Our Ref: Sg-1168-St1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ASHTON HAYES AND HORTON-CUM-PEEL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF MR BARRY SEARLE, ASHTON HAYES, CHURCH ROAD, ASHTON, CHESTER, CH3 8AD BY GOODWIN PLANNING SERVICES LTD OLD CHURCH HALL, OLD COACH ROAD, KELSALL, CHESHIRE, CW6 0QJ TEL: 01829 752851 FAX: -01829 752857 EMAIL: [email protected] OUR REF: SG-1168-ST1 Goodwin Planning Services Ltd Old Church Hall, Old Coach Road, Kelsall, Cheshire. CW6 0QJ Tel: 01829 752851 Fax: 01829 752857 Email: [email protected] Registered in England No. 4988755 1. OBJECTION 1.1 The objection relates to the identification of land within the objector’s ownership under policy E2 (Green Environment). Specifically the proposed allocation of sites NC2 and NC3 as Local Green Space. 2. SUGGESTED CHANGE 2.1 Remove from Local Green Space designation those parts of sites NC2 and NC3 shown within the objector’s ownership marked in red on the plan attached as Appendix 1. 3. JUSTIFICATION 3.1 The ability of Neighbourhood Plans to identify specific areas for special protection is set out in paragraph 76 of the NPPF. This indicates that in designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out development other than in very special circumstances. It indicates that identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and compliment investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. It indicates that Local Green Space should only be designated when a Plan is prepared or reviewed, and capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period. 3.2 Draft policy E2 indicates that the areas identified on the proposals map are designated as “Local Green Spaces” which are to be protected from the adverse impacts of new development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. It goes on to note that, in addition, developments or changes of use of land must, where possible, enhance Local Green Space amenity. 3.3 The draft policy then states that new developments or changes of use of land must include full site and surrounding area habitat/ecological surveys to reflect the circumstances at the time (even though one has not been carried out by the Neighbourhood Plan group prior to proposing the designation – see further below), along with mitigating actions necessary to address any adverse impacts and that in addition. Applicants must also take opportunities to:- Enhance existing habitats and biodiversity, including the planting of native trees and hedgerows on their boundary; Encourage and support the creation of new habitats; Establish effective wildlife corridors between existing and new habitats in conjunction with land owners; Enhance access between different parts of the area by requiring that any developments or changes of use of land provide easy and safe pedestrian and cycle routes. However, this should ensure that there is no increased disturbance to important habitats/wildlife areas; Create environmentally friendly communal areas. 3.4 The explanation to the policy notes that, as part of the neighbourhood planning process, an Ecological Assessment (November 2013) Study was conducted by RSK Group which identified certain key habitats that “needed” to be protected for the sustainability of wildlife in the area. It goes on to note that the Ecological Survey provides an “overview” of the area’s ecology and has been used as input to the development of the Neighbourhood Plan policies. The justification the draft plan gives for not carrying out detailed survey work prior to seeking to designate sites is that because, at this time, no specific sites have been identified for development or change of land use, the overview survey is considered sufficient. 3.5 The explanation to the policy itself therefore confirms that RSK Group only undertook an “overview” and did not undertake detailed assessments of the value of any sites suggested for inclusion under the Local Green Space policy. This is further acknowledged in the Part 3 Attachments to the Neighbourhood Plan including the Habitat Report Summary which states that the Survey was “an overview ecological snapshot” and “limited survey” undertaken in 2013. 3.6 As acknowledged by previous Neighbourhood Plan Examiners (see below) Local Green Space designation is clearly a restrictive and significant policy designation which is equivalent to Green Belt designation. In such circumstances it has therefore been acknowledged by Examiners that it is essential when allocating Local Green Space that plan makers can clearly demonstrate that the requirements for its allocation are met in full. The work undertaken by the Neighbourhood Plan falls far short of that required in this regard. 3.7 Specific guidance on designation is given in paragraph 77 of the NPPF. This indicates that Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. It states that the designation is only to be used where 3 criteria are met (importantly all 3 criteria must be met for designation):- 1. Where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; 2. Where the green area is demonstrably special to the 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 3. Where the green area concerned is of local character and not an extensive tract of land. 3.8 In terms of the tests in paragraph 77 of the NPPF, it is clear that Local Green Space should only be designated where all of the 3 criteria are met. In this case the proposal fails to meet any of the 3 criteria for the following reasons:- i. Where the Green Space is in Reasonably Close Proximity to the Community it Serves 3.9 In this case the land identified under policy NC2 and NC3 which is within the objector’s ownership and shown in red on the plan attached at Appendix 1 is actually isolated from the community of Ashton Hayes. There is no public access to the site (or even near to it). Indeed, whilst we acknowledge that some sites can be designated even if there is no public access, paragraph 14 of the NPPG advises that the proximity of the Local Green Space to the local community it serves will depend on local circumstances, including why the green area is seen as special, but it must be reasonably close. For example, if public access is a key factor, then the site would normally be within easy walking distance of the community served. In this case the site is not within easy walking distance of the community served. It serves no benefit to the local community. It is already managed by the objector in ways which are beneficial to the Nature Conservation (hence the local wildlife site designation). The site is actually a significant distance away from the settlement of Ashton Hayes and, as shown on the plan at Appendix 1, is very close to the eastern boundary of the Parish. It is therefore at the extremes of the Parish and isolated from the local community. It cannot therefore be said to be in close proximity to the community it serves and therefore the proposed designation fails criterion 1 of paragraph 77 of the NPPF. ii. The Green Area must be “Demonstrably Special” to the Local Community and Hold a Particular Local Significance 3.10 Whilst we acknowledge that the criterion indicates that a site can be designated for its tranquillity or richness of its wildlife, it is clear that a site should only be identified as a Local Green Space where it is “demonstrably special”. The onus is on the plan makers to produce evidence to justify their claims that the sites they designate are ‘special’. For a site to be identified as demonstrably special, a detailed survey would need to be undertaken. Without such a survey the Parish Council are unable to show that the site is demonstrably special. As set out above (and as acknowledged in the policy explanation itself and the Habitat Report Summary) the draft designations have been made on the basis of an “overview ecological snapshot” and “limited survey” by RSK Environment Ltd. Mr Searle confirms that at no time has he been approached by the Parish Council or by employees of RSK Environment Ltd to survey his land as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process. He must assume therefore that there has been no detailed survey of his land as part of the draft plan and that the designation has been made on the basis of a desktop exercise only. This falls far short of the requirements for designating a site and showing that it is “demonstrably special to the local community”. 3.11 The proposed designation therefore fails to meet the requirements of criterion 2 of paragraph 77. 3.12 Further advice is given in paragraph 21 of the NPPG. This indicates that management of land designated as Local Green Space will remain the responsibility of its owner and, if the features that make a green area special and locally significant are to be conserved, how it will be managed in the future is likely to be an important consideration. No approach has been made by the Parish Council or RSK to discuss management of the land with its owner. No consideration has therefore been given to future management of this land as part of the neighbourhood planning process. iii. Where the Green Area Concerned is Local in Character and not an Extensive Tract of Land 3.13 The NPPG gives further advice on the size of such sites and indicates that there are no hard and fast rules about how big a Local Green Space can be.