP. In time the NP can be partially required. Council reviewed to reflect the development strategy for the area into the 2020s when the reviewed SWDP is adopted in 2023 88.05 Wychavon 30.11.20 General It is noted that there is limited acknowledgement of the Comment Agree. The SWDP No action District Worcestershire Parkway new settlement proposals which is a Review is emerging requierd. Council reflection of the early stages of the development proposal, with more policy and the new of a focus on the south Worcester urban extension (SWUE) in the Parkway settlement adopted SWDP and subject to planning permission. is a strategic matter outside the remit of the NDP. 88.06 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para 2.3 Para 2.3 - It would be beneficial to be more explicit here that the Comment Comment noted. No action District policies in the neighbourhood plan will guide the form of However, current required Council development of the part of the Worcestershire Parkway new reference is settlement that sits in the parish boundary. This is noted further on, considered sufficient but it is felt it would be beneficial to be clearer at the outset. The last for the emerging sentence of para 4.1 could be a suitable location to mention this and stage of the new link to the influence that the neighbourhood plan seeks to have on Parkway settlement. the development is explicitly noted in the housing objective 5.5 for example

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

88.07 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 3.12 - Replace word “understood” with “finalised” in sentence Comment Not an appropriate No action District 3.12 that reads “the exact form and layout of the new settlement is not change as the required. Council understood”. SWDPR is emerging policy. 88.08 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 3.13 - Replace wording integrated transport system with Comment Revise wording. Replace the District 3.13 “integrated transport hub”. Current sentence word"syste Council Also change wording here to read “when town is completed, it will structure considered m" with include XYZ”, rather than “the acceptable. "hub". town will include XYZ”. Then can note that there will be 2 secondary schools. Also, there is no intention to have a library, as far as officers are aware and there is mention of a library explicitly here. 88.09 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para 3.9 Para 3.9 - Change wording here from “the recently completed Comment Not considered an No action District Worcestershire Parkway Station” to appropriate change requierd. Council “when town is completed” as the SWDPR is emerging policy. 88.10 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 6.22 - Also needs amending – refers to “recently completed Comment Comments note. No action District 6.22 station” – needs to be replaced with the Worcestershire Parkway Not considered required. Council Station necessary to revise as the station was recently completed. 88.11 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 3.24 - On the map here, only the SWUE allocation is identified, Comment The Worcester Await District 3.24 does the WP allocation need to be shown on this map, not just the Parkway settlement response Council station? is an emerging but no strategic matter action outside the remit of required. the NDP. Email sent to AF - You kindly provided the following comment on the Reg 14 consultation

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

document: Para 3.24 - On the map here, only the SWUE allocation is identified, does the WP allocation need to be shown on this map, not just the station? Firstly, I think you are referring to the map (Figure 7) at paragraph 3.14 as there isn’t a paragraph 3.24. Please confirm? Secondly, the SWDPR Preferred Option Maps only show a ‘Strategic Growth Area’ rather than a defined allocation? Therefore, Figure 7 correct shows the area identified in the emerging SWDPR. Please confirm? Response received stating that the comment was made by the Urban Design Officer and this will 55

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

be queried with them. 88.12 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 4.10 - Phrase two times should be replaced with twice. Replace Comment Revise the word Revise the District 4.10 word “understood” with “realised”. "twice" only. word Council "twice" only. 88.13 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para 4.2 Para 4.2 - Check Punctuation here - commas required Comment Noted. Revised. District Council 88.14 Wychavon 30.11.20 Policies As a general point it is suggested the word “Policy” be deleted from Comment Comment noted. No change. District - the headings in the policy boxes as it is unnecessary. Council general 88.15 Wychavon 30.11.20 Policies It is also noted as an observation that the NP has chosen not include Comment Comment noted and No action District - detailed policies relating to design of new development or the historic agreed. Design and required. Council general environment which are covered in the adopted SWDP. historic environment considered to be adequately covered in SWDP 21 and 24 respectively. 88.16 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para 6.6 Para 6.6 - no mention here of the Worcestershire Parkway again, only Comment Strategic and No action District the SWDP urban extension. Further reference to Parkway required emerging. requierd. Council here? 88.17 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 6.12 - the context for this section refers to the three different Comment Comment noted. No action District 6.12 Landscape Types within the parish, as identified in the County required. Council Landscape Character Assessment, as well as to views of key landscape features beyond the parish boundaries which help provide a sense of place. 88.18 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 6.20 - here the wording “the recently completed railway station” Comment Agreed in part. Revise District 6.20 needs to be amended to say “the Worcestershire Parkway Railway Revise wording to be wording Council Station” as it gives the impression that there is more than one railway consistent "the "the station being developed. Everywhere else in the document it is being recently completed recently referred to as Worcestershire Parkway Station so it should be written Worcestershire completed in the same way here for consistency. Worcestersir

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Parkway Railway e Parkway Station" Railway Station" 88.19 Wychavon 30.11.20 Para Para 6.47 – question whether this needs to be more up to date. It Comment Parkway is at an No action District 6.47 notes the demand for employment will be met through the urban emerging stage. requierd. Council extension but does not acknowledge Worcestershire Parkway; “it is noted that the urban extension will provide urban retail outlet to address this matter …” i.e. only referring to urban extension and not the provision at Parkway that may meet needs 101.00 Stoulton 30.11.20 General Email received “The Stoulton Parish Council met recently, the NJK Support Comment noted. No action Parish Neighbourhood Plan was an agenda item. I have been asked to pass required. Council on our very best wishes to Norton Juxta Kempsey Parish Council for their endeavours with their Neighbourhood Plan and we hope that it achieves your objectives for the future of the Parish. Lynn Stewart PARISH CLERK Stoulton Parish Council” Comments from Residents about the Plan in general: 85 responded, 79 support, 5 object and 2 comment. 1.01 12.10.20 General A serious effort to meet the concerns and desire of the residents of Support Support and No action Norton Juxta Kempsey comment noted. required. 2.01 12.10.20 General The proposed development is far too big and will spoil far too much of Object Strategic matter No action the countryside. We should be looking to redevelop brownfield areas. outside the remit of required. the NDP. Nonetheless the NDP must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. 3.01 17.10.20 General Object Objection noted. No action required. 4.01 18.10.20 General I support the overall Neighbourhood Plan Support Support noted. No action required. 5.01 18.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

6.01 19.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 7.01 19.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 8.01 20.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 9.01 20.10.20 General Obviously the population is rising, but realistically government should Support Noted. Suggestion No action be looking at ways to slow down the growth, particularly, as we're to restrict growth required. beyond being able to self sustain our population. Up to 2 acres per would undermine person required for arable and meat. We're already at .33 per person. strategic policies and Fingers crossed that all the necessary infrastructure is put in place. is therefore not in Somebody will make a lot of money, which is really what it's general conformity about!...Sadly! with the Development Plan (NPPF para 29 footnote 16). 10.01 22.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 11.01 22.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 12.01 24.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 13.01 25.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 14.01 26.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 15.01 26.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 16.01 28.10.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 17.01 1.11.20 General This is an excellent and thorough plan that I fully agree with. Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

18.01 1.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 19.01 2.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 20.01 2.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 21.01 3.11.20 General Don't forget us at High Park we are going to get surrounded by Support Support noted. No action development! required. 22.01 3.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 23.01 3.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 24.01 3.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 25.01 5.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 26.01 7.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 27.01 7.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 28.01 9.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 29.01 9.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 30.01 9.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 31.01 9.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 32.01 9.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 33.01 10.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 59

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

34.01 10.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 35.01 10.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 36.01 10.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 41.01 11.11.20 General Clearly alot of work has gone it this plan and as a local resident, I feel Support Support and No action grateful to have my thoughts included. Thank you comment noted. required. 41.01 14.11.20 General Thanks to all who have put time into this. I hope you get lots of Support Support and No action support from your parish. comment noted. required. 42.01 14.11.20 General With the exception of NJK10 Housing Development Policy (as you may Support Support and No action have gathered!) comment noted. required. 43.01 15.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 44.01 22.11.20 General The plan will undoubtedly change the rural integrity of the whole Object Comments noted. No action area. I for one moved to this area for an improved way of life which by SWDP45/1 and required. nature supported one where I can live a chosen lifestyle. I did not Worcestershire make the move some 18 years ago to live near urban sprawl. Local Parkway allocation developments in recent years don’t appear to consider the impact on are strategic local rural environment. There must be a future proof vision rather allocations and the than common models that seem to be used now. I do question the NDP must be in number of new houses needed within this part of Worcestershire. Are general conformity the council facilitating further housing for commuters whose vested with the interest does not always remain and benefit the local economy. Development Plan. Following COVID the whole employment landscape may alter and should be a consideration.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

45.01 22.11.20 General I would appreciate the effort that council is taking to meet the hosing Support Comments noted. No action demand and keep the nature and serve the local community preserve required. their interest. I hope that the council will consider my suggestions to include the sound barrier land of the Salamanca Drive as a protected green area. This is also a community gathering place when we are lucky to get any snow as kids and adults equally enjoy the slippery slops on their sledges. Thank you. 46.01 26.11.20 General Many thanks to all those involved in producing this very thorough, Support Support and No action well-thought-out document.Let us hope it has a significant outcome. comment noted. required. 47.01 26.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 48.01 28.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 49.01 29.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 50.01 29.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 51.01 29.11.20 General Overall we support the need for a plan but noting specific objections Support Support and No action outlined in this response. comment noted. required. 52.01 29.11.20 General My main concern is that Norton (east of the motorway) borders onto Support Worcestershire No action the new SWDP with the danger of it being annexed onto the new Parkway is a required at conurbation. A strip of green corridor along the northern side of the strategic allocation this point in railway would greatly help to preserve the rural character and identity and the NDP must be time. of Norton. in general conformity with strategic policies. When the location of the new town is understood detailed policies can be

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

developed through the NDP. 53.01 30.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 55.01 30.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 57.01 1.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 58.01 1.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 59.01 2.11.20 General Overal I agree to the plan, however I am concerned about any new Support Unclear. If referring No action housing developments being agreed at this time until we are able to to SWDP45/1 and required. see the impact of the current development. WP these are strategic allocations and the NDP must be general conformity with strategic policies. 60.01 2.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 61.01 3.11.20 General This plan has obviously taken a considerable amount of time and cost, Support Support and No action for which I applaud council for this, I realise it has to be done and comment noted. required. thank you for allowing us to comment. I hope I am still around to see the result…... I am 76 – so keeping my fingers crossed. Good luck! 63.01 4.11.20 General Thank you for all the hard work that goes into making this such a Support Support and No action lovely neighbourhood comment noted. required. 64.01 4.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 65.01 12.11.20 General Thank you for the time spent on preparing this Neighbourhood Plan Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 67.01 13.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

68.01 13.11.20 General The level and detail of work put into compile this comprehensive Support Support and No action document is truly impressive. It gives the Residents of this Parish a comment noted. required. voice that is representative, detailed and justified. 70.01 15.11.20 General It is important that all of the policies are adhered to and that any Support Comment noted. No action subsequent building/s, whether dwellings, agricultural or non- required. domestic will fall within these policies and builders/developers finish sites etc and not left incomplete. 71.01 20.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 72.01 20.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 73.01 20.11.20 General In general expect that the whole reason for wanting to live in this area Support Comments noted No action will have gone as the rural village feel will be gone and a cramped required. housing estate will be the dominant aesthetic. 74.01 21.11.20 General Main problem areas are congestion around the school and lack of Support Comments noted. No action safe, well-lit access to the Parkway. Congratulations to all the people required. involved in producing this booklet and questionaire. 75.01 22.11.20 General Whilst I applaud the hard work being done by the group it does seem Support Comments noted. No action like “moving the deckchairs on the Titanic”. Rural character and required. development do not sit together. 76.01 22.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 77.01 22.11.20 General My objections to NJK 6,8 and 9 relate in the main to HGV and other Object Comments noted. No action road use. HGV banning and restrictions on other traffic in Norton Road traffic orders required. village and Brockhill village are vital. From Norton Lane to Woodbury are outside the remit Lane should be no through traffic. All traffic on the College side of of the NDP. NJK6 Woodbury Railway bridge and from the new station, should be forced seeks to manage the to use B4084 instead. impact of any new HGV movements. 81.01 27.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

82.01 27.11.20 General I am impressed with the care and thought which has gone into this Support Support and No action Plan. It is sensitive to the needs of our local community. comment noted. required. 87.01 30.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. 89.01 30.11.20 General Generally very good. Excellently explained and displayed in categories. Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 90.01 30.11.20 General Thank you for giving this clear document and allowing the residents to Support Support and No action comment. Norton is a lovely place to live. comment noted. required. 91.01 30.11.20 General Are the gullies at the side of Norton Road going to be cleared out of Comment Road maintenance No action vegitation ready for water run-off from fields. outside remit of required. NDP. 93.01 30.11.20 General We appreciate the efforts of the parish council to protect the Support Comments noted. No action residents and the local area. The two developments proposed (SWDP required. and Parkway) will destroy a lot of the environment and will have adevastating effect on this parish in terms of increased traffic and destruction of the open beautiful countryside. It seems to us a fait- accompli which is unfortunate sincewe moved here relatively recently to have a rural lifestyle 94.01 30.11.20 General It is obvious that a tremendous amount of time and thought has gone Object Comments noted. No action into this consultation – what a pity that the effort did not go into required. resisting development in the area instead. No doubt at some time in the future the authorities will decide that the “obvious” thing to do is to build on the remaining green spaces and join the industrial estates to the housing developments and the station – as has happened elsewhere in the country for decades 95.01 30.11.20 General Overall support the general tone of the plan but needed to express Support Support comment No action some of our personal concerns. Good luck with your ideas. noted required. 96.01 30.11.20 General Support Support noted No action required. 97.01 30.11.20 General Thank you for the hard work you are doing in the interests of Norton- Comment Comment noted. No action juxta-Kempsey. required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

98.01 30.11.20 General I agree with the plan providing all criteria are met. However I would Support Support and No action prefer no re-development at all (I know this will never happen!) comment noted. required. 99.01 30.11.20 General The infrastructure should be a first priority. Cycle lanes, traffic calming Support Cycle routes and No action to existing roads but also built into any future planning consents as traffic management required. conditions. identified in CIL projects at paragraph 7.1 100.01 30.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action required. Comments from Agents about the Plan in general: 5 responded, 2 support, 0 object and 3 comment. 54.01 Savills (on 30.11.20 General St. Modwen has instructed Savills to make representations on its Support Comments noted. No action behalf of St. behalf to the current Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan (NP) required. Modwen) consultation. These representations are informed by technical input from PJA (transport consultants) and Define (landscape architects). These representations have also been uploaded to the Parish Council’s on-line response form.

St. Modwen is a leader in the delivery of quality places to live and work that enhance communities and create opportunities for growth and shared returns. St. Modwen operates across three dedicated business units: St. Modwen Homes, St. Modwen Industrial & Logistics, and Strategic Land & Regeneration, to deliver sustainable development with a clear, deliverable and truly responsible approach for the long term.

As you may be aware from your discussions with Wychavon District Council officers, St. Modwen is the development partner of Merton College, owner of land which includes the Wood Hall Farm estate located between the Worcester-London railway line and Whittington Road. This land now forms part of the proposed Worcestershire Parkway New Settlement strategic allocation, Policy SWDPR 49 of the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR).

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

The entirety of the Merton College land is also within the Norton- juxta-Kempsey NP area.

St. Modwen is keen to work proactively with the Parish Council and other local groups and stakeholders, and we recognise and note the positive 2030 vision for the Parish, as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the NP.

Throughout 2020 St. Modwen has been working with officers at Wychavon District Council and other landowners and stakeholders to produce an evidence base for the allocation and to develop a concept plan for a new settlement. This work is ongoing and will inform the next stage of the SWDPR. An important part of bringing forward the new settlement will be the development of positive links with the existing villages in the area, including Norton, Littleworth, Hatfield and Brockhill. The NP has a role to play in providing these and the reference to the new settlement in paragraph 2.3 and figure 6 is welcomed and supported.

In light of this, the following sets out St. Modwen’s response to the NP consultation. 54.02 Savills (on 30.11.20 Chapter Chapter 6 – Policies Support Comments noted. No action behalf of St. 6 - The Plan is clear it required. Modwen) Policy In general, we would recommend listing out for each policy the full conforms with the evidence base used to develop the policy proposals. Additionally, Development Plan. consideration of the relevant policies of the adopted SWDP and NPPF should be included in the ‘Reasoned Justification’. This would give clarity to the justification for the policy and demonstrate how the NP conforms with the relevant adopted development plan policies. As set out in footnote 16 of the NPPF ‘neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in any development plan that covers their area’.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

56.01 Trustmgt 15.10.20 General We are an open space management company that are committed to Support Comment noted. No action improving the habitat within our managed areas, for the benefit of required. the local community and the wildlife it supports. If we can be of any assistance with any of the advised developments or works please don’t hesitate to get in touch, email: [email protected] - phone: 01829 708 457, you can also visit our website www.trustmgt.co.uk 80.00 Barton 26.11.20 General Extract from letter dated 26.11.20 "In summary, we consider that the Comment Comment noted. No action Willmore Draft Neighbourhood Plan breaches the basic conditions and will However, do not required. require policy deletion and amendment before it can proceed to agree. submission" 84.01 RCA 30.11.20 General Extract from letter dated 30.11.20 "2.2. We note that the Comment Comments noted. LGS ref 22 Regeneratio Neighbourhood Plan Steering group undertook an audit of green Ref 22 reassessed removed. n Ltd spaces in the and removed from Parish and carried out assessment of the sites against the the LGS designation. government’s criteria for designating Local Green Space. 2.3. However we consider that not all of the Local Green Space proposed in the plan meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – which the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group/Management Team will be aware of and will have been advised on previously." 85.01 Savills UK - 30.11.20 General Extract from letter dated 30.11.20 "It is therefore recommended that Comment Noted. The NDP is No action on behalf of the draft NP is amended to ensure conformity with the adopted Local considered to be in required. The Plan, with reference to the emerging Worcestershire Parkway new general conformity Spetchley settlement either removed or amended . Comments on specific with strategic policy Estate policies are set out below." given it makes reference throughout to the

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

emerging strategic new town at WP. Comments from Local Organisations about the Plan in general: 3 responded, 3 support. 37.01 Worcester 10.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.01 Worcester 10.11.20 General Good job Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.01 Worcester 10.11.20 General Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club Comments on Context: 2 responded; 2 coment. 54.03 Savills (on 30.11.20 Chapter Chapter 3 – Context Support Comment noted. No action behalf of St. 3 - required. Modwen) context The NP’s clear acknowledgement of the adopted and emerging strategic allocations within the parish is welcomed and demonstrates a pro-active approach to addressing the development pressures in the area.

Paragraph 3.12 notes that the new settlement will potentially ‘dramatically alter the landscape of the eastern half of Norton-juxta- Kempsey Parish’. While, the proposed new settlement will inevitably alter the landscape, the form of development is being carefully planned to minimise wider impacts and to enhance the existing green infrastructure features throughout the allocation. The Merton College Land and the wider new settlement will provide a minimum of 40% green infrastructure across the new development The enhancement, extension and future management of the green infrastructure will be a key element of the new settlement and its links to the wider area.

The reference in paragraph 3.14 to the NP’s support of the proposed

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

new extended significant gap to the south of the Worcester – London railway line is also welcomed. The gap will maintain a clear separation around the existing smaller settlements in the area. 88.20 Wychavon 30.11.20 Context This section of the NP clearly sets out the steps in preparing the first Support Comments noted. No action District draft and the issues and concerns identified by the community. The required. Council NP is also clear in setting out the pressures the neighbourhood area faces from the adopted SWDP allocations and those proposed in the SWDP Review, in particular the site of a new settlement based around Worcestershire Parkway by 2041 Comments on Understanding the Issues and Opportunities: 1 responded; 1 comment. 54.04 Savills (on 30.11.20 Chapter Chapter 4 – Understanding the Issues and Opportunities Comment Comment noted. No action behalf of St. 4 - required. Modwen) Underst Paragraph 4.1 notes that the level of strategic growth planned will anding potentially have a significant impact on the area and the existing the communities. We would highlight that the strategic development issues proposed will bring numerous benefits to the area through the and creation of much needed jobs, homes and associated infrastructure. opportu The new settlement will deliver a wider range of jobs through nities employment development as well as the provision of community services and leisure facilities. A wide range and mix of housing will be developed, including affordable housing and housing for older people. The financial investment from the developer parties throughout the development of the new settlement will be significant and will bring improvements for the wider area.

It is noted that reference is made in paragraph 4.1 to the Parish Council accepting that ‘land to the east of the Bristol to Birmingham railway line will change significantly over the next two decades’. We would clarify this by noting that the Worcestershire Parkway new settlement will include land on the western side of the railway (north of the Worcester-London railway line and extending to the M5 motorway), with the parkway station forming a central point.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

The Parish Council’s concerns about the area becoming a suburb of Worcester are also noted (paragraph 4.2). We agree that any development in the area needs to ensure that the local character and distinctiveness of the existing settlements is retained. A key part of the work being undertaken by St. Modwen and the Council in relation to the new settlement is to ensure that it develops as a strong, cohesive community, and becomes a healthy and stimulating 21st Century place to live, learn and grow. The settlement will not be a suburb of Worcester and will have a separate identify to the existing settlements in the area.

It is also noted that a number of existing issues are identified in the NP, such as lack of local facilities and services, limited bus services, lack of cycle path infrastructure and heavy goods vehicle traffic. The work being carried out to plan the new settlement is seeking to positively address such issues as part of the development to come forward. This will be expanded on in the responses to specific NP policies.

Paragraph 4.11 highlights concerns over increases in heavy goods vehicles (HGV) within the area. In relation to this, the new settlement allocation proposes that industrial and logistic employment development be located at the western end of the site close to junction 7 of the M5. This will assist in keeping HGV movements close to the motorway network and away from local roads.

Paragraph 4.17 highlights where the local community would be most supportive of further housing growth. The Merton College site, north of the Worcester – London railway line, is considered to be the most appropriate area for new housing. This is welcomed and supported, in accordance with the emerging SWDPR strategic allocation. Comments on Vision and Objectives: 2 responded; 1 support, 1 coment. 70

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

54.05 Savills (on 30.11.20 Chapter The vision and objectives set out in the NP are noted. In particular, Object Comments note. No action behalf of St 5 - the provision of infrastructure that reflects the community’s needs is Wording considered required. Modwen) visions crucial to the sustainability of existing settlements. In relation to the to conform with that and ‘Traffic Impact Objective’ it is highlighted that paragraph 109 of the of the NPPF. objectiv National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘Development es should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. As such the objective of ensuring development has ‘minimum impact’ on the road system and parking is considered ambiguous and contrary to the NPPF. This objective should be reworded to reflect the NPPF policy on highways. The ‘Local Economy Objective’ refers to the supporting and encouraging small scale and appropriate development. Clarification is required in the NP that this refers to development over and above that in the adopted and draft SWDP. Furthermore, consideration is required as to what would constitute ‘appropriate’ development. 86.03 Place 30.11.20 Vision Objectives - Support Comments noted. No action Partnership and “WMP supports the objectives set out in the NJKNP. They reflect the required. on behalf of objectiv NJKNP Vision statement that by 2030, new appropriate developments West Mercia es will be delivered alongside infrastructure sufficient to support the Police community’s needs. This in turn will preserve the Parish and the settlements within it. The ordinary meaning of appropriate development is that which is well-designed, sustainable and supported by a comprehensive range of infrastructures. This ensures that there is no detrimental impact either on the new or the existing community, or on the local environment. WMP would therefore like to suggest that the following Objective be added to those listed on pages 21- 22 of the NJKNP: Sustainable Development Objective To ensure that development is well-designed and fully supported by appropriate infrastructure, thereby ensuring its social and environmental sustainability in the Parish. Including the above would be fully in accordance with the following: • Paragraphs 71

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

8, 11, 16, 20, 28 and 29 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) (NPPF); • Policies SWDP1, SWDP2, SWDP5, SWDP7, SWDP13 and SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (February 2016) (SWDP).” 88.21 Wychavon 30.11.20 Vision Support Support noted. No action District and required Council Objectiv es Comments on NJK 1 Built and Natural Landscape Policy: 95 respondents, 82 residents, 1 agent, 3 local organisations and 2 statutory consultee' in support; 3 residents, 2 agents object; and 1 agent and 1 statutory consultee comment. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.02 12.10.20 NJK 1 Important that the Parish Council refer to this Policy once adopted Support Support and No action when new developments are proposed for the Parish. comment noted required. 2.02 12.10.20 NJK 1 I support the comments but do not support that such significant Support WP is a strategic No action development is necessary bearing in mind other significant allocation outside required. developments in the area. There is much more housing than there the remit of the are work opportunies so we will become a commuter area. NDP. 3.02 17.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 4.02 18.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.02 18.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.02 19.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.02 19.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.02 20.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 72

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

9.02 20.10.20 NJK 1 Having seen the way developers operate and how councils have little Support Comment noted. No action power, I don't see how any of these plans can be enforced? Statutory required. requirement for NDP policies (forming part of the development plan) to be taken into consideration in the determination of planning applications. 10.02 22.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.02 22.10.20 NJK 1 The landscape buffer is essential for the local character of our Support Support and No action neighbourhood comment noted required. 12.02 24.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.02 25.10.20 NJK 1 Retaining gaps between the individual settlements and protection by Support Support and No action landscape buffers will be very important for most residents. comment noted required. 14.02 26.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.02 26.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.02 28.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.02 1.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 18.02 1.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.02 2.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

20.02 2.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.02 3.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.02 3.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.02 3.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.02 3.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.02 5.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.02 7.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.02 7.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 28.02 9.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.02 9.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.02 9.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.02 9.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.02 9.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.02 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.02 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.02 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 74

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

36.02 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.02 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.02 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.02 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 40.02 11.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.02 14.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.02 14.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.02 15.11.20 NJK 1 Generally, I find these Policy provisions to be too loose and ill-defined. Object Comments noted. No action For example item G states, "Respects local landscape quality ensuring Each planning required. that views and vistas are maintained wherever possible" - so if a proposal will be developer can argue that it is not possible to maintain the local judged on its own landscape, then that is acceptable because it is compliant with item merits and will need G. to demonstrate that Item E is finite and OK. it accords with NJK1 Item F is not finite - what is a "buffer"? 1m, 10m 100m 1km? though an evidence Items A to C are similarly not very defined and therefore not very base. meaningful. 44.02 22.11.20 NJK 1 Object to any further built landscape where it reflects recent Object NJK1 requires that No action developments in the area such as Drakes Broughton. It appears to new development required. have no consideration for the local green environment or corridors for respects local wildlife. There is no green space between new urban style housing. character and historic and natural

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

assets. Design is a subjective matter and each application will be judged on its own merits. 45.02 22.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 46.02 26.11.20 NJK 1 Very important in respect of the visual environment and traffic flow. Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 47.02 26.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.02 28.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.02 29.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.02 29.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.02 29.11.20 NJK 1 In principle I support and agree with the plan and in particular the Support Comments noted. No further need for Woodbury Park to retain its setting within the countryside. It action is as is important that we are protected by a significant buffer to any future this would development in the Parish. It is important to me and my family to be maintain our rural identity which we cherish along with our vista duplication. including views of the Malvern Hills from our garden. Large scale Norton Hall developments are uncharacteristic with our rural identity and setting. and Woodbury I would refer to my response below to NJK 4 asking that the Parish Park is a council take special notice of the The Wychavon Historic Parks and designated Gardens Supplementary Planning Document which was adopted by Historical Wychavon District Council on 18th January 2005. Parkland.

In particular the historic park surrounding Norton Hall and Woodbury Park is designated parkland grid ref SO 888 514. The land is registered

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

as a locally important park and garden It should be made clear in the Neighbourhood Plan that this is a significant site of rich countryside of wide bio-diversity and ecological value, whilst also containing with many features of significant historical and archaeological interest. A such the Parish council should make a clear commitment to protect this countryside to prevent property development, intrusive changes of use, subdivision or encroachment that can result in loss of its beauty and character.

The features and elements of this site include but are not limited to: - Parkland areas of grassland dotted with historic trees and wildlife; - Ancient woodland to the border along Woodbury Lane; - Ha-ha - associated with 18th century 'picturesque' landscape; - Water feature in the parkland which is again host to a diverse range of wildlife.

The parkland surrounding Woodbury Park is host to a broader range of ecological and bio-diversity value meriting greater preservation than other areas of natural countryside. Having lived in Woodbury Park for 12 years I have first hand knowledge and experience of the diverse wildlife including veteran trees, bats, a wide variety of amphibians (including toads, frogs and newts) hares, deer, weasels, ducks, grass snakes, slow worms, adders etc. Any development near to this site would have a huge detrimental bio-diversity impact.

The parkland was purchased at Woodhall Farm by Merton College after we moved in. I refer to a letter from Merton College dated 11 December 2012 in which they reaffirmed the land is "formally parkland and an area that we hope to restore in the future".

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

buffer with enhanced planting" (NJK 1 - F) as this will not only adversely impact on the existing beautiful vista but would also adversely impact on the natural state of the parkland.

I would ask the Parish Council to formally support the designation of the parkland surrounding Norton Hall / Woodbury Park in support of The Wychavon Historic Parks and Gardens Supplementary Planning Document . Any development nearby to this would have a significant adverse impact on a site of historical significance within our parish. It would also have adverse impact on a species rich wildlife habitat of significant ecological value.

In conclusion, I support retaining the 'separate identity' of Woodbury Park by protecting the parkland and farmland around the setting which I do not feel would be satisfied by simply 'enhanced planting' (and what does 'enhanced planting mean and at what distance?). 52.02 29.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 54.06 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK 1 - F F. Landscape buffer to Woodbury Park – Woodbury Park is referred to Object Objection noted. St No action behalf of St. as a hamlet within the NP. It is questioned whether it is correct to Modwens are required. Modwen) classify the 10 houses at Woodbury Park and the existing Norton Hall understood to in this way. A number if planning consents for the residential units potentially be the were granted in the late 1980s. As such the houses do not form part a developers of the historic settlement that has evolved over time but instead it is land around understood are the result of the development of part of the grounds Woodbury Park as of Norton Hall, which is now a nursing home. part of the Parkway development and As such it is not considered that Woodbury Park has a specific therefore clearly ‘separate identity’ or ‘landscape setting’ marking it out from any other have an interest. small grouping of 20th century properties in the area. The reference

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

to the need for a landscape buffer around Woodbury Park is therefore questioned. Without evidence to back up the requirement for a buffer we do not support this criterion.

The existing properties at Woodbury Park back on to the surrounding Merton College land that will be developed as part of Worcestershire Parkway. As such the creation of a ‘buffer’ is not considered to be appropriate, as an open landscape or publicly accessible area of open space around the rear of the existing gardens would expose these rear boundaries to the public realm, thus raising possible future issues of surveillance and use of the land.

We do recognise, however, the need to sensitively address these rear garden edges and the amenity of existing residents when considering the relationship with any new development. This will be considered as part of any masterplanning proposals for the wider new settlement development. Further work will be carried out to determine the most appropriate solution when more detailed proposals are drawn-up.

It is requested that criteria F be removed from the Policy NJK1 as it is overly prescriptive and not supported or justified by evidence. Any future development on the Merton College land will consider in detail the most appropriate relationship with existing properties and this will be considered as part of a future planning application. 54.07 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK1 - G G - Local landscape quality – the policy seeks to maintain views and Comment noted. No action behalf of St. vistas wherever possible. While this ambition is welcomed, it must be Parkway is an required Modwen) also be recognised that the delivery of a new settlement of the scale emerging strategic proposed will inevitably notably change views that include land within policy. the proposed allocation. The NP recognises this in paragraph 3.12. It is requested that criteria G be revised to state: G. Respects local landscape quality ensuring that views and vistas are maintained wherever possible. It is recognised that the Worcestershire Parkway

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

new settlement allocation will notably change views that include land within the allocation. 55.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.02 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.02 1.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 58.02 1.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.02 2.11.20 NJK 1 It is very important to me that any development respects the local Support Comment noted. No action character and history of the area and allows Norton to remain a required. separate place rather than merged into new development and surrounding villages. I want it to to reflect the dimensions in scale to what already exists, allow undeveloped gaps to remain and using planting continue to enhance the current landscape with continued references to the military history of the area. Energy efficiency are crucial to promote green energy 60.02 2.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.02 3.11.20 NJK 1 Agree with this policy. The area is of historical importance and feel Support Support and No action sure it will be kept this way comment noted required. 62.01 Severn Trent 22.10.20 NJK 1 Severn Trent is supportive of this policy, particularly subsection (h). Support Comments noted. No action We would however encourage you to go further incorporating policy SWDP30: Water required. wording relating to water efficiency and ensuring that any new Resources, Efficiency development is built according to the drainage hierarchy. Example and Treatment; wording is given below: Water Efficiency - ‘Development proposals SWDP28: should demonstrate that the estimated consumption of wholesome Management of water per dwelling is calculated in accordance with the methodology Flood Risk; and in the water efficiency calculator, should not exceed 110 SWDP29: Sustainable litres/person/day’. Justification: Issues with the sustainability of some Drainage Systems . of our water sources are placing our supply resilience at risk, it is

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

therefore vital that we reduce the amount of water used. We are Duplication not supportive of the use of water efficient fittings and appliances within required. new properties, we encourage of the optional higher water efficiency target of 110 Litres per person per day within part G of building regulations. Delivering against the optional higher target or better provides wider benefits to the water cycle and environment as a whole. This approach is not only the most sustainable but the most appropriate direction to deliver water efficiency. Drainage Hierarchy - ‘All applications for new development shall demonstrate that all surface water discharges have been carried out in accordance with the principles laid out within the drainage hierarchy, in such that a discharge to the public sewerage systems are avoided, where possible.’ Justification: It is vital that surface water flows are managed appropriately and directed back into natural water systems. Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 80 (Reference ID: 7-080-20150323) states: 2 ST Classification: OFFICIAL PERSONAL “Generally the aim should be to discharge surface water run off as high up the following hierarchy of drainage options as reasonably practicable: 1. into the ground (infiltration); 2. to a surface water body; 3. to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; 4. to a combined sewer.” The above guidance clearly outlines the preferred routes for surface water drainage, however it is acknowledged that other factors such as contamination of land etc. may influence the final outfall designation. 63.02 4.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.02 4.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.02 12.11.20 NJK 1 Reasoning good, providing the new development respects and keeps Support Support noted. No action key landscape features required. 67.02 13.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

68.02 13.11.20 NJK 1 Norton and Brockhill village, Hatfield, Littleworth, High Park and Support Comments noted. No action Woodbury Park are all rural, some particularly so, making them a NJK1 (e) supportive. required. beautiful and peaceful place to be; a refuge from the City. It must not become yet another housing estate bolted on to St Peters. 69.02 13.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.02 15.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.02 20.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.02 20.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.02 20.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.02 21.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 75.02 22.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.02 22.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.02 22.11.20 NJK 1 But additional spaces need to be created too Support (Unclear) comment No action noted required. 79.04 Worcestershi 25.11.20 NJK 1 Extract from minerals and waste subsection of letter dated 25.11.20 Comment No need for this to No action re County "We also note that the plan area includes areas that are proposed as be specifically required. Council - Mineral Safeguarding Area and Mineral Consultation Areas in policy reproduced in the Minerals and MLP 31 and MLP 32 of the Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan NDP as already Waste Publication version (see webmap contained within https://gis.worcestershire.gov.uk/Website/MineralsLocalPlan/?l=1 ). WMLP. The MLP is currently undergoing public examination." 80.01 Barton 26.11.20 NJK 1 The (policy) should be amended through more targeted deletion or Object Objection noted. See action Willmore redrafting below.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

80.02 Barton 26.11.20 NJK 1 Draft Policy Text - Policy NJK1 sets out a number of criteria relating to Barton Willmore No action Willmore the built and natural landscape and states that development will be wish to develop required. supported where it corresponds with these. Criterion D refers to housing in Norton street naming. Criterion E sets out that development will be outside existing supported where: “Does not erode the important, predominantly development undeveloped gaps between the four settlements of Brockhill Village, boundaries. Norton, Littleworth and Hatfield.” Criterion G sets out that Comment noted. development will be supported where it: “Respects local landscape quality ensuring that views and vistas are maintained wherever possible.” This policy has not been supported by any landscape assessment work undertaken by a qualified consultant. Basic Conditions 8(2)(a) and (d) The NPPG states that a policy in a draft neighbourhood plan should be clear and unambiguous and should be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications. It should be concise, precise, and supported by appropriate evidence (Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 41-041-20140306). This reflects the requirement in NPPF Paragraph 31 for all policies to be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence. With regards to landscape, the NPPF (Paragraph 170) states that planning policies should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan), and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits. Pl anning policies should also ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (Paragraph 127). NPPF paragraphs 170 and 127 must be applied in a manner which is consistent with the NPPF’s policy imperative to boost the supply of housing: NPPF paragraph 59. The same Chapter provides strong 83

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

support for delivering housing in locations adjacent/near to villages which will “enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities”. It is therefore well-established that policies that seek to restrict development across wide areas of open countryside will not be consistent with national planning policy. 80.03 Barton 26.11.20 NJK 1 Text Amendments - The wording of NJK1 is unduly restrictive, in its Object Barton Willmore No action Willmore current format. In particular, whlist the first sentence states that wish to develop required. “development will be supported where” and the final sentence which housing in Norton sets out that “development will not be permitted if the criteria are not outside existing met ”. The two tests create a dis-connect. The policy is not positively development prepared in line with the requirements of NPPF Paragraph 16. The boundaries. final sentence should be deleted. Comment noted.

Three further deletions are necessary to comply with the basic conditions. Criterion D: This is the responsibility of the local authority under separate legislation. It is therefore not a material consideration at the planning decision-taking stage. This criterion should therefore be removed. Criterion E: This should be deleted, as it breaches basic condition 8(2)(a) and (d). Appropriate, sensitively designed, and suitable development can come forward within areas located between the named settlements without adverse impact upon the landscape and the character of the built-up areas. An element of separation can be retained through the use of landscaping and open space. No evidence base has been provided to underpin this policy, including any landscape assessment work produced by a qualified landscape consultant. This attempt to generate a settlement gap policy therefore cannot meet with the basic conditions, and is not in accordance with national policy and will frustrate (rather than contribute to) the achievement of sustainable development. Criterion G: This should be deleted, as it breaches basic condition 8(2)(a) and (d). This policy currently seeks to protect views and vistas, 84

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

“wherever possible”. No “views” or “vistas” are not identified. In practice, this policy would be unclear and unworkable as a development control policy. Again, there has been structured, qualified landscape assessment work, such that there is no evidence setting out the value of any view or vista. It is well-established that there is no “right to a view”. National policy makes expressly clear that landscape and visual impacts must be assessed with r egard to individual quality. In summary, as presently drafted Policy NJK1 does not meet the basic conditons and requires significant amendment prior to any submission of the draft neighbourhood plan 81.02 27.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.02 27.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.02 27.11.20 NJK 1 Yes, we believe that to maintain identity, clear space should be Support Support and No action maintained between the settlements comment noted. required. 85.02 Savills UK - 30.11.20 NJK 1 3.7 The Estate supports the broad intent with respect to the built and Object Comment noted. No action on behalf of natural landscape, however it is important that such a policy is used required. The positively within the planning and design process to maximise Spetchley landscape benefits and minimise adverse effects as far as practicable. Estate 3.8 Criterion ‘F’ of the policy states that new development proposals should provide a landscape buffer to High Park to maintain its landscape setting and a separate identity and Criterion ‘G’ relates to the maintenance of local views and vistas. 3.9 The Estate considers that the proposals for the proposed new settlement need to evolve in regard to all planning matters, and it is too early in the process to fix how a landscape strategy should respond to High Park, or which local views and vistas should be a focus for the new development to respond to. 3.10 If the new settlement is delivered the area will be subject to considerable change, but the detail of that change needs to evolve

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

alongside the evidence base that will inform the masterplan. Therefore, while the Estate would very much welcome the opportunity to evolve its proposals with input from the Parish Council and High Park residents, it is considered that the NP should be amended so that it does not predetermine the masterplan exercise. 87.02 30.11.20 NJK1 Support Support noted. No action required. 88.22 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK 1 The overall direction of the policy is generally supported. However, at Comment Agreed Remove District criteria F the policy wording is pre-empting the new settlement NJK1(F) Council allocation at Worcestershire Parkway. NJK1 F seeks to introduce a buffer around the settlements of High Park and Woodbury Park to maintain openness between them and the development from the new settlement. The issues are that to apply the policy a ‘buffer’ needs to be delineated and currently the neighborhood plan is unable to do this as the development pattern of the new settlement has yet to be fully established. Further the criteria present an issue for the examination in 2021 of the neighbourhood plan as this will take place well ahead of the reviewed SWDP having any weight or eventually being adopted in 2023. The neighbourhood plan can only be examined and found to be in general conformity with the adopted SWDP 2016 strategic policies, which of course the Worcestershire Parkway new settlement proposals do not form part. It is acknowledged that the proposal for a buffer around the identified hamlets is not unreasonable and there is merit in seeking to retain the areas identify once the new settlement is built. However, at this stage the inclusion of this criteria is premature and, in all likelihood, would be deleted by the examiner. A positive suggestion is that the parties involved, i.e. the district council, and development interests work with the parish council on establishing an acceptable buffer to be included in the Reg 16 NP as the extent and nature of the emerging strategic growth area becomes 86

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

clear for the SWDP Review Publication version. Alternatively the criteria can be deleted and once the SWDP is adopted in 2023 and the development pattern of Worcestershire Parkway is established the neighbourhood plan can then be subject to a minor review to cover NJK1 which could see criteria F reinstated and defined on a supporting plan. 89.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 This is vital for mental, educational and social health. Our Support Support and No action environmental heritage is priceless. Our county is beautiful and comment noted required. deserves protection. 90.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Priority support of A, C, D, E, G, H. Build a healthy & cohesive. Keep Support Comments noted. No action the “village” a clear space boundary. required. 91.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 93.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 We support points A-H but the most important point is “Development Support Comments noted. No action that does not meet these criteria will not be permitted” must be required. adhered to 94.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 I cannot see that it is possible to build thousands of new homes Object Comments noted. No action without significantly and permanently changing the area. How can a Strategic allocation required. new build “Respect the local character and historical and natural outside remit of assets etc etc”? NDP. 95.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 96.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 I am in agreement with all aims A-H Support Support noted. No action required. 98.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 I only support this policy provided that it is carried out completely to Support Support and No action the very last detail, to retain the feel of countryside that already exists comment noted. required. and maintains the existing hamlets 99.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

100.02 30.11.20 NJK 1 Support Support noted. No action required. Comments on NJK2 Trees and Hedgerows Policy: 93 respondents, 81 residents, 1 agent, 3 local organisations in support; 4 residents, 2 agents object; and 1 agent and 1 statutory consultee comment. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.03 12.10.20 NJK2 Essential the the Parish Council refer to NJK2 when new Support Support and No action developments are proposed foe the Parish. comment noted. required. 2.03 12.10.20 NJK2 I support the policy but can see the areas identified have some lovely Support Spetchley is outside No action green areas which afford wonderful views across the countryside. the parish required. The land around Spetchley is so peaceful and I have enjoyed running around there a lot recently and have enjoyed the peacefulness and observed the abundance of birds and wildlife in the trees and hedgerows. 3.03 17.10.20 NJK2 Object Objection noted No action required. 4.03 18.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.03 18.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.03 19.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.03 19.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.03 20.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.03 20.10.20 NJK2 Estimates are 7-8 trees required per person for breathable air per Support Comments noted. No action year. If 15k people expected in new development, 120,000 trees required. should be planted.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

10.03 22.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.03 22.10.20 NJK2 Tree replacement (E) land should be gifted to the parish with a Support Comments noted. No action commuted sum for long term maintenance of the trees in perpetuity. required. 12.03 24.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.03 25.10.20 NJK2 Native species please and please consider natural flood mitigation. Support Comment noted. No action required. 14.03 26.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.03 26.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.03 28.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.03 1.11.20 NJK2 We live in an area with wonderful tree stock and this should be Support Comment noted. No action retained and added to. required. 18.03 1.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.03 2.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.03 2.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.03 3.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.03 3.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.03 3.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.03 3.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.03 5.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 89

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

26.03 7.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.03 7.11.20 NJK2 To ensure a diverse range of trees are provided Support Comments noted. No action required. 28.03 9.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.03 9.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.03 9.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.03 9.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.03 9.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.03 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.03 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.03 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.03 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.03 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.03 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.03 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

40.03 11.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.03 14.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.03 14.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.03 15.11.20 NJK2 Generally I support this but I do not agree with the terminology of Object Comment noted No action "unacceptable loss" in item A. How much is acceptable and how much required. is unacceptable. Better to add "hedgerows" with "trees" within item C and then item A is OK. 44.03 22.11.20 NJK2 Agree that ALL ancient trees should be preserved. Additional planting Support Comments noted. No action takes several years to mature but more should be encouraged. required. 45.03 22.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 46.03 26.11.20 NJK2 Quite important but maintenance can be an issue. Developers plant Support Comment noted. No action trees too near houses, and footpaths need to be kept clear. Who required. should take responsibility? Home owners do not keep uniformity so the council would be better to be responsible overall. 47.03 26.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.03 28.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.03 29.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.03 29.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.03 29.11.20 NJK2 In support the maintenance of trees and hedgerows with particular Support Comment noted. No action emphasis on the ancient trees. Of particular relevance to me as a required. resident of Woodbury Park is the parkland trees and ancient woodland surrounding Woodbury Park & Norton Hall which provide a haven for wildlife.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

52.03 29.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 54.08 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK2- A A – Tree Loss – Reference is made to no ‘unacceptable’ loss of trees or Object Comment noted. No action behalf of St. hedgerows as part of new development. Clarification is required as to required. Modwen) what is ‘unacceptable’. Neither the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance or SWDP policies set out a requirement for no unacceptable loss of trees.

It is requested that part A be removed from the policy as there is no justification set out for the proposed criteria. 54.09 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK2 - C C – Tree replacement – The aim of replacing trees which cannot be Object Comment noted. No action behalf of St. retained as part of a development is welcomed. However, such a required. Modwen) policy requirement should take into account the quality of the trees to be removed. Part B of policy NJK2 requires a tree survey be carried out in relation to any development that may impact on trees. Such a survey, which should satisfy the requirements of BS5837:2012, will classify trees as either Category A, B, C or U. Only trees classified as A, B or C should be considered for retention, as category U trees are in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years. This should be reflected in Part C of the policy. Part C also requires trees to be replaced at a ratio of at least 2:1. The justification for this ratio is unclear and evidence should be provided on this point.

It is requested that part C be revised to state: C. Category A, B and C trees that cannot to be retained as a result of the development are replaced, as agreed with the local planning authority as part of a detailed landscape strategy.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

54.10 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK2 -D D – Tree and hedgerow species – The need to replace trees and Object Comment noted. No action behalf of St. hedgerows to be removed as part of any development is noted and required. Modwen) where possible native species should be considered. However, the wording of part D is considered overly prescriptive in relation to replacement planting.

It is requested that part D be revised to state: D. Any replacement trees and hedgerow are planted with locally occurring native species or other suitable species, as agreed with the local planning authority as part of a detailed landscape strategy. 54.11 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK2 - E E - New tree planting rates – The general principle of providing Object Comment noted. No action behalf of St. planting for new development set out in the policy is supported. required. Modwen) However, the wording of the policy is considered to be overly prescriptive and clarification is required as to the evidence and justification for the level of planting set out. From experience, a rigidly formulaic approach to the provision of tree planting in new development can sometimes lead to a compromised final design. The policy wording should therefore be revised to allow for the delivery of trees on site to be considered on a site by site basis, where necessary

It is requested that part E be revised to state: E. Additional new trees shall be planted where appropriate as part of a landscape strategy to be agreed with the local planning authority. This may include off-site tree planting if considered appropriate. 55.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Point B Re Maintain and enhance wildlife corridors - there has been Support Comment noted. No action alot in the press recently about the decline in hedgehog numbers and required. I have noticed this over the years. One of the main reasons being that there are very few gaps in boundary fences around houses for hedgehogs to roam. I would like developers to make it the norm to create hedgehogs corridors when building new properties. 56.03 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

57.03 1.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 58.03 1.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.03 2.11.20 NJK2 I am very concerned that we do not lose the existing trees and Support Comment noted. No action hedgerows as a result of this development and this needs to include required. root preservation. Extensive tree and hedgerow replacement is needed to keep the rural feel of the area. Replacement trees and hedgerows need to reflect native species and will need to be maintained into maturity. 60.03 2.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.03 3.11.20 NJK2 I agree in principle with the policy as I am an artist and these are Support Comment noted. No action many of my subjects. Since moving to Norton in 2006 I love my house required. 38 Peninsula Rd which backs on to the field. The old oak tree at the bottom of the garden has been a concern of mine since moving in. I have always thought it a danger particularly when grandchildren were in the garden. Should you plan to develop the field would you consider removing the old oak? I would be happy to agree that. 63.03 4.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.03 4.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.03 12.11.20 NJK2 Providing the developer maintains the trees for 5 years as suggested Support Support and No action in policy comment noted. required. 67.03 13.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.03 13.11.20 NJK2 The hedgerows provide barriers to traffic pollution and noise, a place Support Comment noted. No action of food shelter and safety for wildlife, and retain areas of individual required. existing settlements. Trees, once removed, take years to reach maturity, if replaced, and are vital to our eco-system. They should be retained at all costs unless diseased

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

69.03 13.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. 70.03 15.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. 71.03 20.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. 72.03 20.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. 73.03 20.11.20 NJK2 Some hedgerow planting & trees seem to have already been removed Support The A4440 field is No action in the field by A4440 – are these to be replaced. Also Point E final outside the parish. required. comment….the trees should be planted at a suitable location outside Rest of comment the site…..a maximum distance must be specified or the area may not noted get the benefit – current statement is not enforceable. 74.03 21.11.20 NJK2 At Cooksholme Farm (Gills) 12 trees will be planted by the developer Support Comment noted. No action and also maintained for five years. Who will see this happens? required. 75.03 22.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.03 22.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.03 22.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 80.04 Barton 26.11.20 NJK2 The (policy) should be amended through more targeted deletion or Object Objection noted. See action Willmore redrafting below. 80.05 Barton 26.11.20 NJK2 Draft Policy Text - Policy NJK2 Criterion A states that there can be no Comment noted. No action Willmore unacceptable loss of, or damage to, existing trees or hedgerows required. during or as a result of development. The policy text contains no reference to the value of the tree/hedgerow, or the availability of mitigation or replacement. It does not define the term ‘unacceptable’. Crtierion B requires a tree survey, arboricultural implications assessment, and a tree protection plan (taking into account root protection areas). Criteria C-F require that trees that cannot be retained to be replaced

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

at a ratio of at least 2:1 (with replacements being locally occurring native species. New trees at a minimum of three trees for each dwelling for residential development is then required. If this is not feasible on-site then the trees should be planted at a suitable location outside the site. There is then the requirement for new trees to be maintained by the developer for a period of five years, or to a level of maturity that they will not fail, with a planning condition or legal agreement used to secure the above. 80.06 Barton 26.11.20 NJK2 Basic Conditions 8(2)(a), (d) and (e) – Comment noted. No action Willmore We consider that there are issues with this proposed policy that will required. require a fundamental amendment, to ensure compliance with national planning policy for the purposes of basic condition 8(2)(a), (d) and (e). The NPPF (paragraphs 170 and 174) provides for the protection of habitats, including trees and hedgerows including net gains. The NPPF (paragraph 175) also allows mitigation and compensation to be considered as part of the decision-making process. 80.07 Barton 26.11.20 NJK2 Policy Amendments - Detailed amendments are required to this policy Comments noted. Ammendme Willmore text before it can proceed to submission. Amendment to nts to policy Criterion A: This criterion breaches basis condition 8(2)(a) and (d) and policy wording have wording. should be deleted. The use of the term “unacceptable” fails to have been made but not regard to the categorisation of trees, as per the British Standard to the extent 5837:2012 which is the industry’s standard guide on trees and suggested here. development. The British Standard Sections 4.4 and 4.5 consider the Tree Survey process and specifically the tree categorization process (see notably Table 1). The criterion fails to take into account that the removal of lower value trees is often considered acceptable in a range of circumstances., to make way for development and supporting infrastructure. Even in cases of higher value trees, removal can be justified in situations where the benefits outweigh the loss. Mitigation in the form of replacement may also make the loss of trees acceptable. As such, this should be amended to clarify this does not apply to lower value trees, and that loss may be acceptable in certain 96

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

circumstances, or where mitigation is provided. Criterion B: This criterion breaches basis condition 8(2)(a) and (d) and should be deleted. The requirement to provide information such as a tree protection plan at submission stage is unreasonable as this information could be provided by condition 1 . This requirement should be removed, or the wording amended to confirm that certain details can be provided, only if required, or at a later stage. Criteria C-F: These criteria breaches basis condition 8(2)(a) and (d) and should be deleted. The requirement for the replacement and provision of new trees is not supported by any evidence, including in respect of viability or feasibility. The NPPF requires a Net Gain in biodiversity (Paragraphs 170 and 174) and the July 2019 consultation into mandatory Net Gain (to be brought in through the Environment Bill) sought views on a 10% Net Gain. Criterion F: The reference to “maturity” is vague and unworkable, and should be deleted. The policy text should state that trees should be maintained for 5 years and replaced if they fail. As such, we consider that the policy should be amended to remove the specific ratios required and reference net gain. Criteria E-F: The policy requirement to provide trees offsite, if they cannot be incorporated within the scheme, and for planning conditions/legal agreements to secure this, is directly contrary to the tests for conditions/obligations as set out in the NPPF (Paragraphs 55 and 56) As a matter of principle, a development can be made acceptable without a specific number of trees provided, whether on or off site. This should therefore be deleted. Further, it is noted that the SWDP (Policies SWDP 21 and 22) does not require a specific quantum of planting and, instead, focuses on good design and protection of biodiversity/geodiversity.

In summary, as presently drafted, there is limited text within the policy which is compliant with NPPF and standard arboricultural 97

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

practice. The authors may wish to review whether the policy should still go forward, or if instead whether the coverage provided by the Local Plan and national policy is already sufficiently robust. 81.03 27.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.03 27.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.03 27.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 85.03 Savills UK - 30.11.20 NJK2 The Estate is supportive of and committed to providing high quality, Comment noted. No action on behalf of multi-functional green infrastructure as an integral element of future required. The development. The arrangement, delivery and future management of Spetchley green infrastructure will be informed by a number of technical Estate studies, which will identify features of value and proposals will also be guided by specific project requirements. The proposals for green infrastructure will be progressed through the planning and design process. 87.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. 88.23 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK2 - Minor typo criteria C - "to" needs removing Agree NJK2 Criteria District criteria C - remove Council C "to". 88.24 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK2 - It is noted the criteria states “Trees that cannot to be retained as a Agreed. Woding Wording District criteria result of the development are replaced at a ratio of at least 2:1.” This revised as suggested. revised as Council C is very prescriptive and whilst it might be an aspiration, it might not suggested. always be achievable or desirable. There are risks with being over prescriptive to this extent, e.g. there might be space for one specimen oak tree as a replacement - to allow it enough space to mature in relation to its setting and proximity to any buildings. However, if the policy states two trees need to be planted then, within that same space, by necessity the two trees would need to be of smaller stature at maturity – unless one is to be

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

sacrificed at some point to allow the other to develop properly. Smaller trees tend to be shorter lived. And so, the long-term benefit of replacement tree planting may be shorter lived if two are required where there might be space for one large, longer-lived tree species. A suggested alternative wording is offered “Trees that cannot to be retained as a result of the development should be replaced as agreed with the Local Planning Authority.” 88.25 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK2 - Criteria E states: Agreed. Wording Wording District Criteria “Additional, new trees shall be planted at a minimum of: i. three trees revised. revised. Council E for each dwelling for residential development. ii. For non-residential development, whichever is the greater of one tree for each parking space, or one tree per 50m2 of gross floorspace.

Where it is not possible to secure this new or replacement tree planting within the site, the trees should be planted at a suitable location outside the site.” It is considered this is overprescribed as seeking 3 trees for every new house and 1 tree for every parking space is realistic or desired. Trees need space both to develop without competition and to be appreciated – it is not always appropriate to over plant them. It would most certainly be the case that, to meet this policy requirement, trees would need to be “planted at a suitable location outside the site.” The query is whether and how suitable sites have been identified for this and if not, the policy criteria would be unable to be met. If it is considered necessary to specify a number it is proposed that at least 2 trees, e.g. front and rear for individual dwellings; 1 tree for every 3 dwellings on estate-type developments (excluding areas of open space); and 1 tree for every 3 parking spaces. It should also be borne in mind that shrub planting, either native or ornamental, can be better accommodated in new developments of higher density. These as well as trees contribute to landscape and biodiversity enhancement and assist in carbon capture and in reducing surface water run-off. It is suggested that para 4 of the reasoned justification be amended to 99

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

“… and the creation of new large-scale woodlands would be supported where appropriate.” Large-scale woodland planting would not be appropriate across the whole of the parish. 89.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Same applies as previous category. Massively important to our Support Comment noted. See NJK1 for disappearing wildlife. action. 90.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Trees in area of Barracks, Salamanca Rd to be checked on public and Support Comment noted. No action private land. Too many trees are proving to be unhealthy-Replants @ required. areas to form support to environmental health. 91.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted. No action required. 93.03 30.11.20 NJK2 We support points A-G however what is the definition of Support Taylors Lane is No action “unacceptable” in point A. Especially in reference to Taylors Lane outside the parish required. where the development has started and there has been removal of hedgerows. 94.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Property developers always cram as many houses into a small space Object Comment noted. No action as possible. I cannot imagine that enough space will be left for three required. trees per house. With non-residential development it would not be advisable to have trees in car park areas as the leaves and residue cause damage to paintwork. 95.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Map ref 4 – Maintenance of trees on the cul de sac never happens Support Comment noted. No action since the total development took place, except for one time on the required. corner of Norton Rd and Crookbarrow RD. This can be quite dangerous when approaching the island from Crookbarrow Rd. & speed is a problem with high volume of traffic; the trees are getting very tall and untidy. We do our best to keep it tidy, but it is difficult. The contractors responsible for cutting the green areas do just that. No tidying under hedgerows and no cutting back of brambles. In all we are very concerned. 96.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. 97.03 30.11.20 NJK2 I am in agreement with all aims A-G Support Support noted No action required.

100

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

98.03 30.11.20 NJK2 I agree with all the proposals made. Support Support noted No action required. 99.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Agree that trees,hedgerows etc play an important role in the Object Comment noted. No action environment but:--(1) A condition on planning of 5 years would need required. monitoring. Do Wychavon have a compliance officer. If not who would monitor. Once developers complete on site it’s difficult to get them to comply. Environment officers only act on complaints they don’t monitor. (2)Most trees planted on estates are generally removed by residents at some point. Who checks that. (3)Trees and drainage do not mix. Sometimes planting schemes seem to overlook this fact. 100.03 30.11.20 NJK2 Support Support noted No action required. Comments on NJK3 Green Infrastructure Policy: 94 respondents, 83 residents, 1 agent, 3 local organisations and 1 statutory consultee in support; 2 residents and 2 agents object; and 1 agent and 1 statutory consultee comment. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.04 12.10.20 NJK3 Essential the Parish Council refer to this Policy when new Support Objection noted. No action developments in the Parish are presented. required. 2.04 12.10.20 NJK3 I support the policy but the size of the development on green belt Support Support and No action land does not fit with this policy. Concerns Noted required. 3.04 17.10.20 NJK3 Object Support noted. No action required. 4.04 18.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.04 18.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.04 19.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

101

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

7.04 19.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.04 20.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.04 20.10.20 NJK3 I think more exact plans on how many play areas. Water run off, Support Support and No action which will be vast with that scale of development, needs very careful Concerns Noted required. management, based on flooding issues in this area. 10.04 22.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.04 22.10.20 NJK3 Item (F) the provision of opportunities by developers should be gifted Support Support and No action to the community with a commuted sum for its maintenance in Comments Noted required. perpetuity. 12.04 24.10.20 NJK3 Support Support and No action comment noted. required 13.04 25.10.20 NJK3 As above "Native species please and please consider natural flood Support Support and No action mitigation." Comments Noted required. 14.04 26.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.04 26.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.04 28.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.04 1.11.20 NJK3 The inclusion of tranquil areas and places for natural play has become Support Support and No action more important then ever for human well being and mental health. Comments Noted required. Many would benefit from the active travel corridors to improve fitness and health. 18.04 1.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.04 2.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.04 2.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

102

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

21.04 3.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.04 3.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.04 3.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.04 3.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.04 5.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.04 7.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.04 7.11.20 NJK3 To not obstruct views of the Malvern hills Support Support and No action Comments Noted required. 28.04 9.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.04 9.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.04 9.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.04 9.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.04 9.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.04 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.04 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.04 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.04 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 103

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

37.04 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.04 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.04 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 40.04 11.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.04 14.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.04 14.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.04 15.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 44.04 22.11.20 NJK3 This is the most important aspect. Building should be built into the Support Support and No action landscape not landscape around as an afterthought. Comments Noted required. 45.04 22.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 46.04 26.11.20 NJK3 Very important. Active travel corridors are beneficial if well-planned, Support Support and No action unlike the present route from the bridge over the A4440 to Comments Noted required. Worcestershire Parkway which is very dangerous - the road is too narrow for pedestrians and cyclists. 47.04 26.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.04 28.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.04 29.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

104

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

50.04 29.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.04 29.11.20 NJK3 I object to this policy on the basis that we should seek to protect Object Objection and No action greenbelt land and our rural identity from a large development as is Comments Noted required. proposed in the consultation. At no stage in the planning application for the Parkway was it accompanied by a linked request to build a new town nearby. the whole idea of a parkway is that it is just that, a park and ride, not a train station serving a large town.

I do support the protection of green space. 52.04 29.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Comment noted. No action required. 54.12 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK3 This is considered to be a well written policy that in general reflects Support noted No action behalf of St. current best practice. The aim of promoting active recreation within required. Modwen) green infrastructure, and integrating this with SuDS, wildlife habitats and local food production is all welcomed 54.13 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK3 - A Part A – It is noted that part A seeks to “conserve key views or visual object Objection and No action behalf of St. relationships”. The NP does not set out what these key views and Comments Noted required. Modwen) visual relationships are. Further clarification is required as to how these are to be defined and identified, and by whom.

While retaining views is a positive aim, it should also be recognised that within the new settlement allocation, even when a visual relationship is positively addressed within the growth area, the view itself will inevitably change and cannot be strictly “conserved”. It is recommended that part A be revised.

It is requested that part A be revised to state:

A. Seek to conserve where possible important geological and

105

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

topographical features and key views or visual relationships. It is recognised that the Worcestershire Parkway new settlement allocation will notably change some key views and visual relationships that include land within the allocation. 54.14 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK3 - C Part C – The use of locally occurring native species in planting Comment noted. No action behalf of St. schemes is encouraged. However, the wording of part C is considered required. Modwen) overly prescriptive. It is requested that part C be revised to state: C. Use locally occurring native species in planting schemes or other suitable species, as agreed with the local planning authority as part of a detailed landscape strategy. 54.15 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK3 - D Part D - The integration of walking and cycling into new development, Comment noted. No action behalf of St. where appropriate, is welcomed. required. Modwen) However, the criteria goes on to refer to the connection of cycle routes to public rights of way. It should be noted that public rights of way identified as ‘footpaths’ should not be used by cyclists. Consideration should begiven to this when developing active routes. 54.16 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK3 - G Part G – The promotion of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) Comment noted. No action behalf of St. is welcomed. However, it should be noted that SuDS are not always required. Modwen) the most appropriate drainage method for a specific site, based on the underlying nature of the ground. It is requested that part G be revised to state: G. Include Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), where appropriate, that benefit wildlife. 55.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted No action required. 56.04 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK3 Support Support noted No action required. 57.04 1.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted No action required. 58.04 1.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

106

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

59.04 2.11.20 NJK3 With increased housing and industrial developments we absolutely Support Support and No action need green spaces in the area-if possible more than those proposed. Comments Noted required. Plaring fields, places to walk the dog and enjoy local wildlife are crucial to the residents of this area remaining physically and emotionally healthy. Places to meet, farm the land on allotments and play, have picnics need to be planned for. 60.04 2.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.04 3.11.20 NJK3 In agreement Support Support noted. No action required. 62.02 Severn Trent 22.10.20 NJK3 Severn Trent is supportive of you comment regarding inclusion of Support Support and No action SuDS.. We encourage you to include the following policy wording: Comments Noted required. ‘Development should where possible, create and enhance blue green corridors to protect watercourses, and their associated habitats from harm. The incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into these blue green corridors can help to improve biodiversity and amenity, assisting with the delivery of the wider benefits of utilising SuDS.’ 63.04 4.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.04 4.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.04 12.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 67.04 13.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.04 13.11.20 NJK3 Vital areas to maintain and improve the health and quality of the Support Support and No action Resident’s lives, from sport play, walking, engaging with wildlife, Comments Noted required. nature, space. Flood management. Allotment management for community. 69.04 13.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

107

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

70.04 15.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.04 20.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.04 20.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.04 20.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.04 21.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 75.04 22.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.04 22.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.04 22.11.20 NJK3 Item A “MUST ENSURE” not “SEEK” Support Comment noted. No action required. 80.08 Barton 26.11.20 NJK3 The (policy) should be amended through more targeted deletion or Object Objection and No action Willmore redrafting Comments Noted required. 80.09 Barton 26.11.20 NJK3 Draft Policy Text - Policy NJK3 requires a green infrastructure plan to Comment noted. No action Willmore be submitted that shows how the development can protect and required. improve green spaces and corridors for people and nature. Basic Conditions 8(2)(a), (d) and (e) The SWDP, and emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR), require residential development proposals of 10 dwellings or more to make provision for green space, based on the evidence base. In cases where it would be impracticable or inappropriate to deliver all the open space on site, off site provision will be sought via development contributions. We therefore consider that the policy should be amended to take into account that contributions may be provided and that this would satisfy the policy.

108

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

81.04 27.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.04 27.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.04 27.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 85.04 Savills UK - 30.11.20 NJK3 3.11 The Estate is supportive of and committed to providing high Comments Noted No action on behalf of quality, multi-functional green infrastructure as an integral element of required. The future development. The arrangement, delivery and future Spetchley management of green infrastructure will be informed by a number of Estate technical studies, which will identify features of value and proposals will also be guided by specific project requirements. The proposals for green infrastructure will be progressed through the planning and design process. 3.12 Specifically with regard to tree planting, the Estate is supportive of the intent for considerable tree planting. However we consider that it is too prescriptive to include specific requirements for planting at this point in time (the policy proposes three trees for each new dwelling and one tree for each new parking space1 or 50sqm of non- residential development). 3.13 The extent and number of trees planted is best determined alongside the specifics of an evolved masterplan process, and framed by relevant emerging Local Plan policy. For example, Draft Policy SWDPR49 requires that the Worcestershire Parkway new settlement should deliver a minimum of 40% green infrastructure, which will offer the basis for substantial areas for tree planting. 3.14 In light of the emerging green infrastructure target, we recommend that Policy NJK2 be amended so that it only retains criteria A, B, D and G. 87.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

109

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

88.25 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK3 The Green Infrastructure section refers largely to the provision of Comments noted. No action District green spaces and corridors within development. It should be borne in required. Council mind that the issues covered in the preceding Landscape Character and the Natural Environment section also relate to Green Infrastructure, e.g. hedgerow, trees. The requirement for all new development to require a GI plan seems to be too onerous. It is suggested it should apply to only certain development through a set criterion on size or number of units. Therefore, it is suggested NJK3 Green Infrastructure Policy is reworded slightly at the beginning to read: “A Green Infrastructure Plan should be provided for [specified types] new development to show how the development can protect …”. Further, instead of: “green infrastructure provision should:” reword to read “The Green Infrastructure Plan should: ...”. There needs to be a distinction made between a plan which provides for the how the area that includes GI provision may be developed and used, and the actual provision of GI itself. This policy is clearly more to do with the former (how these areas will be developed and used) rather than the latter (new planting, restoration of hedgerows etc.). 89.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 90.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Greatly support all points in this policy. Too many habitats have been Support Support noted. No action “miscalculated” Need to keep volume space & support wildlife required. corridors 91.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 93.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Whilst we agree in principle there is an obvious conflict with new Support Support and No action development as they remove green spaces and environment Comments Noted required. 94.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 95.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required.

110

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

96.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.04 30.11.20 NJK3 I am in agreement with all aims A-G Support Support noted. No action required. 98.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 99.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support noted. No action required. 100.04 30.11.20 NJK3 Support Support and No action Comments Noted required. Comments on NJK4 Local Green Space Policy: 95 respondents, 82 residents, 1 agent and 3 local organisations in support; 5 residents and 2 agents object; and 1 agent and 1 statutory consultee comment. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.05 12.10.20 NJK4 Fully supported on the understanding that additional green spaces Support Support and No action maybe proposed by residents and considered in the future. comment noted. required. 2.05 12.10.20 NJK4 I can not see any reference to the shooting range which is surrounded Object Objection and No action by green spaces and is an integral part of the original army barracks. Comments Noted required. 3.05 17.10.20 NJK4 Object Objection Noted No action required. 4.05 18.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.05 18.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.05 19.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.05 19.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.05 20.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 111

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

9.05 20.10.20 NJK4 Providing actual amounts and sizes are incorporated and adhered to, Support Support and No action particularly within the development. Comments Noted required. 10.05 22.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.05 22.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 12.05 24.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.05 25.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 14.05 26.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.05 26.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.05 28.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.05 1.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 18.05 1.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.05 2.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.05 2.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.05 3.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.05 3.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.05 3.11.20 NJK4 What is happening to the land behind Keren Drive? There are rumours Support Support and No action that its turning into a sports field. Comments Noted required. 24.05 3.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 112

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

25.05 5.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.05 7.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.05 7.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 28.05 9.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.05 9.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.05 9.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.05 9.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.05 9.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.05 10.11.20 NJK4 Agree that none of these green spaces should ever been built on. Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 34.05 10.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.05 10.11.20 NJK4 At last the croquet club is recognised! Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 36.05 10.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.05 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.05 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK4 Croquet club is an important local green space Support Support and No action Norton comment noted. required. Croquet Club

113

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

39.05 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 40.05 11.11.20 NJK4 I totally agree with the content of this policy and feel that protecting Support Support and No action our local green space will become significant, once the new house comment noted. required developements are built. 41.05 14.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.05 14.11.20 NJK4 The private land area in Salamanca Drive adjacent nr 30 needs to be Support Support and No action added to the "Green Space" policy. This land has a 'public right of Comments Noted required. way' access within its designation; and the built-up hill area was constructed as a natural sound barrier to the adjacent gun club. As long as the gun club remains in this location this private land area has to remain untouched and form part of the local "Green Space" policy. 43.05 15.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 44.05 22.11.20 NJK4 They already exist and are in danger of being swallowed up. However, Support Support and No action improvements to farmland could be made by re-wilding vast areas. Comments Noted required. 45.05 22.11.20 NJK4 Local green spaces in the Brockhill Village must not forget the sound Support Support and No action barrier land between 18,20 and 30 Salamanca Drive dwellings. It is Comments Noted required. one of the natural green land home variety of wildlife including few wild deers. I would support this decision in principle assuming the council will include the afore mention land as a designated green area. 46.05 26.11.20 NJK4 Very important for wellbeing. Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 47.05 26.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.05 28.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required.

114

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

49.05 29.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.05 29.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.05 29.11.20 NJK4 I would ask that the Parish council take special notice of the The Object Objection and No action Wychavon Historic Parks and Gardens Supplementary Planning Comments Noted required. Document (SPD) which was adopted by Wychavon District Council on 18th January 2005.

In particular the historic park surrounding Norton Hall and Woodbury Park is designated parkland grid ref SO 888 514. The land is registered as a locally important park and garden It should be made clear in the Neighbourhood Plan that this is a significant site of rich countryside of wide bio-diversity and ecological value, whilst also containing with many features of significant historical and archaeological interest. A such the Parish council should make a clear commitment to protect this countryside to prevent property development, intrusive changes of use, subdivision or encroachment that can result in loss of its beauty and character by designating this as parkland not to be intruded upon in any materially different way.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

amphibians (including toads, frogs and newts) hares, deer, weasels, ducks, grass snakes, slow worms, adders and buzzards that nest each year in the same ancient tree by the parkland pond etc. Any development near to this site would have a huge detrimental biodiversity impact.

A key feature in moving to Woodbury Park was the vista at the rear of our property overlooking the parkland. Significant aesthetic damage would be done by development and I do not support "a landscape buffer with enhanced planting" (p5 para 3 of the consultation document) as this will not only adversely impact on the existing beautiful vista but would also adversely impact on the natural state of the parkland.

In summary, I would ask the Parish Council to support the formal recognition and designation of the parkland surrounding Norton Hall / Woodbury Park. Any development nearby to this would have a significant adverse impact on a site of historical significance within our parish. It would also have adverse impact on a species rich wildlife habitat of significant ecological value. With the exception of the existing public footpath any proposal to change its use to parkland to service a new town should also be resisted as this would have a negative impact on the species that are found in the park. 52.05 29.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required.

116

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

55.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.05 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.05 1.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 58.05 1.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.05 2.11.20 NJK4 Local green space is essential for the residents of NJK. This rural area Support Support and No action allows for a feeling of community/community events and tranquility. I Comments Noted required. would welcome as much local green space as possible – more than planned ideally – playing fields and green space (not overly built up) areas will allow for the community to accept development as progress rather than area decline 60.05 2.11.20 NJK4 I cannot see that Rolica Fields has been mentioned as the green space Support Support and No action in front of our property has natural habitat in there Comments Noted required. 61.05 3.11.20 NJK4 Agreed in principle. However the plan is not clear to show what is Support Support and No action intended for the field at the rear of my home in Peninsula Road. Comments Noted required. Would it be possible to get that information please (Newlands Farm?) 62.03 Severn Trent 22.10.20 NJK4 Severn Trent is supportive of the comment regarding exceptional Support Support and No action circumstances as would see that if required flood resilience schemes comment noted. required. may be considered as an exceptional circumstance. We would urge you to include the following comment with regards to the provision and protection of green spaces: ‘Development of flood resilience schemes within areas of local green spaces will be supported provided the schemes do not adversely impact the primary function of the green space’. 63.05 4.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.05 4.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required.

117

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

65.05 12.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 67.05 13.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.05 13.11.20 NJK4 Local Green Space is exactly what it says it is. Part of the character of Support Support and No action each identified area. comment noted. required. 69.05 13.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.05 15.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.05 20.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.05 20.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.05 20.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.05 21.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 75.05 22.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.05 22.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.05 22.11.20 NJK4 But all these areas need improvements and enhancements Support Support and No action Comments Noted required. 80.10 Barton 26.11.20 NJK4 The following policy designation should be deleted in full: - NJK4 Local Object Objection and No action Willmore Green Space Policy, Site Ref 12: Wide Verge to the east of Comments Noted required. Wadborough Road Given its location, and the lack of evidence that it is well used, we consider the proposed Local Green Space designation should be removed. The continued inclusion of this policy wording and the site designation would amount to a clear breach of basic condition 8(2)(a)

118

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

and (d). For full response and further justifcation please see Barton Willmore Letter dated 26.11.20 81.05 27.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 81.05 27.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.05 27.11.20 NJK4 There is no mention of the bank on Salamanca Drive. This has always Object Object and No action been defined as public open space, as we;ll as a natural sound barrier Comments Noted required. to the noise fronm the shooting club. 84.02 RCA 30.11.20 NJK4 Extract from letter dated 30.11.20 Object Objection and Mentioned Regeneratio "We wish to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed Comments Noted. land to be n Ltd designation of Local Green Space (LGS) on our client’s land. We note The SG has revisited removed that the emerging Neighbourhood Plan appears to allocate large this proposed LGS from LGS swathes of land to Local Green Space. and has agreed it list. 2.5. This is completely at odds with the NPPF and PPG, discussed as marginally does not follows. Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states: ‘The Local Green Space meet LGS criteria. It designation should only be used where the green space is: a) in is therefore to be reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; b) deleted from the LGS demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local list significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. ‘ 2.6. The site in question that we query is Eastfield Fisheries (map reference 22) (see figure 1) which is utilised as a commercial recreational fishery for paying customers. It is not open to the public, not is it publicly accessible, save for the public right of way (PRoW) which runs along the northern boundary of the site 2.7. Furthermore, the site is clearly not in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves being agricultural land, some distance from the edge (the SWDP2 boundary) of the settlement of Littleworth.

119

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

2.8. We consider this allocation to be an extensive tract of land which is at odds with the NPPF paragraph 100 as set out above. 2.9. Turning to review the content of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) this sets out at Paragraph 005 (Ref ID 37-005-20140306) that a: ‘Local Green Space designation is a way to provide special protection against development for green areas of particular importance to local communities.’ 2.10. It further continues in Paragraph 007 (Ref ID 37-007-20140306) to state that: ‘Designating any Local Green Space will need to be consistent with local planning for sustainable development in the area. In particular, plans must identify sufficient land in suitable locations to meet identified development needs and the Local Green Space designation should not be used in a way that undermines this aim of plan-making.’ (our emphasis) 2.11. We consider that the Neighbourhood Plan has disregarded Paragraph 007 and has specifically sought to allocate this land as Local Green Space in order to prevent any future development. 2.12. As set out previously the land is used for agricultural purposes and is not publicly accessible, nor does it provide any form of visual relief from extensive built form or is adjacent to the nearest settlement. 2.13. The only public access is via a PRoW that runs along the northern boundary of the site, and users of the PRoW must remain on the pathway at all times. There is no right of way across the fisheries land as such, it absolutely does not function as Local Green Space. 2.14. Of particular importance to note is Paragraph 015 (Ref ID 37- 015-20140306) which sets out that: Figure 1 Site Allocation MELVYN ROWBERRY ‘…paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green area concerned is not an extensive tract of land. Consequently blanket designation of open countryside adjacent to settlements will not be appropriate. In particular, designation should not be proposed as a ‘back door’ way to try to achieve what 120

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

would amount to a new area of Green Belt by another name.’ 2.15. We consider that Mr Rowberry’s site comprises an extensive tract of land and the Neighbourhood Plan proposal would be tantamount to a blanket designation. This is completely in conflict with the principles set out in the NPPF at paragraph 100 and the Planning Practice Guidance at paragraphs 007 and 015. 2.16. We would also note that at no point was the landowner (Mr Rowberry) contacted about the Parish’s intention to designate his land as Local Green Space. At paragraph 019 (Ref ID 37-019- 20140306) clearly sets out that ‘the qualifying body (in the case of neighbourhood plan making) should contact landowners at an early stage about proposals to designate any part of their land as Local Green Space.’ This has simply not happened. The Neighbourhood Plan team, in their haste to find a way of designating the land around the village as a sort of Green Belt (despite not being appropriate for such a designation) are not acting in good faith and being appropriately consultative. Moreover, the Parish Council must surely be aware of the emerging designation of Significant Gap in the SWDPR – something we have also objected to as we consider it to be completely unnecessary. 2.17. We consider the Parish Council are therefore in breach of their obligation to make landowners aware of their intention to allocate their site as Local Green Space as soon as possible. It should not be the case that landowners find out after the Neighbourhood Plan team decide it should be designated. 2.18. The Neighbourhood Plan team have not provided adequate evidence to justify the position they are taking, there is absolutely no evidence that development in any particularly large scale is being supported by the emerging SWDP Review, so their approach is a complete overreaction.”

121

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

85.05 Savills UK - 30.11.20 NJK4 3.15 Emerging Policy NJK4 identifies several areas for Local Green Comments Noted No action on behalf of Space designation, which includes recreational fields, allotments, required. The school playing fields and roadside verges. Spetchley 3.16 When designating a LGS, the Parish Council should be aware that Estate national planning policy and guidance sets a high bar for their designation, stating that their designation allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to local communities2 , and that their development should be consistent with those for Green Belts3 . Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that “the LGS designation should only be used where the green space is: a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.” 3.17 One of the LGS designations includes the ‘Green space at High Park’ (LGS map ref.7), which is a roadside verge along the B4084 Whittington Road. The site is predominantly occupied by overgrown trees and is hardly accessible for the public to use. 3.18 It is therefore considered that the ‘Green space at High Park’ would not meet the ‘demonstrably special’ test set by national planning policy and is of minimal significance, so would not qualify as an LGS. 3.19 It is therefore recommended that the LGS designation at the High Park green space along Whittington Road (LGS map ref.7) is removed from the draft NP. 87.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required.

122

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

88.26 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK4 NJK4 lists 19 locations identified as being designated as Local Green Comments Noted Reviewed. District Space. It is acknowledged the justification for these designations is set No action Council out in the accompanying Green Space Background Paper. However, if required. the reader has not familiar with the background paper the sequencing of numbering and why some numbers are missing in the policy list is confusing. There would be merit at the end of the background paper to provide a table of those sites selected as Local Green Space listed with their given numbers as part of the exercise, i.e. Ref1; Ref2 etc. Then a new number alongside that could be carried forward to the policy, i.e. LGS1 to LGS19 and be identified on an accompanying map in the NP 89.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Agree with all reasoned justification although some sites more vital Support Support and No action than others. comment noted. required. 90.05 30.11.20 NJK4 11 of the 19 are very small spaces. Nice to feel “open” but not big Support Support and No action enough to impact. Plus 5 of the 19 are classed as private provisions, so Comments Noted required. important to retain what we have available as a parish (spaces) 91.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 92.01 30.11.20 NJK4 Subject to comments below. The Map ref 16b (Salamanca Drive) is Support Support and No action incorrectly drawn with the green space extending across the driveway Comments Noted required. to Nos 11 to 15 inc Salamanca Drive. Also it does not have straight boundaries as shown but curves to follow the private drive serving 1 to 9 inc. Therefore 16b needs to be divided into 2 areas with a 16c and the boundaries drawn as per the correct land ownership 93.05 30.11.20 NJK4 We object to this policy since it does not go far enough to cover the Object Objection and No action countryside and green spaces. comments Noted required. 94.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 95.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Concerns expressed in NJK2 would add that the hedgerow on Support Support and No action Regiment Close & verge is not well maintained by Wychavon DC. Comments Noted required. Malvern Hills on the opposite of Norton Rd put Wychavon DC to shame

123

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

96.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required 97.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Map Ref 15. The school should not be allowed to grow any bigger, or Support Support and No action allow further building, temporary or otherwise, to encroach on the Comments Noted required. playing field & spaces round the school 98.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. 99.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Note on Map reference 3. The hedgerow appears to be nothing more Support Support and No action than an area to tip garden rubbish. Comments Noted required. 100.05 30.11.20 NJK4 Support Support noted. No action required. Comments on NJK5 Footways, Footpaths, Cycle Paths and Bridleways Policy: 91 respondents, 81 residents, 1 agent and 3 local organisations in support; 4 residents and 2 agents object. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.06 12.10.20 NJK5 Fully support the aims of this policy - pressure must be put on WCC to Support Comment noted. No action provide a safe pedestrian access to Worcestershire Parkway Station. required. 2.06 12.10.20 NJK5 This indicates natural footpaths are of less importance and indicates Object Objection noted. No action some pathways and bridle paths will have surfaces changed. This required. should be limited and only a small number are developed. 3.06 17.10.20 NJK5 Object Objection noted. No action required. 4.06 18.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.06 18.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.06 19.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.06 19.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 124

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

8.06 20.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.06 20.10.20 NJK5 And hopefully careful thinking to avoid more intrusions from Support Comment noted. No action travellers. required. 10.06 22.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.06 22.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 12.06 24.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.06 25.10.20 NJK5 Horse riding and walking routes must be maintained at all cost. Support Comment noted. No action However, given that cars appears to be the only practical mode of required. transport for many residents particularly older people, cars will also have to be catered for. The switch to electric vehicles will mitigate some of the environmental impacts of cars in the future. 14.06 26.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.06 26.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.06 28.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.06 1.11.20 NJK5 Improved linkage to the station very much needed. Support Comment noted. No action required. 18.06 1.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.06 2.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.06 2.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.06 3.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required.

125

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

22.06 3.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.06 3.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.06 3.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.06 5.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.06 7.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.06 7.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 28.06 9.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.06 9.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.06 9.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.06 9.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.06 9.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.06 10.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.06 10.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.06 10.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.06 10.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.06 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 126

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

38.06 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.06 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK5 Good to get the requested signs Support Support and No action Norton comment noted. required. Shooting Club 40.06 11.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.06 14.11.20 NJK5 I am still not sure how Support Comment noted. No action required. “An active travel route combining a dedicated footway and cycle path to provide safe and suitable access connecting the existing footways at the junction of Wadborough Road and Church Lane to Worcestershire Parkway Railway Station will be supported”

is going to work.

The Church Lane “Cycle Lane” has created complete confusion.

My teenage son and friends doing A-Levels at Pershore High often use Parkway to get home which is great, but then to get to Brockhill Village they have to walk down Church lane which as winter and dark evenings loom becomes More hazardous.

Cut through drivers trying to miss the southern link road don’t help this either.

I want to support the parish in improving footways etc but a LOT MORE emphasis needs to be put on these SAFE paths.

A safe route between Parkway & Brockhill Village which includes The

127

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

New St Peters Bridge needs to be the Parish and County Councils Priority. 42.06 14.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.06 15.11.20 NJK5 I think this also ought to state that any changes of routes to footways, Object Objection noted. No action bridleways etc will not be acceptable unless they represent an required. enhancement. 44.06 22.11.20 NJK5 Anything that can be done to discourage traffic bypassing major Support Comment noted. No action routes must be encouraged. A priority given to walkers, cyclists and required. riders. 45.06 22.11.20 NJK5 Again following up from the NKJ4 comment. This very land has a right Support Comment noted. No action of way. Which seemingly not maintain by the land owner. Which required. should also included into this proposal 46.06 26.11.20 NJK5 Very important. Better footways and footpaths are essential, Support Comment noted. No action especially a safe link to the new station. Fast polluting traffic is a required. major issue. 47.06 26.11.20 NJK5 Better/ safer routes to train station Support Comment noted. 48.06 28.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.06 29.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.06 29.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.06 29.11.20 NJK5 I support. Being a frequent walker and cyclist with my young family I Support Comment noted. No action have noticed that Woodbury Lane has become even more dangerous required. to walkers and cyclists with speeding traffic and inappropriate footpaths and cycleways. Despite the promise of improving these with the Parkway development the dangers have actually increased with no meaningful improvements made coupled with increased traffic (recently mitigated due to covid pandemic). 52.06 29.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required.

128

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

53.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 54.17 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK5 The current strong reliance of local household’s on the motor car is Object Objection noted. No action behalf of St. noted and is not unexpected for such a rural area. However, the required. Modwen) Worcestershire Parkway new settlement will open up increased opportunities to use sustainable modes of travel and reduce reliance on private cars.

St. Modwen is currently working with Wychavon District Council, Worcestershire County Council and other stakeholders to development an appropriate movement strategy for the new settlement, which considers how it links to the existing public rights of way and highways network in the parish and wider area. Key to this will be the enhancement of an active travel network which links the new development with existing settlements, as well as the Worcestershire Parkway Railway Station and existing employment and community facilities in the area. The provision of enhanced bus services to serve the new settlement and surrounding area is also being considered.

As such the policy aspiration to create an active travel route which combines a dedicated footway and cycle path connecting the existing footways at the junction of Wadborough Road and Church Lane to Worcestershire Parkway Railway Station is supported. However, it is noted that to provide such a path along the full length Woodbury Lane would be difficult due to the width of the lane, particularly where it crosses the railway line via a narrow bridge. It will therefore be key that the movement strategy for the new settlement considers how footpath / cycleway links can be provided through the new development to deliver safe active travel routes for those travelling from Norton, Brockhill, Littleworth and Hatfield to the railway station.

It is also queried how the NP seeks to address active travel linkages 129

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

where public footpaths cross through private gardens and other private spaces, such as the rear gardens of properties in Woodbury Park.

In relation to the wording of the policy, it is noted that the criteria based policy is not written as either / or but compliance is required with ALL criteria. Part D states that “hard surfaces should be kept to a minimum” . Further clarification as to how an acceptable level is determined and managed should be provided. 55.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.06 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.06 1.11.20 NJK5 I fewel broad support for these, but also that the natural countryside Support Comment noted. No action will lesson in favour of more structured and formal pathways required. 58.06 1.11.20 NJK5 Can I just add that there is a desperate need for pedestrian access Support Comment noted. No action from the Retreat to the new station. There is no footpath leaving required. pedestrians to dice with death or serious injury walking along the roadside. 59.06 2.11.20 NJK5 The area needs more public footpaths, cycle paths and bridleways, Support Comment noted. No action better public transport (especially to the new train station). Adequate required. roads are needed to prevent the increas in traffic resulting in long queues of traffic. Plenty of bridges and crossing points are essential to ensure safety – improvements in lighting/flood planning and road conditions are needed. 60.06 2.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.06 3.11.20 NJK5 Agreed Support Support noted. No action required. 63.06 4.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required.

130

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

64.06 4.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.06 12.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 67.06 13.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.06 13.11.20 NJK5 The increase in foot, cycle and dog fall from St Peters to Norton and Support Comment noted. No action vice versa is noticeable since the installation of the bridge, people can required. travel from A to B without a car, enjoy nature and acknowledge each other. Ability to access the station on foot would be excellent. Public footpaths/ways and bridleways are part of the heritage of the area. 69.06 13.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.06 15.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.06 20.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.06 20.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.06 20.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.06 21.11.20 NJK5 1. Footpaths at end of St James Close are used by motorised traffic, Support Comment noted. No action contrary to Footpaths Policy. 2. No provision for foot-traffic from the required. Retreat to Norton College. No lighting makes this route dangerous to get to the Parkway. 75.06 22.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.06 22.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.06 22.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required.

131

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

80.11 Barton 26.11.20 NJK5 Policy NKJ5 point C should be amended to clarify that reprovision of Object Comment noted. No action Willmore planting in some instances in required. order to allow for flexibility. 81.06 27.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.06 27.11.20 NJK5 We cycle around the area and value the quiet country roads. During Support Comment noted. No action this year the number of cyclists and runners/pedestrians has required. increased threefold because people have needed to get out and take exercise. We want the plan to reflect the value this area has for recreation. Safe cycle routes and the separation of traffic and cyclists is vital if people are to feel safe and confident. The route along Church Lane aand Wadborough Road for cyclists is hazardous at present. 83.06 27.11.20 NJK5 During lockdown the footpaths have been a great recreational facility, Support Comment noted. No action some of the routes could be better marked, as not always clearly required. defined and we have got lost from intended route. 87.06 30.11.20 NJK5 I would like to see somewhere reference to the footways specifically Support Comment noted. No action linking Brockhill Village to Littleworth and NJK Primary. At the required. momemt it is not a pleasant walk with young children and often younger siblings in pushchairs, and if an opportunity were to arise* to improve this it would also help with school parking and congestion. *i.e. widening the footway and traffic calming 89.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 90.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Since lockdowns of 2020 the residents and others have shown they Support Comment noted. No action value spaces and linked routes to walk, cycle etc. Totally support the required. policy – more safe walking paths/routes solar lighting etc 91.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Road cycle path from Norton up to the Retreat pub is not good. Paint Support Comment noted. No action only lasted a few weeks. I hope the contractor responsible is made to required. put it right. More markings on shared cycle/foot paths would help remind people which side they should be on and that ist is SHARED save a lot of frustration and confrontation.

132

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

93.06 30.11.20 NJK5 We object to any enhancement and widening of paths etc since we Object Comment noted. No action see this as a way of increasing traffic flow in the area thus reducing required. safety to cyclists etc and disrupt the country environment which we are happy with. For instance pavements in Hatfield will destroy the rural feeling and appearance. We do not want them 94.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 95.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Since the footbridge over Crookbarrow Way has emerged there has Support Comment noted. No action been a high incidence of footfall down Crookbarrow Rd and the cul de required. sac at St Helena Court turning and on down to Norton Rd. Unfortunately this has also increased the number of cyclists of all ages who do not take notice of the road signage for cyclists and take the short cut through the cul de sac shooting on to the pavement outside our houses with no regard for pedestrians or cars leaving drives. Footpaths in this vicinity (Malvern Hills side) are a problem to be sorted. 96.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.06 30.11.20 NJK5 There is no room for a dedicated footpath, cycle path or bridlepath Support Comment noted. No action from Wadborough Rd to Parkway station. There is increased traffic required. which makes it more dangerous. The only solution to make it safe is to widen the road which I don’t think is possible 98.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 99.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. 100.06 30.11.20 NJK5 Support Support noted. No action required. Comments on NJK6 Heavy Goods Traffic Policy: 90 respondents, 79 residents, 1 agent and 3 local organisations in support; 4 residents and 1 agent object; and 1 resident and 1 statutory consultee comment.

133

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.07 12.10.20 NJK6 Fully support this policy - residents must be protected from the Support Support and No action erosion of their frontage by HGV traffic . comment noted. required. 2.07 12.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 3.07 17.10.20 NJK6 Object Objection noted. No action required. 4.07 18.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.07 18.10.20 NJK6 Heavy goods vehicles should be completely banned from beyond the Object Objection noted. No action current business properties. Under no circumstances should they be required. allowed to cross the railway bridge beside the Retreat pub. 6.07 19.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.07 19.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.07 20.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.07 20.10.20 NJK6 Woodbury lane and Church Lane need traffic calming measures to Support Support and No action prevent them becoming worse rat runs than they already are. comments noted required. 10.07 22.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.07 22.10.20 NJK6 Traffic impact should specifically focus on vehicle movement intensity, Support Support and No action and maintenance of clean air and low noise pollution within 150m of comments noted required. the proposed traffic route. 12.07 24.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.07 25.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 134

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

14.07 26.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.07 26.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.07 28.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.07 1.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 18.07 1.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.07 2.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.07 2.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.07 3.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.07 3.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.07 3.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.07 3.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.07 5.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.07 7.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.07 7.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 28.07 9.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.07 9.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 135

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

30.07 9.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.07 9.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.07 9.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.07 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.07 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.07 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.07 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.07 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.07 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.07 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 41.07 14.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.07 14.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.07 15.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 44.07 22.11.20 NJK6 Where support the local economy. Especially as farming machinery Support support and No action will be covered by this remit. comments noted required.

136

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

45.07 22.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 46.07 26.11.20 NJK6 Very important. Noise and air pollution, speed, damage to road Support Support and No action surfaces - all have increased the detrimental impact on the area in the comments noted required. last 20 years as the volume has reached intolerable levels. 47.07 26.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.07 28.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.07 29.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.07 29.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.07 29.11.20 NJK6 The local council made a commitment that when the Envirosort Support Support and No action facility was built there would be no further development or extension commenyts noted required. of the Area 7 industrial estate in Woodbury Lane. There are a large number of identified brownfield development sites in Worcestershire that preclude the need to further develop at Area 7. The local infrastructure and small lane was already unable to cope with the industrial traffic and this was prior to the 'surprising' passing of planning permission for a new lorry park and offices on Greenland adjoining the industrial estate.

The current volume of traffic on Woodbury Lane is already considered both problematic and dangerous. The local infrastructure and junction 7 of the M5 is unable to cope with any further development. The volume of HGVs along a small lane is already considered damaging and this is evident in the frequent potholes and damage to the road surface.

The plan also takes no apparent account of the significant development authorised to the south of our parish and the resultant

137

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

traffic problems this could cause by being 'sandwiched' between 2 developments. 52.07 29.11.20 NJK6 The SWDP will undoubtably add more traffic to the motorway, already Support Suport and No action noisy in Hatfield and Norton. Noise reduction fences and/or earth cvomments noted required. embankments along the sides of the motorway would greatly add to quality of life. 53.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 54.18 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK6 Local concern about the impacts of increased heavy goods vehicle Object Object and No action behalf of St. (HGVs) traffic in the area, including Woodbury Lane, is noted. In light comments noted required. Modwen) of the current local concerns, the development of an effective movement strategy is recognised as being key to bringing forward the Worcestershire Parkway new settlement. Such a strategy will inform the location of development within the new settlement and seek to route HGV traffic onto roads with appropriate capacity.

It is noted that the wording of the policy states that ‘proposals will not have an unacceptable traffic impact’. As previously stated, the NPPF sets out in paragraph 109 the test for new development. It is requested that the policy be reworded to address the NPPF as follows:

‘Any proposal requiring planning permission to change the use of land in the parish to General Industrial Use (B2) or distribution and storage uses (B8), or other uses which would generate heavy goods traffic, must demonstrate with the assistance of a Transport Statement that the proposal would not result in severe impacts on the road network’. 55.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.07 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required.

138

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

57.07 1.11.20 NJK6 HGV should be minimised as much as possible Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 58.07 1.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.07 2.11.20 NJK6 I am really worried about the potential for lots of HGVs to start going Support Support and No action through the village on completion of this development. The roads are comments noted required. not wide enough and lorries would increase pollution and noise levels to an unacceptable amount as well as cause damage to pavements etc. This is dangerous. Plans need to be put in place to lessen the impact of HGVs and traffic increases. 60.07 2.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 61.07 3.11.20 NJK6 Agree Support Support noted No action required. 63.07 4.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.07 4.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.07 12.11.20 NJK6 This could cause problems if a SATNAV sends heavy goods vehicles Support Support and No action down a particularly narrow lane as happened in Hatfield comments noted required. 67.07 13.11.20 NJK6 Policy not strong enough. Roads in the parish are almost without Comments noted No action exception unsuitable for HGVs, therefore any HGV traffic generation is required. to be discouraged and particularly any business whose success is automatically to generate proportionate in cresases in HGV movement e.g. haulage and SMH 68.07 13.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 69.07 13.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.07 15.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required.

139

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

71.07 20.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.07 20.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.07 20.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.07 21.11.20 NJK6 1. We hope that this policy will be adhered to 2. Main point of traffic Support Support and No action congestion is on the Wadborough Rd between the school and the comments noted required. farm; Four new homes will add to the problem. Double yellow lines would help. Parents are offered alternative parking at Parish Hall and the Retreat.. 75.07 22.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.07 22.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.07 22.11.20 NJK6 I believe that all new/existing B2, B8 or any other on the Norton Object Objection and No action Village side of the Woodbury Lane railway bridge should be comments noted required. banned/removed entirely. SMH and others should be forced/encouraged to move away and the land reverted to non- industrial use or parkland. Car transporters and other heavy vehicles are currently using Crookbarrow Road etc to get to the main routes. 81.07 27.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 82.07 27.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 83.07 27.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 87.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required.

140

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

88.27 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK6 - Para 2 - typo “safely” to “safety Agree. Ammend District para 2 paragraph 2 Council to read "safety" instead of "safely" 89.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted. No action required. 90.07 30.11.20 NJK6 No effect felt from Parkway development, now finished. SMH has Support Support and No action supported the area in a number of ways, this should be comments noted required. acknowledged. Waste/recyling centre also helps with litter pick. So to conclude the current HGV operations/businesses are sympathetic to the area. 91.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Concerned by the speed lorries are travelling down Taylors Lane. Support Support and No action comments noted required. 93.07 30.11.20 NJK6 We do not need any more HGVs coming through the villages. Object Support and No action Although the policy seems plausible and relevant, in reality we have comments noted required. seen “Prosser” lorries/HGVs damage roads verges and hedgerows. This area is NOT suitable for HGVs, so we feel you should not support any development which increases HGVs in the area. 94.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 95.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 96.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 98.07 30.11.20 NJK6 I agree with Reasoned Jusification Support Support noted No action required. 98.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. 99.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required.

141

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

100.07 30.11.20 NJK6 Support Support noted No action required. Comments on NJK7 Community Facilities Policy: 90 respondents, 83 residents, 1 agent and 3 local organisations in support; 2 residents object; and 1 agent comments. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.08 12.10.20 NJK7 Fully support this policy Support Support noted. No action required. 2.08 12.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 3.08 17.10.20 NJK7 Object Objection noted. No action required. 4.08 18.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.08 18.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.08 19.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.08 19.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.08 20.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.08 20.10.20 NJK7 On proviso, it's anticipated that the new development will have its Support Comment noted No action own community facilities to cater for the increase? required. 10.08 22.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.08 22.10.20 NJK7 Viability of existing facilities should take into account the Support Comment noted No action proportionate potential of new and proposed development as if the required. neighbourhood plan was implemented with the exception of the development causing the loss of the existing facility.

142

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

12.08 24.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.08 25.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 14.08 26.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.08 26.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.08 28.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.08 1.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 18.08 1.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.08 2.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.08 2.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.08 3.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.08 3.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.08 3.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.08 3.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.08 5.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.08 7.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.08 7.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 143

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

28.08 9.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.08 9.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.08 9.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.08 9.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.08 9.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.08 10.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.08 10.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.08 10.11.20 NJK7 As a member of both clubs its good to see the shooting and croquet Support Support and No action clubs listed as community facilities. comment noted. required. 36.08 10.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.08 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.08 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK7 Would love to get more local members and get some money to Support Comment noted No action Norton develop the club facilities required. Croquet Club 39.08 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK7 Improvements for local people are always welcome Support Support and No action Norton comment noted. required. Shooting Club 40.08 11.11.20 NJK7 I wish to add that any new community facilties that could be included Support Comment noted No action once the renovations at the Worcester Norton Sports club are required. complete, should compliment and add to facilities which may be already be on offer within the Parish.

144

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

41.08 14.11.20 NJK7 Community Facilities need to be a priority. The heart of NJK has Support Comment noted No action always been its Community. Odd times this year but Play areas, social required. areas, children’s clubs and adult activities are so important. 42.08 14.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.08 15.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 44.08 22.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 45.08 22.11.20 NJK7 It is vital to maintain the sound barrier between the shooting club and Support Comment noted No action the Salamanca Drive. required. 46.08 26.11.20 NJK7 Very important. An urgent need for enhancement is required. Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 47.08 26.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.08 28.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.08 29.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.08 29.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.08 29.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 52.08 29.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required.

145

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

54.19 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK7 The policy’s aim to protect existing community facilities and to Comment noted No action behalf of St. improve the quality and/or range of community facilities in the parish required. Modwen) is fully supported. The new settlement at Worcestershire Parkway will provide significant new community facilities for the use of both new and existing residents of the area. Within the Merton College land, the facilities to be provided are likely to include sport pitches, a community hub and a primary school. It is also proposed that a small general store may be provided on site, which would help address the identified lack of a shop selling basic provisions in the parish, as identified in paragraph 6.47. These facilities will be located within walking distance of residents in Norton Village, via the public footpath under the railway.

Additionally, future residents of the Merton Land and wider new settlement will contribute to the patronage of existing community facilities in the area, such as the Retreat Inn and Worcester Norton Sports Club, as well as boosting the membership numbers of local community groups and sports teams. This will help support the ongoing viability and operation of such businesses and community organisations. 54.20 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK7 - D Part D – Reference is made to ‘unacceptable traffic movements’ and Comment noted. The The NP behalf of St. ‘other impairments to residential properties’. The NPPF sets out in NP mirrors NPPF in mirrors Modwen) paragraph 109 the highways test for new development, which is that the use of NPPF in the ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways “unacceptable” use of grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, "unacceptab or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be le" severe’. This should be reflected in the policy. Clarification is needed on what would constitute ‘other impairments’.

It is requested that part D be revised to state: Will not result in a severe impact on the local road network or any unacceptable impacts on residential amenity.

146

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

54.21 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK7 - F Part F – States that new community facilities should be of a ‘scale Comment noted No action behalf of St. appropriate to the needs of the locality’. Clarification is required as to required Modwen) how an appropriate scale of development is to be determined. 55.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.08 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.08 1.11.20 NJK7 I don’t think this goes far enough to preserve community facilities. Object Objection noted No action Paragraph C is a common get-out clause and often causes the facility required. to be lost to certain locals due to a more complicated or longer access. 58.08 1.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.08 2.11.20 NJK7 This community needs many more community facilities in the form of Support Comment noted No action local parks, shops, cafes. The current facilities should be protected at required. all costs and additional educational, religious, community halls/spaces and green space provided for. Forest land for walks, picnics etc. are also needed 60.08 2.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.08 3.11.20 NJK7 Agree Support Support noted. No action required. 63.08 4.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.08 4.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.08 12.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 67.08 13.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.08 13.11.20 NJK7 We have some very good community facilities. We do not want to put Support Comment noted No action these under threat by unrequired added commercial ventures. required.

147

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

69.08 13.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.08 15.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.08 20.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.08 20.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.08 20.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.08 21.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 75.08 22.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.08 22.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.08 22.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 81.08 27.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.08 27.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.08 27.11.20 NJK7 Some lighting on the path to the new footbridge would be welcome! Support Comment noted No action required. 87.08 30.11.20 NJK7 I would also like to see Little Treasures Pre-school offered protection Support Little Treasures is No action as an education facility. It is an important facility for children in our not in the parish required. community, alongside Norton Pre-school. 89.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required.

148

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

90.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Further community facilities to be considered for Brockhill. Item C is Support Comment noted No action critical if any facilities are considered to be reduced/closed/moved. required. Totally support SWDP45/1 & for improvements to cricket club as could be wonderful hub for Brockhill residents. 91.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 93.08 30.11.20 NJK7 We support this policy with the concern over the term Support Comment noted No action “economically”. This could be used to justify the removal of facilities required. for a development or increase its usage for an enlarged area. Either is unacceptable to us. 94.08 30.11.20 NJK7 It is a pity that the criteria expressed in this section was not applied to Support Ketch car boot sale No action the loss of the “Ketch” car boot sale – an event that gave a lot of field is not in the required. pleasure to a large number of people from all walks of life. parish 95.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 96.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.08 30.11.20 NJK7 I agree with Reasoned Jusification Support Support noted. No action required. 98.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 99.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. 100.08 30.11.20 NJK7 Support Support noted. No action required. Comments on NJK8 Existing and Allocated Employment Site Policy: 89 respondents, 78 residents, 1 agent and 3 local organisations in support; 4 residents, and 1 agent object; 1 resident and 1 statutory consultee comments. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object

149

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

1.09 12.10.20 NJK8 Parish Council must ensure that planning applications are judged Support Suppport and No action against this policy comment noted. required. 2.09 12.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 3.09 17.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 4.09 18.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.09 18.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.09 19.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.09 19.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.09 20.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.09 20.10.20 NJK8 Any developments need to incorporate off road parking, that doesn't Support Covered by existing No action exacerbate existing problems. regulations required. 10.09 22.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.09 22.10.20 NJK8 Land used for employment sites should consider operational noise Support Covered by existing No action generation including the noise of manoeuvring vehicles between regulations required. 20.00 and 06.30. Electric vehicle charging should be provided at a high ration to potential employees. 12.09 24.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.09 25.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 14.09 26.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required.

150

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

15.09 26.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.09 28.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.09 1.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 18.09 1.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.09 2.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.09 2.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.09 3.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.09 3.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.09 3.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.09 3.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.09 5.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.09 7.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.09 7.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 28.09 9.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.09 9.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.09 9.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 151

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

31.09 9.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.09 9.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.09 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.09 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.09 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.09 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.09 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.09 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.09 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 40.09 11.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.09 14.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.09 14.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required.

152

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

43.09 15.11.20 NJK8 Unless there are defined sites allocated from the SWDP (current or Object Comment is No action future?) I cannot support this as I do not know the consequences. incorrect. Lorry park required. The current SWDP site development for industrial employment has does not breach already been breached for the lorry park on Woodbury Lane and is in SWDP progress of being breached again for a further development. So without definitions and what are site allocations this Policy has not real effect. 44.09 22.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 45.09 22.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 46.09 26.11.20 NJK8 Too many businesses already operate from homes in Brockhill Village Support Comment noted No action which have an adverse effect on the surrounding houses. More required. people shopping online brings more van deliveries, so increased parking and noise and air pollution from businesses in homes should be restricted. Residential should mean residential. 47.09 26.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.09 28.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.09 29.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.09 29.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.09 29.11.20 NJK8 There are a large number of identified brownfield development sites Object Development to No action in Worcestershire that preclude the need to further develop at Area 7. south (Parkway) is an required. The local infrastructure and small lane was already unable to cope emerging strategic with the industrial traffic and this was prior to the 'surprising' passing allocation and of planning permission for a new lorry park and offices on Greenland therefore outside adjoining the industrial estate. scope of NP

The plan also takes no apparent account of the significant

153

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

development authorised to the south of our parish and the resultant traffic problems this could cause by being 'sandwiched' between 2 developments. 52.09 29.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required 54.22 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK8 Policy NJK8 is noted. However, the policy should clarify that Object No comment - No action behalf of St. employment provision will also come forward via strategic mixed use unnecessary change required Modwen) allocations and not just employment allocations.

It is requested that the first sentence is revised to state:

New employment development (other than homebased businesses) will be supported within existing employment sites and employment and strategic allocations in the SWDP. 54.23 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK 8 - Part G - Reference is made to a site being unsuitable to continue as a Comment noted - No action behalf of St. G business use due to ‘environmental considerations’. Clarification is environmental required Modwen) required as to what the ‘environmental considerations’ would be. considerations are numerous and not an exhaustive list. 55.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.09 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.09 1.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 58.09 1.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required.

154

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

59.09 2.11.20 NJK8 I am keen that no-one loses the opportunity to work oin the area or Support Comment noted No action develop a business from the area. However I do not want extensive required. development of industry or development in this area unless there are direct benefits to the community and meets the criteria detailed in this plan 60.09 2.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.09 3.11.20 NJK8 Agree no comment Support Support noted. No action required. 63.09 4.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.09 4.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.09 12.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 67.09 13.11.20 NJK8 Not strong enough. From existing and recent development it is clear Strategic matter No action that the attraction of this area for business is transport links and outside the scope of required. location. There will be increasing pressure for employers wishing to the NP. use the location rather than local skills availability as justification for developing sites. Employment opportunities for local people is good, large distribution centres with minimal staffing and much HGV movement is BAD. Development should be restricted and confined. 68.09 13.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 69.09 13.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.09 15.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.09 20.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.09 20.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required.

155

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

73.09 20.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.09 21.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 75.09 22.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.09 22.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.09 22.11.20 NJK8 See my response to NJK6. I consider SMH and the like fall into Object Comment noted No action category G of NJK8 and should not continue at their current site. required. 79.05 Worcestershi 25.11.20 NJK8 Extract from Minerals and waste subsection of letter dated 25.11.20 Comments noted. No action re County "Policy WCS 16 of the adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy required. Council - should be taken into account to ensure that the Neighbourhood minerals and Development Plan (NDP) in general conformity with the strategic waste policies of the development plan for the area. In addition to the consideration of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 182, which sets out that where the operation of an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development the agent of change should be required to provide any suitable mitigation." 81.09 27.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.09 27.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.09 27.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 87.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 89.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 90.09 30.11.20 NJK8 The NJK policy should override the SWDP plans in the NJK parish Support Comment noted. Not No action possible. required.

156

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

91.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 93.09 30.11.20 NJK8 However there will be increases in traffic due people travelling in for Support This is already No action work. To avoid this developments should be as near as possible to planned to be the required. A4440 and B4084: Thus avoiding all rural areas. case. Comment noted 94.09 30.11.20 NJK8 I strongly disagree with employment development of the scale Object Comment noted No action envisaged in the “Tescos Islans”/Norton Road area. There will quite required. simply be an industrial estate on what was a green field area. 95.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.09 30.11.20 NJK8 I agree with Reasoned Jusification Support Support noted. No action required. 98.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 99.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. 100.09 30.11.20 NJK8 Support Support noted. No action required. Comments of NJK9 Agricultural Buildings and Rural Employment Policy: 91 respondents, 81 residents, 2 agents and 3 local organisations in support; 4 residents object; and 1 statutory consultee comments. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.10 12.10.20 NJK9 Fully support this policy - a sensible way forward Support Support noted. No action required. 2.10 12.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 3.10 17.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required.

157

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4.10 18.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 5.10 18.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 6.10 19.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.10 19.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.10 20.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.10 20.10.20 NJK9 On the basis that it doesn't jeopardise the function as a farm. ie tails Support Comment noted No action off from farming to become another housing area. required. 10.10 22.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.10 22.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 12.10 24.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.10 25.10.20 NJK9 My experience of a nearby conversion for tourism purposes convinces Object Objection noted. No action me that there is a high likelihood of adverse impacts on local required. residents. Short term lets for parties have led to noise and drunken behaviour. I have no objection to conversion for local businesses as long as there is no impact on on-road parking. 14.10 26.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.10 26.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.10 28.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.10 1.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required.

158

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

18.10 1.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.10 2.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.10 2.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.10 3.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.10 3.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.10 3.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.10 3.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.10 5.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.10 7.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.10 7.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 28.10 9.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.10 9.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.10 9.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.10 9.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.10 9.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 33.10 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 159

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

34.10 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 35.10 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.10 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.10 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.10 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.10 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 40.10 11.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.10 14.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.10 14.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 43.10 15.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 44.10 22.11.20 NJK9 Object Objection noted. No action required. 45.10 22.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 46.10 26.11.20 NJK9 As above in NJK8, theory is one thing, but actual practice is another. I Support Comment noted No action was not consulted about a residential business opposite me which required. brings strangers to the area as well as more parking and noise. 47.10 26.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required.

160

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

48.10 28.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.10 29.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.10 29.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.10 29.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 52.10 29.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 54.24 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK9 The aims of this policy are supported and align with St. Modwen’s Support Comment noted No action behalf of St. aspirations for the Merton College site, which includes the Wood Hall required. Modwen) complex of agricultural buildings, which remain in a derelict state. These buildings have been identified as a key asset for the site and the retention and conversion of buildings which are structurally sound is being considered. These have the potential to provide attractive space for community and business facilities. 55.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.10 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.10 1.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 58.10 1.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.10 2.11.20 NJK9 I am happy for agricultural buildings to be used for small craft/tourism Support Comment noted No action businesses as long as they are in keeping with the character of the required. local area and have adequate road and parking provisions. 60.10 2.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required.

161

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

61.10 3.11.20 NJK9 Agree no comment Support Support noted. No action required. 63.10 4.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.10 4.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.10 12.11.20 NJK9 In the future these conversions might not prove so acceptable to Object Objection noted. No action development and the finances for such would probably be prohibitive required. 67.10 13.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.10 13.11.20 NJK9 The re-use, conversion or adaption of agricultural buildings can be a Support Support and No action positive change to a traditional rural building, so long as it has no comment noted. required. adverse impact on the environment and local surroundings 69.10 13.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 70.10 15.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 71.10 20.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 72.10 20.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 73.10 20.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 74.10 21.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 75.10 22.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 76.10 22.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted No action required. 77.10 22.11.20 NJK9 I object because I believe that many roads and roadside areas will be Object Objection noted. No action ruined by excess traffic required.

162

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

79.06 Worcestershi 25.11.20 NJK9 Extract from Historic Enviornment subsection of letter dated 25.11.20 Comment noted No action re County "Consider required. Council - referencing the Worcestershire Farmsteads Assessment Guidance Historic which promotes a step-by-step approach to considering the reuse of Environment traditional farm buildings and the sustainable development of farmsteads, through identifying their historic character, significance and potential for change https://www.explorethepast.co.uk/services/advisory-and- planning/planningadvice/ The Worcestershire Historic Environment Record – the counties primary source of historic environment information – does not appear to have been consulted. The HER contains records on all aspects of Worcestershire’s historic environment and landscape – including traditional farmsteads, which could enhance the NDP Evidence Base." 81.10 27.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.10 27.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.10 27.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 87.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 89.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Would be particularly good – and important that any new business Support Comment noted No action will be in keeping with Rural Atmosphere and character i.e. crafts and required. artisans and I support any health initiatives 90.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Re-use/conversion/adaption for small businesses & start-ups Support Comment noted No action (Justification 2) supported over any larger developments detailed in required. Policy NJK8. Keep the rural feel of the villages as much as possible while supporting local business development. 91.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required.

163

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

93.10 30.11.20 NJK9 As long as any business is small in nature, and ensure that the road Support Comment noted No action system is not overburden and disrupt the peace and quiet, and required. environment of the area. 94.10 30.11.20 NJK9 An electric vehicle charging point doesn’t really seem to go with Support Comment noted No action “Agricultural buildings” and a rural environment. required. 95.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 96.09 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.10 30.11.20 NJK9 I agree with Reasoned Jusification Support Support noted. No action required. 98.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 99.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. 100.10 30.11.20 NJK9 Support Support noted. No action required. Comments on NJK10 Housing Development Policy: 90 respondents, 74 residents, 1 agent and 2 local organisations in support; 8 residents, 2 agents and 1 local organisation object; 1 resident and 1 statutory consultee comment. Ref Organisatio Date Policy/ Comment Consulte SG Response Action n Section e Support / Object 1.11 12.10.20 NJK10 Parish Council will have to refer to this policy when planning Support Support and No action applications are referred to the Parish Council for comment. comment noted. required. 3.11 17.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 4.11 18.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required.

164

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

5.11 18.10.20 NJK10 There is little or no facilities in Littleworth apart from the small school, Object Objection noted. No action which already causes nightmares with parking and blocking the roads required. and pavements, and the village hall. There are no shopping, doctors surgeries, etc within walking distance. Development within the village would be full of problems. 6.11 19.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 7.11 19.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 8.11 20.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 9.11 20.10.20 NJK10 The plan doesn't show the increased development of the school, in Support Support Noted No action fact it only shows the border as the path. Please tell me that the new required. development will have a school, and that we won't be subject to more traffic problems in Littleworth? 10.11 22.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 11.11 22.10.20 NJK10 My support is of the parish’s indicative housing requirement of two Support Support and No action dwellings until 2031. comment noted. required. 12.11 24.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 13.11 25.10.20 NJK10 As long as this is small scale and maintains the character of the area. Support Support and No action comment noted. required. 14.11 26.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 15.11 26.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 16.11 28.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 17.11 1.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required.

165

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

18.11 1.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 19.11 2.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 20.11 2.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 21.11 3.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 22.11 3.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 23.11 3.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 24.11 3.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 25.11 5.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 26.11 7.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 27.11 7.11.20 NJK10 Object Ojection noted. No action required. 28.11 9.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 29.11 9.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 30.11 9.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 31.11 9.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 32.11 9.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 34.11 10.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 166

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

35.11 10.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 36.11 10.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 37.11 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action Criket Club required. 38.11 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action Norton required. Croquet Club 39.11 Worcester 10.11.20 NJK10 These sometime stretch too far Object Objection noted. No action Norton required. Shooting Club 40.11 11.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 41.11 14.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 42.11 14.11.20 NJK10 The Parish's "supposed" indicative housing requirement of two Object Objection noted. No action dwellings until 2031 does not make any sense whatsoever?! It smacks required. of back-handers and underhandedness of the highest order. How makes these policies and decisions? There are 2500+ houses being developed within the Parish. Why would you need to squeeze 2nr additional houses into an estate which physically cannot cope with any additional capacity? (unless someone was on the make?!). This cannot happen. NKJ10 Hosing Development Policy is nonsense. Please name and shame the person who is responsible for this Policy? 43.11 15.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 44.11 22.11.20 NJK10 Object Objection noted. No action required.

167

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

45.11 22.11.20 NJK10 If the windfall development is planning to add 2600 extra dwellings; It Object Objection and No action is extremely hard to find the value that council is trying to deliver Concerns Noted required. through developing two extra dwellings within the existing developments as the sites are already exceeding the capacity. It almost implies to me that council may try to please or persuaded by some external interested parties to their personal advantage. I strongly object to build any more dwellings in the exiting housing sites mentioned in the proposal. 46.11 26.11.20 NJK10 With the proviso that any developers stick to their plans which they Support Support and No action have not always done. comment noted. required. 47.11 26.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 48.11 28.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 49.11 29.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 50.11 29.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 51.11 29.11.20 NJK10 Object Objection noted. No action required. 52.11 29.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 53.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 54.25 Savills (on 30.11.20 NJK10 The housing development policy relating to infill development within Object Objection and No action behalf of St. designated development boundaries is noted. The policy should also Request Noted required. Modwen) acknowledge that new housing will come forward in the parish to meet the wider housing need of South Worcestershire and will be delivered through strategic allocations in the adopted SWDP and emerging SWDPR.

The following wording is requested:

168

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

New infill housing development within the designated development boundaries of Hatfield, Littleworth, Norton and Brockhill Village, as set out in the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, will be supported to meet the parish’s indicative housing requirement of two dwellings until 2031. New housing to meet the wider South Worcestershire housing requirement will be supported in accordance with the strategic allocations of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. 55.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 56.11 Trustmgt 15.10.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 57.11 1.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 58.11 1.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 59.11 2.11.20 NJK10 I am pleased there is no plan to allocate further housing at this time. I Support Support Noted No action appeciate that future housing needs may dictate more housing required. development, but I want this to be carefully considered and consulted upon. 60.11 2.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 61.11 3.11.20 NJK10 I can neither agree or disagree with the housing development policy. I Comments Noted No action fully understand government needs to develop more housing every required. year. Please do not over-populate populated areas. 63.11 4.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 64.11 4.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 65.11 12.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required.

169

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

67.11 13.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 68.11 13.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 69.11 13.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 70.11 15.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 71.77 20.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 72.11 20.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 73.11 20.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 74.11 21.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 75.11 22.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 76.11 22.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 77.11 22.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 80.12 Barton 26.11.20 NJK10 The (policy) should be amended through more targeted deletion or Object Objection and No action Willmore redrafting Comments Noted required. Draft Policy Text - In 2019, the Parish Council sought an indicative housing number from WDC, in accordance with the NPPG requirements (Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 41-009-20190509). WDC’s adopted methodology for calculating a housing requirement for the parish up until 2030 meant that there is only a requirement for 2 dwellings until 2030 and 41 dwellings until 2040. Policy NJK10 therefore supports new infill housing within the designated development boundaries as set out in the SWDP to meet the above

170

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

requirements.

Evidence Base - The Parish Council have not released the WDC calculation of housing need and, in the interests of transparency, this information should be made publicly available. This is an important matter, which relates to a fundamental issue under NPPF 65-66 and thus basic condition 8(2)(a). It is noted that within the SWDPR Preferred Options consultation it states that where requested, these will be provided based on overall housing number, the draft spatial development strategy and taking account of existing allocations within the SWDP and allocations in made or submitted neighbourhood plans. The housing numbers exclude strategic site allocations as these will be set out within the SWDPR and cannot be amended through a neighbourhood plan. Notwithstanding that, the Government recently released a consultation relating an amendment in the standard methodology6 . The formula in the consultation would result in the below changes to the amount of housing the SWDPR would need to plan for: Local Authority Current Standard Method (Homes per Annum – as at 7th August 2020) New Standard Method (2020) (Homes per Annum) Difference (Homes per Annum) % Change Wychavon DC 497 1,396 +899 +181% Malvern Hills DC 329 929 +600 +182% Worcester CC 362 290 -72 -20% Total 1,188 2,615 +1,427 +120% The transitional arrangements set out in the consultation mean that it is likely the SWDPR will need to take account of this updated standard method (given it does not anticipate adoption until April 2023). As such, WDC should provide an updated calculation taking this into account and the Parish Council should reconsider the need to allocate further housing to meet identified need. Given the emerging plans for Worcester Parkway are meeting a strategic need, this should not be used as a reason to not provide housing. As set out above, IM Land are promoting land within Norton and would welcome the chance to meet with the Parish Council to discuss how sensitively designed development could be brought forward that provides much 171

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

needed housing as well as other benefits such as green space. A vision Statement showing how the Site could be brought forwards, and the benefits, is held at Appendix 3. 81.11 27.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 82.11 27.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 83.11 27.11.20 NJK10 As per response to NJK1, the bank on Salamanca Drive is public open Object Objection and No action space. Not only is this not included in the open space policy, it is now Comments Noted required. enclosed in the “future development” sites. We do not think this is acceptable or justified 87.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 88.28 Wychavon 30.11.20 NJK10 Para 6.66 states that the plan supports delivery of new homes Comments noted. No action District through windfall development on appropriate infill sites within the SWDP sets out AF. required. Council existing settlement’s development boundaries. However, there does Duplication is not not appear to be any mention of affordable housing. For clarity, the required. decision taker cannot be left to assume the relevant affordable housing thresholds will be applied if/when an application is received, and the mix will be informed by the latest evidence of affordable housing need. The only reference in document to affordable housing is at Appendix 1 and relates to the allocated site in the adopted SWDP (SWDP45/1 Broomhall Community and Norton Barracks Community). Brief reference is made to SWDP 15 criterion ii) which states that the dwellings will be of mixed size and type in accordance with the requirements of policy SWDP 14, and up to 40% will be affordable. Is it the intention then that the relevant affordable housing thresholds identified in the SWDP will be applied on any future sites? If the case this needs to be made clearer in the NP policy 89.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Only very exceptional sites should be selected and kept very minimal Object Objection noted. No action required.

172

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

90.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 91.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 93.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Two dwellings are acceptable in light of the two developments (SWDP Support Support Noted No action and Parkway settlement) have/will destroyed large areas of rural land required. and its environment 94.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 95.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 96.10 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Support noted. No action required. 97.11 30.11.20 NJK10 I realise housing development is an absolute necessity and will be an Support Support and No action on-going problem for our esteemed parish council, long after I have Comments Noted required. left this mortal coil. I just hope the villages will remain as such for a long time to come and not get squeezed into becoming part of Worcester City 98.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Suppport noted. No action required. 99.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Suppport noted. No action required. 100.11 30.11.20 NJK10 Support Suppport noted. No action required. Other comments: 2 agents and 1 statutory consultee. 54.26 Savills (on 30.11.20 General St. Modwen has instructed Savills to make representations on its Comments noted. No action behalf of St. behalf to the current Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan (NP) required. Modwen) consultation. These representations are informed by technical input from PJA (transport consultants) and Define (landscape architects). These representations have also been uploaded to the Parish Council’s on-line response form.

173

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

In light of this, the following sets out St. Modwen’s response to the NP consultation.

Chapter 3 – Context

The NP’s clear acknowledgement of the adopted and emerging strategic allocations within the parish is welcomed and demonstrates a pro-active approach to addressing the development pressures in the area.

The reference in paragraph 3.14 to the NP’s support of the proposed new extended significant gap to the south of the Worcester – London railway line is also welcomed. The gap will maintain a clear separation around the existing smaller settlements in the area.

Chapter 4 – Understanding the Issues and Opportunities

Paragraph 4.1 notes that the level of strategic growth planned will potentially have a significant impact on the area and the existing communities. We would highlight that the strategic development proposed will bring numerous benefits to the area through the 175

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

creation of much needed jobs, homes and associated infrastructure. The new settlement will deliver a wider range of jobs through employment development as well as the provision of community services and leisure facilities. A wide range and mix of housing will be developed, including affordable housing and housing for older people. The financial investment from the developer parties throughout the development of the new settlement will be significant and will bring improvements for the wider area.

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

forward. This will be expanded on in the responses to specific NP policies.

Chapter 5 – Vision and Objectives

The vision and objectives set out in the NP are noted. In particular, the provision of infrastructure that reflects the community’s needs is crucial to the sustainability of existing settlements.

In relation to the ‘Traffic Impact Objective’ it is highlighted that paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. As such the objective of ensuring development has ‘minimum impact’ on the road system and parking is considered ambiguous and contrary to the NPPF. This objective should be reworded to reflect the NPPF policy on highways.

The ‘Local Economy Objective’ refers to the supporting and 177

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

encouraging small scale and appropriate development. Clarification is required in the NP that this refers to development over and above that in the adopted and draft SWDP. Furthermore, consideration is required as to what would constitute ‘appropriate’ development.

Chapter 6 – Policies

In general, we would recommend listing out for each policy the full evidence base used to develop the policy proposals. Additionally, consideration of the relevant policies of the adopted SWDP and NPPF should be included in the ‘Reasoned Justification’. This would give clarity to the justification for the policy and demonstrate how the NP conforms with the relevant adopted development plan policies. As set out in footnote 16 of the NPPF ‘neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in any development plan that covers their area’. 85.06 Savills UK - 30.11.20 General Extract from letter dated “30.11.20” 4.3 There is therefore a risk that Comments noted. No action on behalf of the detailed policies of the draft NjK Neighbourhood Plan will required. The influence a strategic allocation which still has a significant process to Spetchley go through before it is adopted. The reference to the Worcestershire Estate Parkway new settlement area in the plan, together with specific proposals for that development proposal, are therefore considered to conflict with the basic conditions set by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in their current form. The Estate therefore proposes that those references are reviewed and where there is conflict with the basic conditions those elements of the emerging NP should be removed. 4.4. The Estate is concerned that some of the policies and supporting text in the draft NP which reference the Worcestershire Parkway proposals are too prescriptive, when considered against other objectives which local developers will need to meet as part of the emerging Worcestershire Parkway proposals, notably relating to landscape. 178

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

4.5. The Estate supports the broad intent of the draft NP policies to protect parts of the Plan area, however in respect of the Worcestershire Parkway proposals it is important that the development, if it is successful in securing an allocation, can be planned through a balanced analysis of a full evidence base. This means that a NP which precedes any strategic allocation must not prejudice the outcome of the masterplan approach. 4.6. However, the Estate would like to make it clear that it is committed to providing high quality green infrastructure as an integral element of the new settlement area proposals, as set by emerging Policy SWDPR49. Going forward, it is keen to engage with NjK Parish Council, as well as the residents of High Park to discuss the development proposals in more detail, with the ambition of devising a concept masterplan which takes account of local residents’ views as part the wider masterplan evolution. 88.29 Wychavon 30.11.20 Strategi The SEA screening exercise featured in Section 2 concludes that the Comments noted. No action District c draft Norton-juxtaKempsey Neighbourhood Plan is unlikely to require required. Council Environ a full Strategic Environmental mentalA Assessment to be undertaken. This is because the policies in the draft ssessme Norton-juxtaKempsey Neighbourhood Plan are considered to be in nt (SEA) general conformity with the SWDP and and it does not deviate from the land allocations within the SWDP. Habitats The HRA screening exercise featured in Section 3 concludes that the Regulati draft Norton-juxtaKempsey Neighbourhood Plan does not require a ons full Habitats Regulation Assessment Assessm Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken. There are no ent internationally designated wildlife (HRA)Sc sites within the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Area, with reening Lyppard Grange SAC, Opinion Bredon Hill SAC and Dixton Wood SAC falling within a 20km radius. Docume The impact on these nt sites as a result of the land allocations contained within the SWDP has been assessed in the 179

Consultation Statement, March 2021 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan

SWDP HRA AA, and as the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan does not deviate from these land allocations, the recommendation is made that a full AA is not required. Both of the above-mentioned recommendations were subject to consultation with the statutory environmental bodies (i.e. the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England) for five weeks from Tuesday 20 October until 5pm on Tuesday 24 November 2020. The three statutory environmental bodies unanimously agreed with the conclusions of the Screening Opinion, i.e. that neither a full SEA nor a HRA AA was appropriate in the production of the Norton-juxta-Kempsey Neighbourhood Plan. As such, it is concluded that neither a full SEA nor a HRA AA are required

180