PLACE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Date: Tuesday, 2nd February, 2021
Time: 7.00 pm
Venue: Remote Meeting
PLACE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE
Information for Members of the Public
Due to the current Covid-19 pandemic Worcester City Council will be holding this meeting in accordance with the relevant legislative arrangements for remote meetings of a local authority. For more information please refer to: Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.
Please note that this is a public meeting, conducting remotely by videoconferencing between invited participants and live streamed for general access by audio via the Council’s website.
Part I of the Agenda includes items for discussion in public. You can listen to a live audio stream of the meeting via the City Council website www.worcester.gov.uk/councillors-democracy. You have the right to inspect electronic copies of Minutes and reports on this part of the Agenda as well as background documents used in the preparation of these reports. Details of the background papers appear at the foot of each report. Part II of the Agenda (if applicable) deals with items of 'Exempt Information' for which it is anticipated that the public may be excluded from the meeting and neither reports nor background papers are open to public inspection.
Members of the public and press are permitted to report on the proceedings. "Reporting" in the context of this remote meeting includes making an audio recording of the live streamed audio and providing commentary on proceedings. Any communicative method can be used to report on the proceedings, including the internet, to publish, post or share the proceedings.
At the start of the meeting under the item 'Public Participation' up to fifteen minutes in total is allowed for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda. Participation in remote meetings will extend to video and/or audio participation or written submission read aloud at the appropriate point in the meeting by the Chairman. Participants need to indicate that they wish to take part in a remote meeting by 4.30 p.m. on the last working day before the meeting by telephoning or E-Mailing the officer mentioned below. A Democratic Services Officer will then contact to advise how to participate in the remote meeting, by invitation. Requests to participate received later than this cut-off time may not be accommodated.
If a member of the public chooses to speak at a meeting of the City Council, he/she will be deemed to have given their consent to being recorded and audio being published live to the Council’s website. The Chairman of the meeting, can at their discretion, terminate or suspend recording, if in their opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting or if they consider that continued recording might infringe the rights of any individual, or breach any statutory provision.
If you have any queries about this Agenda, require any details of background papers, or wish to discuss the arrangements for public participation please contact Margaret Johnson, Democratic Services Administrator, Democratic Services, Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY Telephone: 01905 722085 (direct line). E-Mail Address: [email protected]
This agenda can be made available in large print, braille, on PC disk, tape or in a number of ethnic minority languages. Please contact the above-named officer for further information.
2 Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee Tuesday, 2 February 2021
Members of the Committee:-
Chairman: Councillor Mrs. Lucy Hodgson (C) Vice-Chairman: Councillor Adrian Gregson (L)
Councillor Roger Berry (LCo) Councillor James Stanley (C) Councillor Simon Geraghty (C) Councillor Louis Stephen (G) Councillor Joy Squires (L)
C= Conservative G = Green L = Labour LCo = Labour and Co-operative LD = Liberal Democrat
AGENDA
Part 1 (ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION IN PUBLIC)
1. Appointment of Substitutes To receive details of any Members appointed to attend the meeting instead of a Member of the Sub-Committee.
2. Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest.
3. Public Participation Up to a total of fifteen minutes can be allowed, each speaker being allocated a maximum of five minutes, for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda or within the remit of the Sub- Committee.
4. Minutes Page(s): 1 - 6 Of the meeting held on 29th October 2020 to be approved and signed.
5. Quarter 3 Performance Report 2021/21 Page(s): 7 - 22 Ward(s): All Wards Contact Officer: Joanna Payne, Corporate Policy and Strategy Officer Tel: 01905 722407 That the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee notes the Council’s Quarter 3 performance for 2020/21.
6. Setting of the Budget for 2021/22 and MTPF to 2025/26 Page(s): 23 - 30 Ward(s): All Wards
3 Contact Officer: Mark Baldwin, Head of Finance Tel: 01905 722007 1. That the Sub-Committee note the proposed Budgets for the various services identified for 2021/22;
2. That the Sub-Committee consider the priorities within each service and recommends any change for the services’ Budgets including the Income and Efficiency plans;
3. That the Sub-Committee consider the services’ Capital programme and future projects and recommends any changes or additions; and
4. That the Sub-Committee reviews any new budget proposals from members and makes recommendations to Policy and Resources Committee as appropriate.
7. Infrastructure Funding Statement 2020 for the Monitoring Period 1st April 2019-31st March 2020 Page(s): 31 - 58 Ward(s): All Wards Contact Officer: Rebecca Burridge, Senior Planning Policy Officer Tel: 01905 722408
That Members note the requirement for the Council to publish an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) and to update it at least annually.
8. South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) - Preferred Options: Further Regulation 18 (III) Consultation Page(s): 59 - 146 Ward(s): All Wards Contact Officer: Corin Beames, Acting Team Leader (Planning Policy) Tel: 01905 722546 1. That the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) – Further Regulation 18 (III) material set out at Appendix 1 is approved for consultation from 1st March 2021 for seven weeks; and
2. That delegated authority is given to the Corporate Director – Place in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee to make minor amendments to the SWDP Regulation 18 (III) consultation material prior to publication.
9. South Worcestershire Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) - Preferred Options: Regulation 18 Consultation Page(s): 147 - 216 Ward(s): All Wards Contact Officer: Corin Beames, Acting Team Leader (Planning Policy) Tel: 01905 722546
4 1. That the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee approve the Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document (TTS SA DPD) – Preferred Options: Regulation 18 material (set out in Appendix 1) for consultation from 1st March 2021 for seven weeks; and
2. That delegated authority is given to the Corporate Director – Place in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee to make minor amendments to the Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD Regulation 18 consultation material prior to publication.
10. Charter Year Celebrations Page(s): 217 - 218 Ward(s): All Wards Contact Officer: Michelle Newell, Tourism and Events Officer Tel: 07917 623481
That the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee:
1. Notes the planned activity to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Charter of James I; and
2. Notes that funding will be allocated from the Recovery budget to support the delivery of this activity.
11. Any Other Business Which in the opinion of the Chairman is of sufficient urgency as to warrant consideration.
5 This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 4
PLACE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE
29th October 2020
Present: Councillor Mrs. Lucy Hodgson in the Chair
Councillors Barnes, Berry, Geraghty, Gregson (Vice-Chairman), Stanley and Stephen
Officers: David Blake, Managing Director Shane Flynn, Corporate Director – Finance and Resources Philippa Smith, Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning Mark Baldwin, Head of Finance Philippa Tinsley, Museums Manager Helen Mole, City Centre Manager
20 Appointment of Substitutes
Councillor Barnes for Councillor Squires.
21 Declarations of Interest
The following declarations of interest were made:
Councillor Mrs L. Hodgson – Museums Worcestershire Annual Review (Minute No. 27) - As Worcestershire County Council Cabinet Member for Communities.
Councillor Mrs L. Hodgson – City Centre Markets (Minute No. 28) – As Worcestershire County Council Cabinet Member for Communities.
22 Public Participation
None.
23 Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7th September 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed remotely by the Chairman.
24 Quarter 2 Performance Report 2020/21
The Sub-Committee considered the Quarter 2 Performance Report for the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee for 2020/21 attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
The Corporate Director – Finance and Resources presented the report and responded to questions from Members on various projects outlined in the appendix, in particular around the City Centre Wi-Fi.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee note the Council’s Quarter 2 performance report for 2020/21. Page 2 29th October 2020 2
25 Setting of the Budget for 2021/22 and MTFP to 2025/26
The Sub-Committee reviewed the budget for Place and Economic Development Services and considered whether it was appropriate for the service delivery requirements. The Corporate Director – Finance and Resources introduced the report and the Head of Finance commented on the detailed aspects of each of the appendices.
Members were asked to consider whether the current projects aligned to this Committee are still appropriate and whether the amounts allocated to the City Plan themes are still appropriate.
Funding for City Plan proposals that has not been spent can be freed up but is not ring-fenced for the Sub-Committee. Ideas for new schemes can be considered in the report to the Sub-Committee in February 2021 but will then need to be referred to Policy and Resources Committee to be decided as part of the overall budget setting process.
The Sub-Committee did not recommend any change of emphasis for the services’ Income and Efficiency plans.
Officers responded to Members questions on points of clarification, related to the appendices attached to the report.
Members were informed that if they did have priorities or any suggestions to take forward to the February 2021 meeting then they were to inform the Corporate Director – Finance and Resources or the Head of Finance, with a view to working out figures and preparing a business case.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee note the budgets for the various services identified for 2020/21.
26 Diglis to Carrington Bridge Active Travel Corridor Improvements
The Sub-Committee considered a report on the Diglis to Carrington Bridge Active Travel Corridor Improvements.
The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in presenting the report, informed Sub-Committee Members that this work links in with the Local Transport Plan (LTP4), which identifies an Active Travel Corridor between Kempsey Village and Diglis in Worcester.
The aim is to improve connectivity and movement corridors along the riverside, to existing and proposed residential areas as well as improving access to the public open space of the riverside. It will also link in with wider cycling and walking projects for the City. The route can be split into three sections with links into existing national and local cycling routes, as shown in Appendix A. The full route would provide the most benefits.
The report focused on section 1 and progress to date was highlighted in paragraphs 3.1-3.4. The preferred option is to deliver 3 sections once additional funding is identified. Page 3 29th October 2020 3
Appendix B highlighted 3 options for section 1 together with costings, for which option 3 was recommended by Officers. The financial and budgetary implications were highlighted at paragraphs 6.1.-6.1.6 of the report.
The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in response to a question on how the new cycling/walking footpath will connect to the bridge from the riverbank, it was confirmed that the route is in LTP4, but would check with colleagues at the County Council on how access will be made to the new development from the riverbank.
Concerns were raised that the footbridge had been excluded which was to be an important part of the Berkeley Homes development and why the Planning Committee had not been made aware as to why this was not technically possible. The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning clarified the reason for this and confirmed that the contribution made was still available and would be used to improve access. Members agreed that as a point of principle where obligations have been entered into, but not delivered, these need to be reported back as there is a potential for the contributions to be lost.
Queries were raised by Members with regard to Appendix C which some found unclear and misleading. In order to ensure that there was no misunderstanding as to where the funding was to be sourced from and what it was for, clarification was provided by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, who explained that the appendix sets out which S106 Agreements would be eligible to fund the works, namely agreements S139 and S126, and which works they would be funding.
The Sub-Committee Members overall welcomed the scheme.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee:
1. notes the contents of this report and confirms its in-principle approval for the progression of the project;
2. authorises the Corporate Director-Place in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of this committee to enter into a joint delivery agreement with the County Council securing the governance arrangements for the delivery of section 1 of the riverside route;
3. recommends to Policy and Resources committee to authorise the expenditure of up to £50,000 (from previously allocated feasibility funds towards delivery of section 1 of the riverside route);
4. supports the expenditure of S106 funding to deliver section 1 of the riverside route (as detailed in Appendix C);
5. authorises the Corporate Director-Place to submit funding bids to third parties for the balance of funding required to deliver the Project; and
6. agrees to receive further reports on the outcome of advanced feasibility work for the riverside route sections 2 and 3.
Page 4 29th October 2020 4
27 Museums Worcestershire Annual Review
The Sub-Committee considered a report on the Museums Worcestershire Annual Review for 2019/20.
The Museums Manager in presenting the annual report, attached as Appendix 1, highlighted the key areas. The service had made transformation savings of £76,000, and raised more than £87,00 of external grant funding for museums projects.
The Sub-Committee were also informed that due to a recent bid for funding, which was available to cultural organisations, Museums Worcestershire have been successful and have been awarded £96,000. The Sub-Committee congratulated the Museums Manager on the award.
The Museums Manager responded to questions from Members particularly around the impact of Covid-19 and visitor numbers. The Sub-Committee noted the success of the Commandery Café during this time.
The Sub-Committee welcomed the report and expressed their thanks to the Museums Manager and the team.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee note the activities undertaken in museums in 2019/20 and the impact made.
28 City Centre Markets
The Sub-Committee considered a report on the City Centre Markets.
In January 2020, Worcester City Council commissioned specialist markets consultancy The Assembly Line to review the Worcester Market arrangements. The review made recommendations about the future markets offer for the City, considering the Council’s ambitions and the current economic conditions. A summary of the consultant’s report was provided at paragraph 5 of the report.
The City Centre Manager, in presenting the report, went through the preferred options, including recommendations going forward for the Angel Place Market (Wednesday to Saturday) and the weekend High Street Market and other events. With regard to the Angel Place Market Officers had been testing the recommended proposal with potential operators for the interim arrangement, the full details as set out in the confidential appendix to the report. The key features were highlighted in paragraph 6.1.3.
It was recommended that the Victorian Fayre would be the subject of a report to a future Sub-Committee to consider options for the management of this event.
With regard to the sites in the City Centre managed by the County Council, the consultants had recommended the transfer of the management of the sites in the City Centre to the onsite City Centre management team. The City Centre Manager confirmed that the co-ordination of this would start soon, if agreed.
Page 5 29th October 2020 5
The City Centre Manager responded to questions from Members relating to the support and compensation for traders in Angel Place, particularly with potentially another lockdown, Members were informed that support would be provided as in the previous lockdown. The City Centre Manager also confirmed that she had met with traders to obtain feedback and agreed that it was essential for this communication to continue.
Reference was made to vehicles parking overnight in Angel Place, when there are no stalls in place, which caused problems for traders when setting up, it was asked what the rules were for this. It was agreed that this would be looked into to check what jurisdiction is in place.
Following cancellation of the Victorian Christmas Fayre it was asked what support would be given to traders. The City Centre Manager in response stated that she could not comment on individuals, but if it was their regular business they would be eligible for a grant from the Government.
Members fully supported that the Council should be the single point of contact to manage bookings and events in the City Centre going forward.
RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee:
1. approves the principle of managing the different elements of the City’s markets offer separately on the expiry of the current contractual arrangements in January, being:
a. Weekend High Street markets (covered in the report)
b. Angel Place traders (covered in the report)
c. Victorian Christmas Fayre market stalls (to be discussed at a future sub-committee meeting);
2. authorises the Corporate Director - Place, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Sub-Committee, to procure operators through a concession contract for a period of up to 5 years with the option of a further 2 years extension, to deliver weekend High Street markets (Saturday and/or Sunday);
3. authorises the Corporate Director - Place to directly award a contract to a market operator to manage the Angel Place market on an interim basis for a period of up to 2 years, pending the implementation of the Future High Streets Fund redevelopment if this bid is successful;
4. note that a report will be brought to the Sub-Committee next year giving options for the future delivery of the Victorian Christmas Fayre; and
5. agrees that the City Council should offer to act as a single point of contact to manage events and bookings within the City Centre and notes that the Corporate Director - Place will engage with the County Council to achieve this. Page 6 29th October 2020 6
29 Any Other Business
None.
30 Items involving the Disclosure of Exempt Information
RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of information as defined in Schedule 12A of the said Act.
31 City Centre Markets
That the Sub-Committee note the contents of the exempt appendix.
Duration of the meeting: 7.00p.m. to 8.45p.m.
Chair at the meeting on 2nd February 2021 Page 7 Agenda Item 5
Report to: Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee, 2nd February 2021
Report of: Corporate Director, Finance and Resources
Subject: QUARTER 3 PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR 2020/21
1. Recommendation
1.1 That the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee notes the Council’s Quarter 3 performance for 2020/21.
2. Performance Reporting Framework
2.1 A suite of Performance Scorecards have been developed providing a one page overview of priority projects, activities and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) under the functions of each committee.
2.2 The Scorecards are supported by a more detailed appendix providing a brief narrative update for projects and activities and a visual representation of PIs in the form of run graphs or charts as applicable. This provides context in terms of progression, trends and seasonal variations to support reporting using RAG assessments (Red, Amber or Green).
2.3 The Scorecard has been refreshed for 2020/21 with projects completed in the last financial year replaced with new projects as previously agreed by this committee.
2.4 The Quarter 3 performance report for the Planning and Economic Development Sub- Committee is attached as Appendix 1.
Ward(s): All Contact Officer: Jo Payne, Corporate Policy and Strategy Officer, Tel: 01905 722407, Email: [email protected] Background Papers: None
This page is intentionally left blank Page 9 Agenda Item 5 Appendix 1
Page 10
Appendix 1
Place & Economic Development Sub-Committee Performance Report
PED Projects & Actions 2020/21
Action Status
Cancelled
Overdue; Neglected
Unassigned; Check Progress
Not Started; In Progress; Assigned
Completed
City Centre Wifi • A report on the options going forward will go to PED sub- Sponsor Philippa Smith committee in the spring of 2021. Due Date 31-Mar-2020 • The City Centre Manager is leading on the development of a tourism app as a separate project Original Due 31-Dec-2018 Date Current Status Expected Outcome
Review of the South Worcestershire Development Plan The SWDP timetable has been amended as per the Local Sponsor Philippa Smith Development Scheme (LDS), which came in effect on 1st Due Date 01-Apr-2023 October 2020. The revised timetable is as follows: Original Due 01-Nov-2021 March 2021 - Further Preferred Options Consultation Date (Regulation 18 (iii)) Current Status
October/November 2021 - Publication (Regulation 19) Expected Outcome February/March 2022 - Submission (Regulation 22)
April 2023 - Adoption (Regulation 26)
The above timetable is subject to the government's proposed changes to the planning system in England, which was consulted on in August 2020. Some of the proposed changes, if brought into effect, may impact on the ability of the South Worcestershire Councils to meet this amended timetable.
2
Page 11
Feasibility assessment for foot/cycle path - Diglis to Carrington Bridge Report accepted by October PED sub-committee which set Sponsor Philippa Smith out detailed design/costing for section 1 of the route and Due Date 31-Dec-2019 identified funding resources. Collection of the S106 funding will commence. Original Due 31-Dec-2019 Date
Current Status Expected Outcome
Foregate Arches / Cultural Development Fund Progress made this period includes: Sponsor Philippa Smith Due Date 25-Feb-2022 Workstream 1 - Infrastructure • Start on site has been moved to early 2021 due to Original Due 31-Mar-2021 unforeseen circumstances towards the end of 2020. The Date project team are addressing these with partners. Current Status
Workstream 2 - Festivals Expected Progressing with socially distancing concepts in the light of Outcome Covid19 restrictions.
Workstream 3 – Participate Progressing with program focusing on online delivery.
Workstream 4 – Destination Management Work with partners on track.
City Centre Master Plan - Feasibility Works for Key Sites Initial development capacity feasibility work has been Sponsor Philippa Smith undertaken on the three sites and is currently being Due Date 31-Mar-2020 reviewed. Original Due 31-Mar-2020 Assessment of archaeology investigations at Kings Street Date and Copenhagen Street is underway. Current Status
Final report on drainage/flooding as part of integrated Expected drainage strategy is currently awaited from consultants. Outcome
Future High Streets Fund Submission of Business Case Submission of bid made in July – award of £17.9m made Sponsor Philippa Smith late December 2020. A project team is currently being put Due Date 30-Jul-2020 in place and negotiations with landowners being completed. Next steps will include completion of agreements with Original Due 30-Jul-2020 MHCLG , confirming governance arrangements and Date commencing the process of appointing a development Current Status partner. Expected
Outcome
3
Page 12
Towns Fund/Town Board initiation stage Extensive work ongoing to produce Town Investment Plan. Sponsor Philippa Smith Submission subject to P&R Committee approval to be made Due Date 30-Oct-2020 by 29th January 2021. Original Due 30-Oct-2020 Date
Current Status Expected
Outcome
PED Key Performance Indicators 2020/21
PI Status
Alert
Warning
OK
Unknown
Data Only
Major planning applications determined in 13 weeks Description: Percentage of major planning applications determined in 13 weeks or agreed time
RAG Current Value 100% Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 90% 5 out of 5 major applications determined within 13 weeks or agreed extension of time
4
Page 13
Minor planning applications determined within 8 weeks Description: Percentage of minor planning applications determined within 8 weeks or agreed time
RAG Current Value 97.24% Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 90% 106 out of 109 applications (97.24%) determined within 8 weeks or agreed extension of time, of which 65 out of 66 (98.48%) comprise householder applications
Other planning applications determined within 8 weeks Description: Percentage of 'other' planning applications determined within 8 weeks or agreed time
RAG Current Value 100% Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 90% 14 out of 14 other applications determined within 13 weeks or agreed extension of time.
5 Page 14
Appeals of major planning decisions allowed Description: Percentage of major appeals allowed of major planning decisions
RAG Current Value 0% Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Minimise Current Target 10% No appeals of major decisions allowed.
All business grants awarded - starter and growth grants Description: Total number of business grants awarded: start-ups and growth grants
RAG Current Value 7 Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 8 Slightly below target, however there are grant claims and appraisals pending.
6 Page 15
5 year housing land supply Description: 5 year housing land supply
RAG Current Value 7.33 Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 5 The Five Year Housing Land Supply calculation for Worcester City in 2019/20 is 7.33 years (includes a 5% buffer).
Homes completed against SWDP target Description: Number of homes completed against SWDP target
RAG Current Value 262 Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 261 Worcester has achieved its annual housing target for 2019/20 as set out within the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016.
7 Page 16
Employment land completions (hectares) Description: Hectares of employment land (B1/B2/B8) completed
RAG Current Value 6.79 Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 3.34 Draft figures in the Employment Land Monitor indicate that 6.79 hectares of employment land was completed in 2019/20.
This unusually high number includes 3.67 hectares at Unit A, Blackpole East Trading Estate, 2.9 hectares on land at Nunnery Park, Nunnery Way, and 0.22 hectares on land adjacent to Unit M3 and M4, Blackpole East.
Key sector SME’s supported to recruit a 16 – 24 year old apprentice, for the first time or the first time in 12 months Description: Worcester City SME’s in receipt of a Worcester City Apprenticeship Grant as a contribution towards cost of recruiting a 16-24 year old apprentice
RAG Current Value 10 Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 15
8 Page 17
Annual PI – next report Q4 2020/21.
Worcester City SME’s assisted with higher skilled/skill shortage recruitment Description: Worcester City SME’s in receipt of a Worcester City Graduate Grant as a contribution towards costs of recruiting and/or training a student/intern/graduate
Current Sponsor Philippa Smith RAG 11 Value Current Aim to Maximise 15 Target Annual PI – next report Q4 2020/21.
No. of businesses assisted under the ERDF Business Support Programme Description: No. of businesses assisted under the European Regional Development Fund Business Support Programme.
RAG Current Value 141 Sponsor Philippa Smith Aim to Maximise Current Target 201
9 Page 18
The target figure of 201 is for the whole programme which runs until June 2023. Currently the programme is at 70% of target (with more than 2 years left to run) and as such is progressing well. The new Enterprising Worcestershire start up course has recently been launched so business assists should increase. The business assists profile will be amended in Q4 to reflect the stage of the programme.
No. of business grants awarded under the ERDF Business Support Programme Description: No. of business grants awarded under the European Regional Development Fund Business Support Programme
Current Sponsor Philippa Smith RAG 107 Value Current Aim to Maximise 71 Target Above target. Enterprising Worcestershire has recently awarded their first call of start up grants which will be reflected in Q4 reporting.
10 Page 19
Value (£) of business grants awarded under the ERDF Business Support Programme) Description: Value (£) of business grants awarded under the European Regional Development Fund Business Support Programme
£1,023,7 Sponsor Philippa Smith RAG Current Value 79.00 £771,506 Aim to Maximise Current Target .00 Above target. Enterprising Worcestershire has recently awarded start up grants under the first call. The amount will be included in Q4 reporting.
City Centre Footfall Description: To monitor the footfall within the City Centre to enable action to be taken should the footfall drop significantly below the target level
10,251,4 Sponsor Philippa Smith RAG Current Value 21 Aim to Maximise Current Target
11 Page 20
There has been a reduction of 41.3% footfall in Worcester City Centre during 2020 when compared to 2019, due to the impact of COVID-19. This compares to a national downturn of 49.5% on High Streets year-on-year.
The year started with a slight decrease on 2019 figures in January (98% of 2019) but April’s footfall was down to 13.6% of the previous year, as a direct consequence of the lockdown which was imposed in March. When retail reopened in July, footfall in the city was 65.5% of the total for July 2019, reaching 74.3% in September. The traditionally busy month of December saw just 64.4% of the footfall when compared to 2019, although weekends performed better with 73% of 2019 footfall. Further work will be done to analyse national comparisons but figures are not available at the time of writing
Visitors to City Museums Description: A combined PI of all visitors to the city museum sites The Commandery and the City Art Gallery & Museum. This includes both paid and free admissions.
RAG Current Value 7,192 Sponsor Philippa Tinsley Aim to Maximise Current Target 15,750 Pre-Covid target added to better inform PED report.
12 Page 21
Admissions and commercial income from City museums Description: Income earned at The Commandery and the City Art Gallery & Museum from all activities including paid admissions, retail, activities and rental.
Current Sponsor Philippa Tinsley RAG £13,491.00 Value Current Aim to Maximise £29,400.00 Target Annual target was set before the Covid pandemic at £109,500. With changing restrictions closing the museums for 3 lockdown periods in response to infection rates, targets have not been adjusted as they are not reliable. Instead PIs are monitored weekly against previous performance and are used to complete returns for central government monitoring.
In Q3, retail income at the Art Gallery and Museum has risen from Q2's 40% of a 'normal' year to 70% of a 'normal' year, suggesting that the investment in improving the shop has had the intended positive impact on visitor spend levels.
Commandery admissions income, by contrast has dropped from 52% of a 'normal' year in Q2 to 41% of a 'normal' year in Q3. This reflects the end of the staycation boost over the summer and a reversion to predominately local residents for whom repeat visits are free.
The Commandery cafe has had a very positive Q3, following a successful Q2, continuing to make the most of the exterior space at the site throughout changing restrictions.
Some income lines such as schools admissions and commercial room hire remain at nil performance due to the impact of Covid 19 measures.
13 This page is intentionally left blank Page 23 Agenda Item 6
Report to: Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee, 2nd February 2021
Report of: Head of Finance
Subject: SETTING OF THE BUDGET FOR 2021/22 AND MTFP TO 2025/26
1. Recommendation
1.1 That the Sub-Committee note the proposed Budgets for the various services identified for 2021/22.
1.2 That the Sub-Committee consider the priorities within each service and recommends any change for the services’ Budgets including the Income and Efficiency plans.
1.3 That the Sub-Committee consider the services’ Capital programme and future projects and recommends any changes or additions.
1.4 That the Sub-Committee reviews any new budget proposals from members and makes recommendations to Policy and Resources Committee as appropriate.
2. Background
2.1 The proposed summary budgets for 2021/22 are contained in Appendix 1. These provide detailed budgets for each of the Council’s services covering both income and expenditure.
2.2 The Council also produces a Medium Term Financial Plan for the next 5 years setting out the high level pressures and opportunities that are likely to need to be addressed.
3. Review of Service Budgets
3.1 Members are asked to review the budget for each service and the initiatives proposed in the Income and Efficiency plan. This includes some items that have been carried forward from the current year.
Place and Income and Efficiencies Plan Economic 2021/22 to 2023/24 Development Sub-committee
Staff restructure 134 Income growth (above inflation) 0 Service efficiencies 0 Service reduction 0 134 Page 24
3.2 The Income and Efficiency Plan is based on cost reductions anticipated from various staffing restructures. At present these are estimates and the details will not become clear until the Voluntary Redundancy exercise has been completed.
3.3 In light of any changes experienced by the services in the last 12 months, Members are asked to consider whether amendments are needed to the services’ budgets and the Income and Efficiency plans in order to continue to achieve service objectives and to deliver the relevant aims of the City Plan.
3.4 Given that the Council faces a reduction in its future funding, this exercise is likely to result in a reduction or reallocation of resources rather than an increase in the net budget available.
4. Projects and Capital Expenditure
4.1 In a separate report to this committee meeting, Members have received a progress report on the various projects aligned to this committee. In addition, the Council’s draft Capital Programme to 2025/26 is shown in Appendix 2.
4.2 Members are asked to consider whether the current projects are still appropriate for each service and whether there are any further needs that require addressing.
4.3 The approach adopted should be to focus on addressing the key themes identified as part of the 2018/19 Budget setting. This should include greater detail on the proposed spend against each allocation and phasing the projects across the full 5 year term of the MTFP based on the need and importance of each one.
4.4 Given that the Council faces a reduction in its future funding, recommendations should be prioritised to ensure the limited resources are allocated most effectively.
5 Implications
5.1 Financial and Budgetary Implications Should members have any proposals for new City Plan themes or projects that require funding for inclusion in the 2021-2026 MTFP, these should be discussed and, if appropriate, approved by this committee. They will then be forwarded to the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee on 9 February 2021 for consideration along with those proposals submitted by the council’s other policy committees and sub-committees.
5.2 Legal and Governance Implications Responsibility for setting the budget rests with Full Council which receives recommendations from the Policy and Resources Committee. Any proposals agreed by this Committee must therefore be forwarded to the Policy and Resources Committee for consideration at its meeting of 9 February 2021 before being recommended, if approved, to the Full Council meeting of 23 February 2021.
5.3 Risk Implications None directly arising from this report.
5.4 Corporate/Policy Implications None directly arising from this report.
5.5 Equality Implications None directly arising from this report. Page 25
5.6 Human Resources Implications None directly arising from this report.
5.7 Health and Safety Implications None directly arising from this report.
5.8 Social, Economic and Environmental Implications None directly arising from this report.
Ward(s): All Contact Officer: Mark Baldwin, Head of Finance – Tel: 01905 722007 [email protected] Background Papers: None
This page is intentionally left blank WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL BUDGET 2021/22
Annual Income & Draft Base PLACE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Budget Final Actuals Base Budget Base Budget Efficiency Budget SUB-COMMITTEE 2019/20 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Plan 2021/22 2021/22 Employees 1,193,670 1,183,586 1,170,570 1,209,630 (134,310) 1,075,320 Premises 1,800 1,486 1,100 1,100 0 1,100 Transport 8,250 5,496 8,290 8,530 0 8,530 Supplies and Services 308,810 267,959 233,935 249,915 0 249,915 Third Party Payments 641,105 662,434 222,810 281,270 0 281,270 Internal Recharges 32,220 33,036 32,220 32,220 0 32,220 Total Expenditure 2,185,855 2,153,997 1,668,925 1,782,665 (134,310) 1,648,355 Grants and Contributions (532,159) (537,056) (12,000) 0 0 0 Fees and Charges (760,090) (554,312) (710,130) (710,170) 0 (710,170) Other Income (235,880) (242,643) (235,880) (235,880) 0 (235,880) Total Income (1,528,129) (1,334,011) (958,010) (946,050) 0 (946,050)
Grand Total 657,726 819,986 710,915 836,615 (134,310) 702,305
Summary by sub-service:
Annual Income & Draft Base Page 27 PLACE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Budget Final Actuals Base Budget Base Budget Efficiency Budget SUB-COMMITTEE 2019/20 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Plan 2021/22 2021/22 Dev Control and Enforcement Expenditure 426,900 416,780 455,010 470,910 0 470,910 Dev Control and Enforcement Income (482,030) (357,762) (482,070) (482,110) 0 (482,110) Dev Control and Enforcement Total (55,130) 59,018 (27,060) (11,200) 0 (11,200) Land Charges Expenditure 101,190 109,173 107,560 111,290 0 111,290 Land Charges Income (162,710) (90,716) (112,710) (112,710) 0 (112,710) Land Charges Total (61,520) 18,457 (5,150) (1,420) 0 (1,420) Heritage and Design Expenditure 165,770 160,927 178,670 184,630 0 184,630 Heritage and Design Income (5,000) (8,403) (5,000) (5,000) 0 (5,000) Heritage and Design Total 160,770 152,524 173,670 179,630 0 179,630 Building Control Expenditure 90,060 73,878 91,860 93,700 0 93,700 Agenda Item 6 Building Control Income (110,350) (97,485) (110,350) (110,350) 0 (110,350) Appendix 1 Building Control Total (20,290) (23,607) (18,490) (16,650) 0 (16,650) Economic Dev and Regen Expenditure 407,950 415,122 302,480 321,250 0 321,250 Economic Dev and Regen Total 407,950 415,122 302,480 321,250 0 321,250 Planning Policy Expenditure 246,510 249,585 213,550 247,520 0 247,520 Planning Policy Income (17,450) (19,446) 0 0 0 0 Planning Policy Total 229,060 230,139 213,550 247,520 0 247,520 Intitatives and Projects Expenditure 406,435 389,703 45,830 46,540 0 46,540 Intitatives and Projects Income (502,709) (502,711) 0 0 0 0 Intitatives and Projects Total (96,274) (113,008) 45,830 46,540 0 46,540 City Centre and Tourism Expenditure 341,040 338,829 273,965 306,825 0 306,825 City Centre and Tourism Income (247,880) (257,488) (247,880) (235,880) 0 (235,880) City Centre and Tourism Total 93,160 81,341 26,085 70,945 0 70,945 Reduction targeted for Employee Costs (134,310) (134,310)
Grand Total 657,726 819,986 710,915 836,615 (134,310) 702,305 This page is intentionally left blank Page 29 Agenda Item 6 Appendix 2 WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND FINANCING 2021-26 Appendix 2
Scheme 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2021-26
£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Arches Project 559 0 0 0 0 559 Astwood driveway resurfacing 100 0 0 0 0 100 Astwood offices extension 25 0 0 0 0 25 City Centre Compactor Bins 80000 8 Disabled Facilities Grants 688 688 688 688 688 3,438 Food Waste Collection 0 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 Hostile Vehicle Mitigation 225 0 0 0 0 225 Housing - temporary accomodation 500 0 0 0 0 500 Infrastructure Replace 220 100 100 100 100 620 Litter Bins 93 86 67 0 0 246 Muslim Graves and Memorial Garden 80 0 0 0 0 80 Ops Vehicle Replacement 609 671 1,025 1,020 1,056 4,381 Parks - Electronic Signage 15 0 0 0 0 15 Property 5-Year Plan 163 55 0 0 0 218 Sansome Walk Site Demolition 1,114 0 0 0 0 1,114 Future High Streets Fund 16,420 0 0 0 0 16,420 Wheelie Bin Replacements - Domestic and Trade 150 150 150 150 150 750 TOTAL 20,968 2,750 2,030 1,958 1,994 29,698
Financing Source 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2021-26
£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 External Grants 9,457 1,688 688 688 688 13,207 S106 Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earmarked Reserves 500 0 0 0 0 500 Capital Receipts 1,677 391 317 250 250 2,885 Revenue Financing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Borrowing 11,435 671 1,025 1,020 1,056 15,207 TOTAL 23,068 2,750 2,030 1,958 1,994 31,798 This page is intentionally left blank Page 31 Agenda Item 7
Report to: Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee, 2nd February 2021
Report of: Corporate Director - Place
Subject: INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STATEMENT 2020 FOR THE MONITORING PERIOD 1 APRIL 2019–31 MARCH 2020
1. Recommendation
1.1 That members note the requirement for the Council to publish an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) and to update it at least annually.
2. Summary
2.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2019 require any local authority that receives developer contributions to publish online an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) by 31 December 2020 or as soon as possible thereafter.
2.2 Officers have prepared an IFS in accordance with the legal requirements and have published it on the Council’s website.
3. Background
3.1 Following amendments to the Community Infrastructure Regulations in 2019 any local authority that has received developer contributions (Section 106 planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy) is now required to publish online an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS).
3.2 An IFS must contain:
• Details of the income and expenditure relating to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 (S106) agreements. • A report on the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure that the authority intends to fund wholly or partially with CIL (excluding the neighbourhood portion). This is to be known as the ‘Infrastructure List’.
3.3 To collect data to populate the IFS, government guidance recommends that local authorities monitor data on the CIL and S106 planning obligations using the government’s data format, although this is not mandatory. Data should be published on the Council’s website on at least an annual basis. MHCLG will then collect this data to maintain a national register of developer contributions. It has not been possible to produce separate data tables in the governments format for the 2019/20 monitoring period instead detailed tables have been incorporated into the IFS which help to provide clarity and aid the understanding of money received, allocated , spent and retained.
Page 32
3.4 The purpose of the IFS is to improve transparency and increase accountability for money received by the Council and subsequently spent. The report should increase the public’s understanding and awareness of what developer contributions have been received and the infrastructure and facilities these funds have been invested in. It should set out future spending priorities on infrastructure and affordable housing in line with up-to-date or emerging plan policies. This should provide clarity and transparency for communities and developers on the infrastructure and affordable housing that is expected to be delivered.
3.5 In 2017 the three south Worcestershire Council’s introduced a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); its purpose is to raise funds from new building projects that can be put toward infrastructure that is required to support new development identified in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). The introduction of CIL means that a flat fee can be charged for each square metre of additional floor area on new qualifying developments. Each of the three authorities has adopted its own Charging Schedule and collects CIL by council area, although monies collected are pooled centrally for the whole of south Worcestershire to be spent on identified priorities. Qualifying development in Worcester is limited to retail development and student accommodation and money is collected on commencement of development.
3.6 Previously, charging authorities were required to report annually on how much CIL had been received, and how it has been spent. Furthermore Regulation 123(4) required charging authorities to set out a list of projects or types of infrastructure intended to be funded by CIL. CIL monies could only be spent on items or infrastructure types included in the ‘Regulation 123 list’ which identified those infrastructure projects that the levy would be spent on.
3.4 In September 2019, the CIL Regulations were amended to standardise the information provided through the requirement to produce an IFS. The content of an IFS is now prescribed by the regulations and once published an IFS will replace the Regulation 123 list.
3.7 The IFS is required to set out the value of CIL demands issued and details of the monies collected, spent, retained and passed to parish councils in a monitoring year. During 2019/2020 Worcester City has not collected any CIL payments or issued any demand notices. Malvern Hills and Wychavon District Councils have collected CIL during this period, however none has been spent to-date and the IFS for 2019/20 does not include a list of identified infrastructure projects for CIL. The reasoning for this is that it was decided that sufficient CIL should be allowed to accrue in the South Worcestershire CIL ‘pot’ to be able to contribute toward more substantive and strategic projects. Given the level of CIL now collected it is possible to consider spending CIL monies and governance arrangements will be put in place in 2021 to identify, prioritise and consider bids for CIL funding. Therefore, the ‘Infrastructure List’ will be included in the 2020/21 IFS.
3.8 As well as CIL authorities are required to report on S106 agreements entered into and monies received, allocated, retained and spent in the monitoring period. The document contains information on site specific financial and non-financial contributions, for example for the provision of and maintenance of open space, improvements to the public realm, and the provision of on-site affordable housing or a financial contribution toward affordable housing where this cannot be delivered on site.
Page 33
3.9 Over the financial year 2019/20: £392,777 of funding has been collected from S106 contributions towards the delivery and maintenance of infrastructure across Worcester City; £114,243 has been spent on a range of projects including improvements to open space and leisure projects, the public realm and the maintenance of CCTV; 58 affordable homes were completed on three sites where S106 agreements had been entered into; £313,362 has been allocated toward delivering identified projects and a further £78,199 has been set aside for maintenance; and A balance of £134,247 remains unallocated to a specific scheme but is restricted to be spent on a particular type of project, e.g. open space, within the signed S106 agreement.
4. Preferred Option
4.1 The preferred option is to note the requirement of the Council to publish an IFS on an annual basis.
5. Alternative Options Considered
5.1 There is no alternative, as failing to publish an IFS would mean that the Council would not meet the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2019.
6. Implications
6.1 Financial and Budgetary Implications There are financial implications associated with monitoring S106 agreements and compiling an IFS in terms of officer time taken to produce the work. Some of the officer time will be recouped through the collection of S106 monitoring fees which are implemented upon signing an agreement (a £650 set up fee and £100 for trigger points). To date these charges have not been collected but going forward they will be collected by the planning team and reported on in future editions of the IFS.
The publication of an annual IFS could increase public awareness and scrutiny of Council spending.
6.2 Legal and Governance Implications The preparation of an IFS is a requirement of the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019. It is not clear what implications would result as a failure to prepare the IFS.
6.3 Risk Implications There is a risk of non-compliance with government regulations if the IFS is not published online.
6.4 Corporate/Policy Implications The IFS reports on funding collected in accordance with the policies in the adopted SWDP. It is being prepared in accordance with the relevant corporate policies.
Page 34
6.5 Equality Implications An Equality Impact Assessment is not required for the production of the IFS as it is simply a factual report of the monies received and spent in a monitoring period and does not in itself contain any policies.
6.6 Human Resources Implications None
6.7 Health and Safety Implications None
6.8 Social, Environmental and Economic Implications None
Ward(s): All Contact Officer: Rebecca Burridge – Senior Planning Policy Officer Tel: 01905 722408 E-mail: [email protected] Background Papers: Worcester City Council Infrastructure Funding Statement 2020
Page 35 Agenda Item 7 Appendix 1
Worcester City Council Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/20 For the monitoring period 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020
Published December 2020
Page 36
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
1. Introduction The Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) sets out the income and expenditure relating to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 (S106) agreements for Worcester City Council. Local authorities are now required to produce an IFS on an annual basis resulting from changes to legislation in 20191. This is the first IFS prepared by Worcester City Council and an updated version will be published annually. CIL and S106 income, referred to as planning obligations or developer contributions, are used to help fund the provision of supporting infrastructure arising from new development and to maximise the benefits and opportunities from growth, whether that is from new housing, employment or other types of specific development. Section 2 of this report sets out progress toward the collection of CIL in the city. Although no money has been collected or spent to-date it is anticipated that CIL will be collected in the next monitoring period. It is the Council’s intention to identify and prioritise CIL infrastructure projects and spend in next year’s IFS. Section 3 sets out the S106 agreements entered into during the monitoring period, including the type and financial value of these agreements. Details are provided of the contributions received by the Council along with the money that has been allocated and spent on projects in the city during the monitoring year. Section 4 explains the process of identifying appropriate projects to allocate S106 contributions to and how the Council will identify spending priorities. 1.1 Key headlines from the IFS In 2019/20 the headline figures are as follows: Community Infrastructure Levy • There were no CIL receipts collected over the last financial year in Worcester City Council nor any spend. Section 106 Agreements • Worcester City entered into 16 new S106 agreements in 2019/20; 12 of which involved contributions including: affordable housing, open space, education, highways and transport, cycle parking and public art.
1 Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment)(England)(No.2) Regulations 2019
1
Page 37
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
• Worcester City Council received £392,777 of S106 monies from developers; £376,565 in open space contributions and £16,212 for the maintenance of CCTV. • £114,243 was spent on improvements to and maintenance of public open space, improvements to the public realm and maintenance of CCTV in the City. 1.2 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 (S106) Agreements CIL is a tariff-based charge on development of new floorspace and is charged per square metre; the Levy is charged on some, but not all, types of development. The charges for Worcester City are set out in the Worcester City CIL Charging Schedule (the Charging Schedule) adopted 16 May 2017 and implemented from 4 September 2017. The decision to introduce CIL was taken by the three south Worcestershire Councils, Malvern Hills District Council, Worcester City Council and Wychavon District Council. It is intended to contribute, in part, towards funding the infrastructure requirements identified in the joint South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) 2016. Each of the three authorities has adopted its own Charging Schedule and collects CIL by council area, although monies collected will be pooled centrally for the whole of south Worcestershire to be spent on identified priorities. CIL was first implemented in June 2017 in Wychavon and Malvern Hills District Councils and in September 2017 in Worcester City Council. The monies once collected can potentially be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure that is needed to meet the future growth needs of south Worcestershire. S106 agreements are used to mitigate the impacts of development and are directly linked to a planning application; they are a legal agreement that is entered into to ensure that the planning policy requirements of the SWDP are fully met. S106 obligations include: • Site-specific financial contributions – these are secured and must be used for the defined purposes; e.g. the provision of education facilities, traffic and transport/highways related works, the provision and maintenance of open space, improvements to the public realm, and the delivery of affordable housing (where accepted in lieu of on- site provision); • Provision of on-site affordable housing; and • Non-financial obligations, including requirements such as construction management plans and travel plans, occupancy restrictions for affordable housing, for example to meet a particular
2
Page 38
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
need for housing key workers, and protecting city centre retail floorspace from being lost to out of town development. Over the financial year 2019/20, no money has been collected from CIL contributions but £392,777 of funding has been raised from S106 contributions towards the delivery and maintenance of infrastructure across Worcester City.
3
Page 39
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
2. Community Infrastructure Levy The adopted Charging Schedule sets out the rates that are charged for different types of development in the City along with any exemptions to the levy. CIL liable development within Worcester City is applicable to: • retail warehouse and food retail (supermarket) development which is charged at a rate of £602 per square metre; and • student accommodation which is charged at a rate of £1003 per square metre. The charge is calculated on the measurement in square metres of the Gross Internal Area of new development and is payable (unless exempt, e.g. self-build) once the development commences. The level of the tariff is based on the viability evidence undertaken for development across south Worcestershire as a whole and is further justified by the needs identified in the South Worcestershire Infrastructure Delivery Plan (SWIDP). 2.1 CIL Income in Worcester City To-date there have been no CIL funds collected from development in the City, therefore there is no CIL income to report for the monitoring period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. Once collected, a proportion of CIL from liable development in a charging area is required to be transferred to local communities via a neighbourhood portion. In Worcester City this will be given to the parish council where the development is taking place at 15% of that collected, or if an area has an adopted neighbourhood plan at 25%.In un-parished areas the 15% of the levy receipts will be held by the charging authority, who will then engage with the communities where development has taken place and agree with them how best to spend the neighbourhood funding. 2.2 CIL Income in South Worcestershire Malvern Hills and Wychavon District Councils have different charging schedules to the City Council and a number of CIL liable developments have commenced in the two districts since the introduction of CIL in June 2017. Between 2017 and 2020 a total of £1,677,821 CIL receipts have been collected in South Worcestershire.
2 This figure excludes the annual indexation of the levy. In order to ensure the charging schedule stays responsive to market conditions, indexing of the charging schedule will be applied at the beginning of each year on 1 January by the south Worcestershire Councils based on the index figure of 1 November of the preceding year. 3 As footnote 1 this figure excludes the annual indexation and is for indicative purposes.
4
Page 40
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
2.3 Potential Future Income from CIL Liable Development The Levy is non-negotiable and is payable to the charging authority on commencement of development or, for large developments, over an agreed phased period as set out in the instalments policy at appendix E of the Charging Schedule. The are some exemptions to the Levy, CIL regulations state that affordable housing and charitable developments (development by a registered charity for charitable purposes), as well as self-build residential properties, are exempt from CIL. There have been two CIL liable planning approvals prior to the monitoring period. These were both approved in 2018/19 but neither development had commenced by 1 April 2020. The table below shows the two approvals that were CIL liable and highlights that the second application (ref P18J0124) is exempt from the Levy as it is being developed by, and for, a registered charity. Therefore, the only anticipated income from applications approved up to and including the monitoring period is from application P17J0577 where £222,679.71 will be liable on commencement of development. At the time of drafting, a liability transfer had been received on 29 June 2020 and pre-commencement conditions were being discharged, therefore, it is anticipated that the City Council will receive 50% of this CIL payment in the 2020/2021 monitoring period and 50% in the 2021/22 monitoring period in accordance with the installments policy set out in the adopted Charging Schedule.
Table 1: CIL Liable Applications Prior to 1 April 2019
App Ref Address Description Decision Relief? Revised Amount Date Total YMCA Hostel Change of use Henwick Rd of hostel to P17J0577 29/10/2018 £222,680 No £222,680 Worcester student WR2 5NS accommodation University of Worcester land off 20 bed student Yes P18J0124 Himbleton residence (use 31/07/2018 £83,729 £0.00 Charity Rd class C2) Worcester WR2 6AJ
In addition to the CIL liable approvals in 2018/19, there have been two further approvals in September and December 2020 that are CIL liable. At this stage it is unknown when and whether these developments will
5
Page 41
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
commence, therefore we are unable to forecast which monitoring period CIL monies could potentially be collected in. Table 2: CIL Liable Applications Post 1 April 2020
App Ref Address Description Decision Relief? Revised Amount Date Total JVM Erection of a Castings retail food Site, store (Class 19/00851/FUL Droitwich 10/09/2020 £127,387 No £127,387 A1) with Road, associated Worcester, infrastructure WR3 7JX Demolition and erection of 83 Images bedroom Club student 19 The 19/0247/FUL accommodation 08/12/2020 £242,208 No £242,208 Butts including Worcester ancillary and WR1 3PA communal living space
2.4 CIL Expenditure Despite income from CIL in two of the three Charging Authorities, Malvern Hills and Wychavon, no CIL monies have been spent on identified infrastructure projects to-date. Overall, the amount of CIL estimated to be collected from development in accordance with the adopted SWDP was judged to be approximately £6 million over the entire plan period. The Charging Authorities collectively agreed that CIL reserves should be allowed to accrue to a minimum of £500,000 in order to help make a substantive contribution towards any identified infrastructure project(s). This sum has now been reached and exceeded and the three Council’s will be establishing governance arrangements in 2021 to identify and prioritise CIL spend on projects for the financial years to come. This information will be included in next year’s IFS.
6
Page 42
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
3. Section 106 Agreements, Collection and Expenditure 2019/20 The South Worcestershire Development Plan sets out policy requirements for planning obligations in the context of negotiations on planning applications. A high priority is given to securing affordable housing, highway/transport improvements, education and securing appropriate levels of open space provision. Further details on the implementation of this approach is set out in the 2018 South Worcestershire Developer Contributions SPD. 3.1 Notable S106 Agreements Signed During the last financial year sixteen S106 agreements were entered into with developers and/or landowners. Not all the S106 agreements have financial obligations associated with them; four agreements relate either to occupancy restrictions or retail/trading restrictions rather than providing a financial contribution toward infrastructure or affordable housing. The remaining twelve covered a range of contributions including: affordable housing, open space, education, highways and transport, cycle parking and public art. One of the most notable agreements entered into during the financial year was the joint agreement with Malvern Hills District Council regarding part of the allocated urban extension at Worcester South (SWDP 45/1) for 255 dwellings, employment land and the bridge over the A4440. The majority of the site falls within Malvern Hills District, but the S106 allocates: 70% of the affordable dwellings (expected to be approximately 36) to meet the needs of Worcester City; and an open space contribution toward the enhancement and/or maintenance of Power Park and public open space in the parish of St Peters. The exact number of affordable homes and the final value associated with the open space contribution is yet to be confirmed as the approved outline application does not set out this level of detail. As the application progresses, and the phases of development are permitted we will be able to provide more detail in future editions of the IFS. This S106 agreement also contains sizeable contributions toward County Council infrastructure, with £2,636,102 for highways related infrastructure and £1,483,962 for education. These sums will be paid directly to Worcestershire County Council at various stages of the development.
7
Page 43
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
Other notable S106 agreements signed in the last financial year (2019/2020) include: • The former Defra Site, Whittington Road. Redevelopment of the site to deliver 64 dwellings and 71 extra-care living apartments. This scheme once developed will provide 41 affordable homes and contribute £139,159 toward the provision of open space and its ongoing maintenance. • Land at Old Northwick Farm, Northwick Road allowed on appeal. Development of the site to deliver 62 dwellings. This scheme once developed is required to provide approximately 19 affordable homes (at least 30% of the total dwellings on site) and contribute £131,898 toward open space provision and maintenance. • Citation House, 39 Foregate Street. Conversion and extension of the building to form 38 dwellings, office and leisure uses. The developer of this scheme is required to contribute £197,544 toward off-site affordable housing. • Rose Avenue, Tolladine. Redevelopment of the site to deliver 25 dwellings, a retail unit, a takeaway and associated parking. This scheme once developed will require the developer to contribute £50,000 toward open space provision and maintenance. 3.2 Overview of Signed S106 Agreements Table 3 overleaf sets out the type of infrastructure the S106 agreements signed in the monitoring period are expected to contribute toward if they proceed. There are a total of seven financial contributions toward open space which exceed £360,000; two of these contributions are dependent on the final mix of dwellings delivered on a site. Five of the agreements require the provision of affordable housing; it is anticipated that should all the developments overleaf go ahead they will deliver approximately 116 affordable homes. In addition to this, one further agreement requires a financial contribution toward off-site affordable housing. There is one agreement that requires a contribution to public art.
8
Page 44
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
Table 3: Monies and Affordable Housing Agreed in Signed S106 Agreements 2019/20.
Financial contributions (£) for Number of Application Worcester City Location affordable ref Affordable Open units Public Art Housing Space DEFRA Site, P18G0322 41 £139,159 Whittington Road Tariff per 70% of the unit final affordable amount Taylors Lane dwellings for tbc to be P13A0617 (Worcester South) Worcester’s split 50/50 needs Approx. with 36 units Malvern Hills 30% of Land at Old scheme P13A0617 Northwick Farm, £131,898 (approx. 19 Northwick Road units)
P18D0155 2 Stanley Street 15
Citation House, 39 P18D0107 £197,544 Foregate Street
P18H0280 Rose Avenue £50,000
19/00314/F Crown Gate £15,000 UL Shopping Centre
P18C0468 Sherwood Lane £12,869
Rear of 1-11 Cecil P18D0101 5 Road
P19D0025 Diglis Marina £25,974
£2281 per 19/00458/F Land at Pope Iron unit up to
UL Road a max of £18,248
Four of the agreements signed in 2019/20 include contributions toward infrastructure provided by Worcestershire County Council. These are set out in the Table 4 below and if development proceeds will be paid directly to the County Council.
9
Page 45
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
Table 4: Monies Agreed in Signed S106 Agreements 2019/20 for Infrastructure Provided by Worcestershire County Council
Financial contributions (£) for Worcestershire Applicati County Council Location on ref Education Education Transport Highways Primary Secondary and travel DEFRA Site, P18G0322 £138,000 Whittington Road Taylors Lane P13A0617 £696,172 £787,789 £2,636,102 (Worcester South) Land at Old Northwick £44,400 P13A0617 Farm, Northwick Road 19/00265/ Land at Oak View Way £20,000 RM
It should be noted that until a trigger for the S106 agreement has been made there is no certainty that these monies or non-financial contributions will be collected by the Council. Should these permissions remain unimplemented and/or subsequently expire there would be no requirement for the owner or developer to make the financial or non- financial contribution. 3.3 S106 Contributions Received 2019/20 In 2019/2020 a total of £392,777 was received in S106 contributions in Worcester City, this includes commuted sums for maintenance. Table 5 sets out the S106 income and expenditure for the last four financial years. Income fluctuates each year; this year’s income has been at a similar level to that achieved in 2016/17 although spend had been at a lower level than the previous three years. Table 5: Worcester City Council S106 Income and Expenditure Since 2016
Year Received in year Expenditure in year £ £ 2016/17 378,730 552,284 2017/18 1,738 597,658 2018/19 153,999 366,612 2019/20 392,777 114,244
10
Page 46
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
The income in 2019/20 came from seven development sites. Six were financial contributions for open space and one was a commuted sum for maintenance of CCTV in Castle Street. • The largest sum was £159,453 received from the development of 215 dwellings on the former Crown Packaging site on Perry Wood Walk. The S106 specifies that the money must be used for one or more of the following purposes including improvements to: o access to Perry Wood heritage trail; o biodiversity, access, signage, boundary treatments, street furniture and security at Perry Wood Local Nature Reserve; o security, boundary fencing, gates, access road, car parking and tipping bays at Hillborough Allotments; o play provision at Medway Close, Ribble Close, Ronkswood Community Centre and Horizon Community Centre; and o provide facilities for young adults at either Medway Road, Perry Wood Local Nature Reserve or Ronkswood Community Centre/Newtown Green. This funding will be allocated to one or more of these projects once the details have been finalised and the schemes have been considered by the Council’s S106 Programme Board. • £139,159 was received from the redevelopment of the former Government Buildings on Whittington Road (P18G0322), this is to be used for improvements to Cromwell Crescent Pocket Park and play area and for the provision of new and/or improved site access and a turning area at Foxwell Street Allotments. Details of the exact work that will take place has yet to be finalised and agreed by the Council’s S106 Programme Board. The site will also deliver 41 affordable homes which at 1st April 2020 were not yet under construction. • £19,205 was received from development of student accommodation at 8-10 Foregate Street (P11D0111). This contribution was from a historic application where the developer had not contributed in accordance with the S106 agreement therefore the Council collected late fees in association with this. This contribution has been allocated by the Council’s S106 Programme Board to the Arches project in the city connecting the riverside to Foregate Street. • £14,526 was received from development at Oak View Way off Bromyard Road (P18C0175). This is to be directed toward off-site sports facilities and the provision of either or both civic space and allotments in the vicinity of the development. To-date £6,958 has been allocated and spent on the cricket pavilion at the Cinderella
11
Page 47
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
Sports Ground, Bransford Road, the remainder is yet to be allocated to a specific project by the Council’s S106 Programme Board. • £25,974 was received from the Diglis Marina development and £18,248 was received from development on Pope Iron Road. Both contributions are to for open space provision within the vicinity of the developments. The agreements do not specify which project the funding must be spent on but, limit it to enhancing one or more of the following: amenity space, equipped play space, civic space, allotments and formal pitches in the vicinity of each of the developments. To-date these contributions have not been allocated to any specific projects by the Council’s S106 Programme Board. • £16,212 was received from the University for ongoing maintenance of Castle Street CCTV and has been spent on this purpose. This sum has been paid annually for nine years since the development commenced. Of the £392,777 received in 2019/20, £317,817 has been allocated to projects, although it should be noted that the majority of this money (£298,612) has been limited to particular uses in the S106 agreement (see bullet points above) and the Council has yet to finalise and sign off individual project details. £23,170 of the monies received in 2019/20 has been spent in the financial year and £51,790 remains unallocated but is required to be spent on open space as detailed in the bullet points above. Table 6 overleaf provides an overview of the monies received in 2019/2020, whether they have been allocated to a project, remain unallocated, or have been spent in the monitoring year.
12
Table 6: Worcester City Council S106 Income 2019/20, Includes Allocations, Expenditure and Unallocated Balance
Application Location Financial Received Allocated Project Spent Project Unallocated ref Contribution not spent funds funds balance allocated spent on remaining to
8-10 Foregate Arches P11D0111 £19,205 06/09/2019 £19,205 £0 n/a £0 Street Project
Cinderella P18C0175 Oak View Way £14,526 06/06/2019 £0 n/a £6,958 £7,568 Pavilion
Defined in Govt Buildings,
S106 but Page 48 P18G0322 Whittington Rd £139,159 24/07/2019 £139,159 £0 n/a £0 detail to be - Phase 2 finalised
Diglis Marina, P19D0025 £25,974 07/01/2020 £0 n/a £0 n/a £25,974 Diglis Basin
Unit 2 Pope 19/00458/FU £18,248 13/03/2020 £0 n/a £0 n/a £18,248 Iron Road L Crown Defined in
Packaging S106 but P17G0258 £159,453 26/04/2019 £159,453 £0 n/a £0 Perry Wood detail to be
Walk finalised Castle Street, CCTV Castle P07D0193 Worcs Uni £16,212 n/a n/a £16,212 £0 Street CCTV
Totals £392,777 £317,817 £23,170 £51,790
Page 49
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
3.4 S106 Contributions Carried Forward from Previous Years In addition to money received in 2019/20, the Council had a balance of S106 monies carried forward from previous years; as at the 1st April 2019 the Council carried forward £616,881 of previously collected S106 contributions which included £98,659 set aside for long term maintenance. £70,613 was subsequently spent in the monitoring year on infrastructure projects and £20,460 on longer term maintenance (the amounts spent do not include money that was received and spent in the monitoring period as this is detailed in table 6 on the previous page). £313,362 of the money that was carried forward at 1 April 2019 has been allocated to a range of projects in the City including: • £135,222 toward open space enhancements in the vicinity of Diglis Basin as part of the Council’s Diglis Project; • £32,262 toward improvements to the Cinderella Sports Ground; • £62,278 toward the replacement of the 3G pitch at Brickfields Park; • £50,963 toward improvements to Fort Royal Park including the historical interpretation of the park, landscaping and and/or improved connections between park and the Commandery; • £22,000 toward enhancements and maintenance at Newtown Green including new fencing and the installation of mini goals; • £5,226 toward improvements to entrances and paths for public access onto Pitchcroft Racecourse as part of the Riverside Project; and • £5,411 toward landscaping improvements at Whittington Road and island, and improvements to Foxwell Street allotments. At the end of the monitoring period £134,247 of the money carried forward at the start of the financial year remained unallocated. £78,199 will be carried forward for longer term maintenance on range of facilities including statues and sculptures, grounds maintenance and the upkeep of open space facilities at various locations in the City and maintenance of the wetlands at Offerton Lane Nature Reserve. Tables 7 and 8 set out overleaf capture all this information relating to monies that were carried forward from previous years and any transactions associated with them.
14
Table 7: Worcester City Council S106 Monies Carried Forward 1 April 2019 Summary of Transactions 2019/20
Remains Balance at Application Spent in Monies Project Unallocated Development 1 April Spent on Ref 2019/20 Allocated Allocated to 31 March 2019 2020
P03L0182 Diglis Basin £124,434 £0 £124,434 Diglis Project £0
P05D0432 Royal Worcester £10,788 £0 £10,788 Diglis Project £0
P07Q0634 Dugdale Drive £4,277 £4,277 Mabbs Orchard £0 £0 Page 50 Maintenance of P09C0007 Margaret Road £295 £295 benches at £0 £0 Pitmaston Cinderella P10K0351 Earls Court Farm £32,262 £0 £32,262 Pavilion, Cricket £0 Ground Howard Road P12K0308 Gresham Road £2,867 £2,867 £0 £0 playing fields Replacement 3G P12Q0232 Ronkswood £54,988 £0 £54,988 pitch at £0 Brickfields Park Replacement 3G P13N0461 Brickfields £7,290 £0 £7,290 pitch at £0 Brickfields Park Shambles P11D0028 9 New Street £6,010 £6,010 improvements to £0 £0 public realm
0
Remains Balance at Application Spent in Monies Project Unallocated Development 1 April Spent on Ref 2019/20 Allocated Allocated to 31 March 2019 2020 Shambles 17-19 Mealcheapen P12D0249 £16,236 £16,236 improvements to £0 £0 Street public realm Sidbury improvements to Fort Royal Park P13D0385 St Peter's Street £32,960 £16,244 £16,716 £0 public realm and improvements tree planting Cripplegate Tennis P14K0485 28 Bromyard Road £6,611 £6,611 £0 £0 Courts
Christian Meeting Page 51 P06D0292 £19,906 £0 £0 £19,906 Room, Diglis Lane Newtown Green improvements - P15G0315 Lichfield Avenue £22,000 £0 £22,000 fencing, mini £0 goals and maintenance Pitchcroft as part Butlers Gym, Farrier P15D0423 £5,226 £0 £5,226 of Riverside £0 Street project Sidbury improvements to P16D0211 6-10 Bath Road £16,335 £16,335 £0 £0 public realm and tree planting
P15D0146 Land at Albert Road £34,247 £0 £34,247 Fort Royal Park £0
1
Remains Balance at Application Spent in Monies Project Unallocated Development 1 April Spent on Ref 2019/20 Allocated Allocated to 31 March 2019 2020 Shambles P16D0460 Farrier House £1,738 £1,738 improvements to £0 £0 public realm Whittington Road and island Government landscaping and P16G0178 Buildings, £5,411 £0 £5,411 £0 improvements to Whittington Road Foxwell Street allotments
Land South of Page 52 P18Q0226 £114,341 £0 £0 £114,341 Leopard Hill
Totals £518,222 £70,613 £313,362 £134,247
Table 8: Worcester City Council S106 Commuted Sums Allocated for Maintenance
Balance at 1 Spent in Balance 31 Area of Maintenance April 2019 2019/20 March 2020 Artwork: statues/sculptures £6,759 £0 £6,759 CCTV £5,460 £5,4604 £0 Open Space: grounds maintenance, recreation facilities, pitches £86,440 £15,000 £71,440 and wetlands maintenance Totals £98,659 £20,460 £78,199
4 This does not include the £16,212 received and spent in 2019/20 as this captured in Table 6
2
Page 53
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
3.5 S106 Contributions Transferred The City Council has not transferred any funding to other bodies in the monitoring period although a contribution was made to Worcestershire County Council toward the public realm improvements on the Shambles as they lead the project. Where other bodies provide the infrastructure for example Worcestershire County Council, they are involved in the S106 negotiations and generally receive contributions directly rather than being collected by the City and transferred. The County Council will be producing their own IFS. 3.6 S106 Contributions Returned to Developers Most Section 106 agreements include a clause to require money received by the City Council and not spent within a specified time limit (usually ten years) to be returned to the developer with interest. There was no money refunded to developers in the monitoring period. 3.7 S106 Contributions Monitoring Fees The City Council has not collected any S106 monitoring fees in the 2019/20 monitoring period. New charges have been introduced by the City Council and will be reported on in future editions of the IFS. 3.8 Non-financial S106 contributions: Affordable Housing The SWDP requires all new residential development (including conversions) of 10 or more units and on sites of over 0.5 hectares to contribute toward the provision of affordable housing. The final number, size, type, and tenure of affordable dwellings provided on any scheme is subject to negotiation dependent on recognised local housing need, specific site and location factors and development viability. The following thresholds are set for delivering affordable housing in the City (see the South Worcestershire Councils’ Position Statement June 2019): • On sites of 15 or more dwellings, on greenfield land, 40% of the units should be affordable and provided on site. • On sites of 15 or more dwellings, on brownfield land 30% of the units should be affordable and provided on site. • On sites of 10-14 dwellings, 30% of units should be affordable and provided on site. • On sites of 9 dwellings or less and where the site area is less than 0.5ha, no affordable housing contributions will be sought.
18
Page 54
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
Affordable housing should be provided on-site in the first instance, although where a robust justification exists off-site contributions (or an in-lieu payment) will be allowed. As highlighted in Section 3.2 and at table 3, six S106 planning agreements have been entered into in the monitoring period that will potentially deliver affordable housing in the City. • One agreement has been signed in 2019-20 that could generate a financial contribution of £197,544 toward the delivery of affordable housing • Five agreements have been signed that could deliver approximately 116 affordable homes5 if the development goes ahead. Within the monitoring period 2019-20 three sites where S106 agreements had been entered into delivered 58 affordable homes. Table 9: Affordable Housing Completions 2019/20 on Sites with S106 Agreements
Application Location Date Number of Units Ref Agreement Completed Signed P18C0175 Land off Oak View Way 01/02/2019 30 P16G0178 Whittington Road 26/08/2016 14 P18D0155 2 Stanley Road 09/04/2019 14
No financial contributions relating to affordable homes were collected within the monitoring period. 3.9 S106 spending As has been demonstrated in earlier sections the expenditure of S106 funds in 2019/20 totalled £114,243. This has been spent on a range of projects. • £36,088 has been spent on open space and leisure projects including: o improvements to the Cinderella Sports Ground and pavilion; o landscaping and planting improvements at Mabbs Orchard; o maintenance of benches at Pitmaston Park; o repairs to damaged fencing and bark chippings at Howard Road play area; o improvements to tennis courts at Cripplegate Park; and
5 Two of the applications are outline permissions where only a percentage of the total number of homes permitted is set out in the S106 agreement. Until Reserved Matters are approved and the final number of dwelling known it is only possible to estimate the number of affordable homes that will be delivered as part of these schemes based on the indicative number in the outline application.
19
Page 55
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
o ongoing maintenance at numerous open spaces in Warndon parish using commuted funds.
• £56,563 has been spent on improvements to the public realm including: o contributing to the paving and planting along the Shambles; and o improvements to public realm including railings, fences, paving and tree planting at Sidbury, adjacent to Commandery Road and at Commandery Road car park. • £21,672 has been spent on maintenance of CCTV.
Table 10: S106 Expenditure 2019/20
Application ref Location Spent 2019/20 Project funds spent on Cinderella P18C0175 Oak View Way £6,958 Pavilion
P07Q0634 Dugdale Drive £4,277 Mabbs Orchard
Maintenance of P09C0007 Margaret Road £295 benches at Pitmaston Howard Road P12K0308 Gresham Road £2,867 playing fields Shambles P11D0028 9 New Street £6,010 improvements to public realm Shambles 17-19 Mealcheapen P12D0249 £16,236 improvements to Street public realm Sidbury improvements to P13D0385 St Peter's Street £16,244 public realm and tree planting Cripplegate P14K0485 28 Bromyard Road £6,611 Tennis Courts
Sidbury improvements to P16D0211 6-10 Bath Road £16,335 public realm and tree planting Shambles P16D0460 Farrier House £1,738 improvements to public realm
20
Page 56
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
CCTV Castle Castle Street, Worcs P07D0193 £16,212 Street Uni CCTV Maintenance CCTV Castle P07D0193 Castle Street, Worcs £5,460 Street Uni CCTV Maintenance Open Space: grounds maintenance, Multiple sites in £15,000 wetlands Various Warndon maintenance, recreation facilities and pitches Total £114,243
21
Page 57
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
4. Governance Arrangements and Spending Priorities Worcester City Council is committed to working with the local community and other stakeholders to ensure that planning contributions are used in a fair and transparent way, to maximise the benefits and opportunities arising from development, including affordable housing, community infrastructure, jobs and environment improvements. 4.1 CIL Governance and Spending Priorities It is acknowledged that the 2019 regulations require the IFS to set out identified projects and prioritise them for CIL spending. The three south Worcestershire authorities will agree governance arrangements and protocol for identifying and prioritising CIL expenditure in 2021, therefore, this will be reported on in future editions of the IFS. 4.2 S106 Governance and Spending Priorities The Council has a S106 Programme Board comprising senior officers from Legal, Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Property Services, Project Management, and Environmental Operations Management. The Board meets quarterly to review the collection and spending of developer contributions and acts as a decision-making body to oversee the allocation of funds to projects and to monitor their progress. Where appropriate, decisions are taken to the Corporate Leadership Team or Policy Committees as required. The type of use a S106 contribution must be spent on is established in the S106 agreement itself, and very often the location in which it is to be spent is also detailed. Where the location is not specified it is normal for S106 agreements to require them to be spent within the vicinity of the development. The Programme Board consider project proposals that are presented to the Board to ensure that they meet the requirements of the S106 before finally allocating the funding. Progress against each project and the balance remaining in S106 agreements is reviewed at each meeting; any remaining funds that are close to reaching their specified time limit will be prioritised. As has been presented in tables 6 and 7 in Section 3 money has been allocated to a range of projects and these will be prioritised and progress against these will monitored during the next financial year. These include but are not limited to the Council’s Diglis project, Arches project, Riverside Project, improvements to Cinderella Sports Ground, a new 3G Pitch at Brickfields, and improvements to Fort Royal Park and Newtown Green.
22
Page 58
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/2020
In addition to S106 funds the Council holds, it is important that the Council knows what it would spend developer contributions on before development proposals become planning applications. This ensures the determination of applications is not delayed, contributions are matched to the Council’s infrastructure priorities and there is a reduced chance legal agreements will have to be re-negotiated via a deed of variation to match the developer contributions with a deliverable infrastructure project. Members (Councillors) are asked to suggest projects to be funded from potential developer contributions on an annual basis to help inform officer negotiations with developers if appropriate applications should be received. These suggestions are reviewed by the Programme Board to assist with identifying future spending priorities and where appropriate project proposals are developed.
23
Page 59 Agenda Item 8
Report to: Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee, 2nd February 2021
Report of: Corporate Director - Place
Subject: SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SWDP) – PREFERRED OPTIONS: FURTHER REGULATION 18 (III) CONSULTATION
1. Recommendation
1.1 That the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) – Further Regulation 18 (III) material set out at Appendix 1 is approved for consultation from 1st March 2021 for seven weeks.
1.2 That delegated authority is given to the Corporate Director – Place in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee to make minor amendments to the SWDP Regulation 18 (III) consultation material prior to publication.
2. Background
2.1 Members will be aware that, in response to the 2017 legal requirement for Local Planning Authorities to review their Local Plans within five years of adoption, each of the South Worcestershire Councils (SWCs) formally agreed to work together on a review of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). The revised SWDP will address development needs for the period 2021-2041 and provide appropriate planning policies to guide decision taking. Each Council published a timetable for undertaking the review within its Local Development Scheme (LDS) 2017-2020. In accordance with this timetable, the SWCs published the Regulation 18 (II) ‘Preferred Options’ consultation in November 2019. Following consultation, the intention was to then progress to the Regulation 19 ‘Publication’ version of the SWDP in November 2020.
2.2 As a result of delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and following legal advice from counsel, an updated LDS for 2020-2023 was approved by each local authority in September 2020 (effective from 1st October 2020). The 2020-2023 LDS includes an updated SWDP timetable, which has moved back the Regulation 19 (publication) version of the plan to October/November 2021. This allows for additional time to finalise the technical evidence base updates and also to include an additional further Regulation 18 (III) consultation to provide greater clarification and updates to elements of the Sustainability Appraisal evidence base work.
2.3 The Sustainability Appraisal is an on-going process which tests the plan’s sites and policies against a Sustainability Framework, with a report published at each stage of the plan-making process. The Regulation 18 (III) Sustainability Appraisal update will provide information to help clarify the report published during the previous Regulation 18 (II) Preferred Options consultation carried out in November/December 2019 and is set out at Appendix 1 to this report.
Page 60
3. The SWDP Review and Timetable
3.1 The consultation on the ‘Preferred Options’ stage of the SWDP review was carried out in late 2019 (Regulation 18 (II)). Since the completion of this consultation, work has been progressing on the ‘Publication’ version of the SWDP (Regulation 19). However, the review of the SWDP has been delayed due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and our ability to collect evidence. The intention was for the SWDP review to be ready for Submission (Regulation 22) in February 2021 and Examination (Regulation 24) in Spring/Summer 2021, but lockdown restrictions made it much more difficult to complete a number of technical assessments and evidence gathering needed to support the plan within the timeframe.
3.2 Further, in updating the evidence base, legal advice from Counsel recommended that an additional round of consultation is factored into the SWDP timetable prior to Submission of the plan for Examination to allow for updates relating to the Sustainability Appraisal to be made available for consultation. The updates to the Sustainability Appraisal will provide clarification to elements of the report as originally published during the Regulation18 (II) stage (see section 4 below). As previously stated, the LDS has been updated to accommodate this additional round of consultation.
3.3 The Regulation 18 (III) consultation is not seeking views on an updated version of the SWDP. The material to be published for this consultation relates to updates to the Sustainability Appraisal evidence base and falls within the scope of this stage of the plan-making process. The proposed submission version of the SWDP will follow at the Regulation 19 stage of the plan making process in October/November 2021.
4. Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
4.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report is a UK-specific procedure that examines the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the sites and policies of a Local Plan in detail and proposes mitigation measures to overcome any negative impacts identified.
4.2 A key purpose of the Sustainability Appraisal is to facilitate the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive’s required levels of environmental assessment, resulting in an integrated approach (the SEA Directive was transposed into English law by The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations)). This includes transparency, by sharing assessment information and plan-making detail with a public audience, which provides the opportunity to influence the Local Plan.
4.3 In line with the Planning Policy Guidance and requirements of the SEA Directive, there is a need to provide a clear and transparent process of identifying, describing and evaluating reasonable alternatives (Article 5(1) of the SEA Directive). This should be the case for any type of reasonable alternative raised through the plan making process.
Page 61
4.4 Accordingly, the Sustainability Appraisal will provide updates to the following sections of the SWDPR (as was submitted at the 2019 Preferred Options Regulation 18 (II) stage), as relates to the analysis of, and reasoning for, the selection and rejection of reasonable alternatives:
draft SWDPR policies; proposed strategic location sites and reasonable alternatives; proposed site allocations and reasonable alternatives; and proposed SWDP reallocation sites.
4.5 A full Sustainability Appraisal (Environmental Report) will be produced for the Regulation 19 stage of the plan making process. This version of the appraisal will assess the sustainability of the proposed submission version of the SWDP.
5. Consultation Approach
5.1 The approaches to public consultation on planning policy documents relating to the statutory stages of plan making are set out in the 2018 adopted Statement of Community Involvement. In accordance with the revised regulations issued in July 2020 regarding public consultation in the planning process, since the advent of Covid-19 the SCI was temporarily amended in October 2020. Essentially this amended any of the ‘face to face’ requirement to ensure social distancing could be observed in accordance with Government guidance.
5.2 The public consultation will run for seven weeks from 1st March to 19th April 2021. The consultation documents and any supporting information will be placed on deposit in the following locations:
Council reception or contact centres Public libraries (where open) Relevant council websites and the SWDPR website
5.3 All the statutory bodies, neighbouring local authorities, parish councils, organisations and individuals held on the SWDP database will be advised via e-mail of the consultation and a press release will be issued in the w/b 22nd February 2021.
5.4 An on-line briefing will be provided for parish, town councils (open to district and city councillors) on Monday 1st March from 6:00pm. This will address the content and purpose of the consultation and provide a Q&A opportunity.
5.5 This further Regulation 18 (III) stage consultation is focused on the Sustainability Appraisal and will be technical in nature. Likely representations are therefore going to be technical in nature and of interest to certain parties. This stage is not a further opportunity to make comments on proposed site allocations or Development Management policies published in the 2019 Preferred Options. However, it is important to both convey the specific nature of the consultation and allow those that wish to respond to do so.
5.6 This point will be reiterated in the supporting material and correspondence. The consultation material will be accompanied by a plain English summary and an explainer video will be produced which will stress the technical nature of the consultation.
Page 62
In the run-up and throughout the consultation the use of Social Media will also be used and the SWC communications lead officers will be asked to help guide this aspect of the process.
5.7 As an additional notification for Members, summaries of the representations received during the 2019 Preferred Options Regulation 18 (II) consultation will be published at the start of the further Regulation 18 (III) consultation. As the Regulation 19 version of the Plan has yet to be produced, the officer responses cannot be finalised at this stage. A Statement of Consultation will then follow the Regulation 19 stage, which will contain the officer responses to the Preferred Options representations, as well as an overview of how the responses have informed the preparation of the Proposed Submission version of the plan.
6. Preferred Option
6.1 The preferred option is to approve the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) – Further Regulation 18 (III) material for consultation from 1st March 2021 for seven weeks in accordance with the consultation material in Appendix 1 and the consultation statement in section five.
6.2 This option will be in accordance with the work programme set out within the SWCs adopted Local Development Schemes (2020-2023) and the Statements of Community Involvement.
7. Alternative Options Considered
7.1 The alternative option is to not undertake a further Regulation 18 (III) consultation and risk objection at the SWDP examination in relation to how the plan-making process has met its legal obligations with regards to SA/SEA. Failure to meet these legal obligations would mean the plan would likely be found unsound and would result in a delay to the examination (and ultimately the adoption of the plan) whilst the issues are rectified.
8. Implications
8.1 Financial and Budgetary Implications There are financial implications associated with preparing the review of SWDP. Continuing to work jointly across south Worcestershire enables costs to be shared. The biggest cost is staff resources but in addition to this, costs will be incurred in updating the evidence base to support a plan review. However, the principle of reviewing the SWDP has already been agreed; the current iteration of the LDS provides clarity in relation to the anticipated timetable through to adoption of the SWDP Review.
8.2 Legal and Governance Implications The preparation of a Local Plan is a statutory requirement under The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended. SA is a legal requirement of this act (S19(5) - the present statutory requirement for SA lies in The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012), and SEA has been transposed into English law by The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations).
Page 63
8.3 Risk Implications Not sufficiently consulting on the draft stages of the Local Plan could have negative consequences for the examination of the SWDP.
8.4 Corporate/Policy Implications The SWDP review will update the council’s planning policies. It is being prepared in accordance with the relevant corporate policies.
8.5 Equality Implications Local Development Documents can be subject to Equality Impact Assessment at the appropriate plan making stages. As this consultation stage only relates to evidence base clarification updates of the previous Regulation 18 (II) ‘Preferred Options’ consultation, it is considered that an Equality Impact Assessment is not required.
8.6 Human Resources Implications None
8.7 Health and Safety Implications None
8.8 Social, Environmental and Economic Implications The SWDPR is subject to Sustainability Appraisal which examines the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the sites and policies of a Local Plan in detail and proposes mitigation measures to overcome any negative impacts identified. This further Regulation 18 (III) consultation provides clarification updates to the Sustainability Appraisal process of the SWDP Review.
Ward(s): All Contact Officer: Corin Beames – Acting Team Leader (Planning Policy) Tel: 01905 722546 E-mail: [email protected] Background Papers: Appendix 1 – Consultation Material
This page is intentionally left blank Page 65 Agenda Item 8 Appendix 1
Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review
DRAFT - Regulation 18 (III) SA Report
LC-668 Document Control Box
Client Malvern Hills District Council
Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Report Title Review: Regulation 18 (III) SA Report
Filename LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Date December 2020
Author CW
Reviewed ND
Approved ND
Front cover: Worcestershire Beacon
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government License v1.0 Page 66
About this report & notes for readers
Lepus Consulting Ltd (Lepus) has prepared this assess the sustainability effects of the South report for the use of Malvern Hills District Worcestershire Development Plan Review and Council. There are a number of limitations that meets the requirements of the SEA Directive. It should be borne in mind when considering the is not intended to be a substitute for an conclusions of this report. No party should alter Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or or change this report without written permission Appropriate Assessment (AA). from Lepus. © Lepus Consulting Ltd Client comments can be sent to Lepus using the following address. This Regulation 18 (III) SA Report is based on the 1 Bath Street, best available information, including that Cheltenham provided to Lepus by the SWCs and information that is publicly available. No attempt to verify Gloucestershire these secondary data sources has been made GL50 1YE and they have assumed to be accurate as Telephone: 01242 525222 published. This report was prepared between January and December 2020 and is subject to E-mail: [email protected] and limited by the information available during www.lepusconsulting.com this time. This report has been produced to
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government License v1.0 Page 67
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx Contents
1 Introduction ...... 7 Background ...... 7 South Worcestershire ...... 7 The Development Plan Review ...... 8 Best Practice Guidance ...... 9 Sustainability Appraisal ...... 10 The SA process so far ...... 11 Scoping Report ...... 11 Issues and Options ...... 12 Regulation 18 (II) ...... 13 Signposting for this report ...... 13 2 Methodology ...... 14 Scoping stage ...... 14 Assessment of reasonable alternatives ...... 15 Impact assessment and determination of significance ...... 16 Impact sensitivity ...... 16 Impact magnitude ...... 16 Significant effects ...... 17 Limitations of predicting effects ...... 19 Plan area statistics ...... 20 SEA Topic methodologies and assumptions ...... 20 SA Objective 1 - Climate Change Mitigation ...... 21 SA Objective 2 - Climate Change Adaptation ...... 22 SA Objective 3 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity ...... 23 SA Objective 4 - Landscape ...... 26 SA Objective 5 – Pollution and Waste ...... 28 SA Objective 6 – Natural Resources ...... 31 SA Objective 7 - Housing ...... 32 SA Objective 8 – Health and Wellbeing ...... 33 SA Objective 9 – Cultural Heritage ...... 35 SA Objective 10 – Transport and Accessibility ...... 37 SA Objective 11 - Education ...... 38 SA Objective 12 – Economy and Employment ...... 39 3 Strategic Locations ...... 41 Chosen Strategy of New or Expanded Settlements ...... 41 Identification of Strategic Locations ...... 42 Sustainability Appraisal findings ...... 45 Identifying the Best Performing Option ...... 55 Selection of Preferred Strategic Locations ...... 56 Preferred options ...... 57 4 Policy Assessments ...... 59 Preface ...... 59 Overview of policy assessments ...... 60 Summary of policy assessments ...... 61 Recommendations ...... 62 5 Site Assessments ...... 67 Preface ...... 67 Overview of site assessments pre-mitigation ...... 70 Overview of site assessments post-mitigation ...... 74
© Lepus Consulting for Malvern Hills District Council i Page 68
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Selection and Rejection ...... 77 6 Next steps ...... 78 Consultation on the Regulation 18 (III) SA Report ...... 78 Responding to the consultation ...... 78
Appendix A SA Framework for the SWDPR
Appendix B Strategic Location Assessments
Appendix C Draft Policy Assessments
Appendix D Additional Reasonable Alternative Site Assessments
Appendix E Reallocated Site Assessments
Appendix F Potential mitigating impact of the draft SWDPR policies
Appendix G Reasons for Selection and Rejection of Reasonable Alternative Sites
Tables
Table 1.1: The SWDPR and Sustainability process so far ...... 11 Table 1.2: The range of policy options considered by the SWCs during the Issues and Options stage ...... 12 Table 2.1: Annex II of the SEA Directive ...... 15 Table 2.2: Impact sensitivity ...... 16 Table 2.3: Impact magnitude ...... 17 Table 2.4: Guide to scoring significant effects ...... 18 Table 2.5: Average people per dwelling in Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon in 2019 ...... 20 Table 3.1: Impact matrix of all strategic location assessments ...... 45 Table 3.2: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 1 ...... 46 Table 3.3: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 2 ...... 47 Table 3.4: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 3 ...... 47 Table 3.5: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 4 ...... 48 Table 3.6: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 5 ...... 49 Table 3.7: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 6 ...... 50 Table 3.8: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 7 ...... 51 Table 3.9: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 8 ...... 51 Table 3.10: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 9 ...... 52 Table 3.11: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 10 ...... 53 Table 3.12: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 11 ...... 54 Table 3.13: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 12 ...... 55 Table 3.14: Overall ranking of each strategic location ...... 56 Table 4.1: The 48 draft SWDPR policies ...... 59 Table 4.2: Impact matrix of the 48 draft SWDPR policies ...... 60 Table 4.3: Recommendations for improvements to the draft SWDPR policies ...... 62 Table 5.1: Site references and addresses ...... 67 Table 5.2: Impact matrix of the 41 additional reasonable alternative sites and 79 reallocated sites pre-mitigation .... 70 Table 5.3: Impact matrix of the 41 additional reasonable alternative sites and 79 reallocated sites post-mitigation .. 74
© Lepus Consulting for Malvern Hills District Council ii Page 69
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx Boxes
Box 2.1: SA Objective 1. Climate Change Mitigation - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 21 Box 2.2: SA Objective 2. Climate Change Adaptation - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 22 Box 2.3: SA Objective 3. Biodiversity and Geodiversity - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 23 Box 2.4: SA Objective 4. Landscape and Townscape - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 26 Box 2.5: SA Objective 5. Pollution and Waste - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 28 Box 2.6: SA Objective 6. Natural Resources: - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 31 Box 2.7: SA Objective 7. Housing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 32 Box 2.8: SA Objective 8. Health and Wellbeing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 33 Box 2.9: SA Objective 9. Cultural Heritage - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 35 Box 2.10: SA Objective 10. Transport and Accessibility- Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 37 Box 2.11: SA Objective 11. Education - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 38 Box 2.12: SA Objective 12. Economy and Employment- Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions ...... 39
Figures
Figure 1.1: Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon District boundaries Integrated approach to SA and SEA ...... 8 Figure 1.2: Sustainability appraisal process ...... 10 Figure 3.1: The nine reasonable alternative strategic locations within South Worcestershire [note to client: map needs updating to include Strensham] ...... 44
© Lepus Consulting for Malvern Hills District Council iii Page 70
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx Acronyms
ALC Agricultural Land Classification AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AQMA Air Quality Management Area BMV Best and most versatile CaBA Catchment Based Approach DBEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EU European Union GI Green Infrastructure GP General Practitioner HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment IRZ Impact Risk Zone LA Local Authority LCT Landscape Character Type LGS Local Geological Site LNR Local Nature Reserve LTP Local Transport Plan LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LWS Local Wildlife Site MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government NHS National Health Service NNR National Nature Reserve
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NPPF National Planning Policy Framework ONS Office of National Statistics
PM10 Particulate Matter (10 micrometres) PPP Policies Plans and Programmes PRoW Public Rights of Way RPG Registered Park and Garden SA Sustainability Appraisal SAC Special Area of Conservation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SM Scheduled Monument SPA Special Protection Area SPZ Source Protection Zone SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest SuDS Sustainable Drainage System SWCs South Worcestershire Councils SWDP South Worcestershire Development Plan SWDPR South Worcestershire Development Plan Review
© Lepus Consulting for Malvern Hills District Council iv Page 71
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx Executive Summary
About this report E1 Lepus Consulting is conducting an appraisal process for South Worcestershire Councils to help them review the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The appraisal process is known as Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and is prepared during a number of different stages to facilitate iteration between the Plan makers (South Worcestershire Councils) and the appraisal team (Lepus Consulting). The process seeks to provide high level environmental protection and the different stages of plan making are mostly accompanied by consultation with statutory bodies, other stakeholders and the public.
E2 SA is the process of informing and influencing the preparation of a Development Plan to optimise its sustainability performance. SA considers the social, economic and environmental performance of the Development Plan.
E3 This report is being published following previous rounds of consultation which appraised spatial options and site allocations to inform the process of identifying, describing and evaluating reasonable alternatives. It includes appraisal information about strategic locations for development, policy assessments and site allocations.
Summary findings E4 This report contains an assessment of nine strategic locations, 48 draft SWDPR policies, 41 additional reasonable alternative potential site allocations and 79 sites that previously featured in the adopted 2016 SWDP. This SA report also sets out the reasons for selecting and rejecting reasonable alternative strategic locations and reasonable alternative site allocations.
E5 Nine strategic locations have been identified by the SWCs which could potentially accommodate approximately 1000 or more dwellings over the Plan period. These nine locations have been assessed and have been ‘ranked’ by SA Objective. Based on this ranking exercise, the best performing strategic location has been identified as Worcestershire Parkway. This is followed by Throckmorton and Mitton, which achieved identical overall ranks. However, there is little difference in ranking between Mitton, Rushwick, Kempsey, Throckmorton and Lower Broadheath. The lowest summed ranks, and as such potentially the least sustainable options, would be Hanley Castle, Hinton on the Green and Strensham.
E6 A total of 48 draft policies have been identified by the SWCs. This includes eight strategic policies and 41 Development Management (DM) policies. The majority of the draft SWDPR policies set out requirements for development proposals which ultimately seek to protect the natural and built environment and ensure there is sufficient social infrastructure to support new residents. This includes ensuring the delivery of an appropriate housing mix, protecting the Cotswolds AONB, managing flood risk, protecting air quality and enhancing community facilities. As these policies seek to protect existing assets or enhance the provision of these features, minor positive impacts have been identified. This SA report also sets out recommendations on how to further develop these policies to maximise benefits on the environment following development.
© Lepus Consulting for Malvern Hills District Council v Page 72
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
E7 This SA report also appraises and additional 41 reasonable alternative sites and 79 reallocated sites which are presently allocated in the adopted SWDP and have potential to be allocated in the SWDPR. The SA has identified a range of positive and adverse potential impacts of the reasonable alternative sites on the objectives within the SA Framework. Some of the adverse impacts identified are associated with the loss of soil, increased carbon emission and reduced access to services. Some of these negative impacts could potentially be mitigated through policy, and the mitigating effects of the draft SWDPR policies upon reasonable alternative site allocations is presented in this SA report.
Next steps E8 This Regulation 18 (III) SA Report is subject to consultation. This report represents the latest stage of the SA process. The SA process will take on-board any comments on this report and use them to furnish the next report with greater detail and accuracy.
© Lepus Consulting for Malvern Hills District Council vi Page 73
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx 1 Introduction
Background
The South Worcestershire Councils (Malvern Hills District, Wychavon District and Worcester City) are in the process of writing the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR). As part of this process, a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is being undertaken that incorporates the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The purpose of SA/SEA is to help guide and influence the SWDPR making process for South Worcestershire Councils (SWCs) by identifying the likely sustainability effects of reasonable alternatives and various options.
This SA/SEA document follows on from the SA Scoping Report (2018)1, the SA Issues and Options Report (2018)2 and the Regulation 18 (II) SA Report (2019)3.
South Worcestershire
South Worcestershire covers roughly 130,000ha with an approximate population of 304,857 according to ONS data for 2017. It stretches across the southern limit of the West Midlands region, bordering the south-west region. The area is predominantly rural, including the districts of Malvern Hills and Wychavon, with the City of Worcester in the centre.
The City of Worcester is the largest settlement within South Worcestershire, with a population of approximately 100,000. Great Malvern, Droitwich Spa and Evesham are the next largest towns within the SWDPR area.
There is a high-quality landscape across South Worcestershire, particularly distinguished by the Cotswolds and Malvern Hills Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
South Worcestershire has good connections through national and regional transport infrastructure, although there are issues with rural accessibility. The area provides approximately 127,000 jobs, of which 65% are within Worcester City and the main towns.
1 Lepus Consulting (2018) Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review, Scoping Report. Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?option=com_fileman&view=file&routed=1&name=LC- 361_SWDP_SA_Scoping_8_030818JE.compressed.pdf&folder=Documents%2FSouth%20Worcestershire%20Development%20Plan%2FSWDP% 20Review%2FEvidence%20Base%2FSA%20and%20HRA&container=fileman-files [Date Accessed: 04/12/20] 2 Lepus Consulting (2018) Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review, Issues and Options Report. Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?option=com_fileman&view=file&routed=1&name=Issues-and-Options-Final-SA- Report.pdf&folder=Documents%2FSouth%20Worcestershire%20Development%20Plan%2FSWDP%20Review%2FEvidence%20Base%2FSA%20 and%20HRA&container=fileman-files [Date Accessed: 04/12/20] 3 Lepus Consulting (2019) Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review, Regulation 18(II) SA Report. Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/?option=com_fileman&view=file&routed=1&name=PO%20LC- 503_SWDPR_SA_Reg18II_7_171019LB.pdf&folder=Documents%2FSouth%20Worcestershire%20Development%20Plan%2FSWDP%20Review%2 FEvidence%20Base%2FSA%20and%20HRA&container=fileman-files [Date Accessed: 04/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 7 Page 74
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The Development Plan Review
The purpose of the SWDPR is to review existing planning policy documents and determine the development needed within the Plan area up until 2041. It will include the overall development strategy in the Plan area, a vision for the future, relevant objectives, site allocations, site-based policies and development management policies. It will also set out policies which will guide the determination of planning applications.
Figure 1.1: Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon District boundaries Integrated approach to SA and SEA The requirements to carry out SA and SEA are distinct, although it is possible to satisfy both obligations using a single appraisal process.
The European Union Directive 2001/42/EC4 (SEA Directive) applies to a wide range of public plans and programmes on land use, energy, waste, agriculture, transport and more (see Article 3(2) of the Directive for other plan or programme types). The objective of the SEA procedure can be summarised as follows: “the objective of this Directive is to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”.
4 SEA Directive. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042&from=EN [Date Accessed: 04/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 8 Page 75
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The SEA Directive has been transposed into English law by The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 20045 (SEA Regulations). Under the requirements of the SEA Directive and SEA Regulations, specific types of plans that set the framework for the future development consent of projects must be subject to an environmental assessment. Therefore, it is a legal requirement for the SWDPR to be subject to SEA throughout its preparation.
SA is a UK-specific procedure used to appraise the impacts and effects of development plans in the UK. It is a legal requirement as specified by S19(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20046 and should be an appraisal of the economic, social and environmental sustainability of development plans. The present statutory requirement for SA lies in The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 20127. SA is a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed plans or programmes to ensure environmental issues are fully integrated and addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision-making.
Public consultation is an important aspect of the integrated SA/SEA process.
Best Practice Guidance
Government policy recommends that both SA and SEA are undertaken under a single sustainability appraisal process, which incorporates the requirements of the SEA Directive. This can be achieved through integrating the requirements of SEA into the SA process. The approach for carrying out an integrated SA and SEA is based on best practice guidance:
• European Commission (2004) Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plan and programmes on the environment8. • Office of Deputy Prime Minister (2005) A Practical Guide to the SEA Directive9. • Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2018) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)10.
5 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1633/contents/made [Date Accessed: 04/12/20] 6 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/contents [Date Accessed: 11/12/20] 7 The Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/contents/made [Date Accessed: 11/12/20] 8 European Commission (2004) Implementation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plan and programmes on the environment. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/pdf/030923_sea_guidance.pdf [Date Accessed: 11/12/20] 9 Office of Deputy Prime Minister (2005) A Practical Guide to the SEA Directive. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7657/practicalguidesea.pdf [Date Accessed: 11/12/20] 10 National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 [Date Accessed: 11/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 9 Page 76
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
• Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2018) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)11. • Royal Town Planning Institute (2018) Strategic Environmental Assessment, Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of SEA/SA for land use plans12.
Sustainability Appraisal
This document is a component of the SA of the SWDPR. It provides an assessment of the likely effects of reasonable alternatives, as per Stage B of Figure 1.2, according to Planning Practice Guidance.
Figure 1.2: Sustainability appraisal process
11 Planning practice guidance. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 12 Royal Town Planning Institute (2018) Strategic Environmental Assessment, Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of SEA/SA for land use plans. Available at: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1822/sea-sapracticeadvicefull2018c.pdf [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 10 Page 77
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The SA process so far
Table 1.1 below presents a timeline of stages of the SWDPR and SA process so far. These presents Stages A and B set out in Figure 1.2. The Councils have gathered information in relation to site availability through numerous ‘Call for Sites’ processes.
Table 1.1: The SWDPR and Sustainability process so far
Date SWDPR Stage Sustainability Appraisal August 2018 SA Scoping Report This report identifies the scope and level of detail to be included in the SA.
October – Issues and Options Consultation Issues and Options SA Report November The Issues and Options is the first This report assesses the SWDPR options for 2018 consultation stage for plan making. It sets housing number, development strategy, out what the SWCs consider to be the main housing distribution, employment issues for the new plan to address, as well as distribution and development management considering whether the current policies. development strategy is still appropriate and which of the policies set out within the adopted SWDP need to be revised. September - Preferred Options Consultation Regulation 18 (II) SA Report December This presents the Council’s preferred options This report contains an assessment of 503 2019 for sites and policies. reasonable alternative sites, which have been separated into 80 clusters. The likely impact of the proposed development at each site has been assessed pre-mitigation and post- mitigation, with the consideration of the draft SWDPR policies. January 2021 Note to client: is anything being published Regulation 18 (III) SA Report from the SWCs alongside this consultation? This report contains an assessment of nine strategic locations, 48 draft SWDPR policies, 41 additional reasonable alternative sites. and 79 reallocated sites. The SA report also sets out the reasons for selecting and rejecting reasonable alternative sites.
Scoping Report
In order to identify the scope and level of detail of the information to be included in the SA process, an SA Scoping Report13 was produced in May 2018. Between June and August 2018, the authorities consulted with Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency and other relevant bodies on the content of the Scoping Report (see section 2.1).
13 Lepus Consulting (2018) Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review: Scoping Report. Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/south-worcestershire-development-plan/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence-base/sustainability-appraisal- and-habitats-regulations-assessment [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 11 Page 78
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Issues and Options
The Issues and Options is the first consultation stage for plan making. It sets out what the SWCs consider to be the main issues for the new plan to address, such as meeting the Government’s new housing requirement and meeting the demand for new employment space, as well as considering whether the current development strategy is still appropriate and which of the policies set out within the adopted SWDP need to be revised.
The Issues and Options SA Report14 assessed options for policies to be included in the SWDPR. These options are set out in Table 1.2 below.
Table 1.2: The range of policy options considered by the SWCs during the Issues and Options stage
Strategy or Policy Number of Options Vison N/A Objectives N/A Housing Number 1 Overall Development Strategy 4 Development Boundaries Review 5 Housing Distribution 6 Neighbourhood Area Housing Numbers 3 Employment Distribution 5 Density 3 Brownfield Land 3 Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land 2 Market Housing Mix 4 Affordable Housing 3 Providing Housing for Older Residents 3 Self and Custom Build Housing 3 Access Standards 2 Residential Space Standards 3 Water Consumption 2 Employment Growth 2 Live/Work Units 4 The Rural Economy 4 Retail Centres 4 Planning for the Future of the High Street 6 Neighbourhood Centres 3 Hotel Accommodation within Worcester City 4 Tourist Accommodation 2 Transport 6 Design 4 Green Infrastructure 2 Biodiversity 4 Green Spaces 2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 2 Health and Well-being 3
14 Lepus Consulting (2018) Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review: Issues and Options Report. Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/south-worcestershire-development-plan/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence-base/sustainability- appraisal-and-habitats-regulations-assessment [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 12 Page 79
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Strategy or Policy Number of Options Telecommunications 2 Flood Risk 4 SuDS 3 Water Quality 4 Energy Requirements in New Developments 6 Stand Alone Renewable Energy 3 Physical Constraints on Development 2
Regulation 18 (II)
The Regulation 18 (II) SA Report15 set out the appraisal of 503 reasonable alternative site allocations considered by the Councils alongside Preferred Options consultation paper.
The Preferred Options Consultation was held between the 4th November to the 16th December 2019. The consultation comments received during this consultation will be taken into account in the next stage of the plan-making process.
Signposting for this report
This Regulation 18 (III) SA Report sets out an assessment of nine strategic locations, the 48 draft SWDPR policies, 41 additional reasonable alternative sites. and 79 reallocated sites. The SA report also sets out the reasons for selecting and rejecting reasonable alternative sites.
The appendices of this report provide essential contextual information to the main body of the report. The contents of this SA Report are listed below:
• Chapter 2 sets out the methodology used to present and assess the findings of the SA process. • Chapter 3 presents a summary of the draft policy assessments. • Chapter 4 sets out an overview and analysis of the assessment of the nine strategic locations. • Chapter 5 presents a summary of the site assessments, including the considering of SWDPR policies as mitigation. • Appendix A presents the SA Framework. • Appendix B presents the assessment of the nine strategic locations. • Appendix C presents the assessment of the draft SWDPR policies. • Appendix D presents the assessment of the 41 additional reasonable alternative sites. • Appendix E presets the assessment of the 79 reallocated sites. • Appendix F details the mitigating impacts of the SWDPR policies. • Appendix G details the reasons for selecting and rejecting the reasonable alternative sites.
15 Lepus Consulting (2019) Sustainability Appraisal of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review, Regulation 18 (II) SA Report. Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/south-worcestershire-development-plan/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence- base/sustainability-appraisal-and-habitats-regulations-assessment [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 13 Page 80
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx 2 Methodology
Scoping stage
The SA scoping report represented Stage A of the SA process (see Figure 1.2), and presents information in relation to:
• Identifying other relevant plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives; • Collecting baseline information; • Identifying sustainability problems and key issues; • Preparing the SA Framework; and • Consultation arrangements on the scope of SA with the consultation bodies. The Scoping report was consulted on with the statutory bodies Natural England, Historic England and the Environment Agency, as well as other relevant parties and the public. Following consultation, the Scoping report was updated in light of the comments received. Each of the reasonable alternatives or options appraised in this report have been assessed for their likely impacts on each SA Objective of the SA Framework. The SA Framework, which is presented in its entirety in Appendix A, is comprised of the following SA Objectives:
• Climate change mitigation: Minimise the Plan area’s contribution to climate change; • Climate change adaptation: Plan for the anticipated impacts of climate change; • Biodiversity and geodiversity: Protect, enhance and manage the biodiversity and geodiversity asses of the Plan area, including flora and fauna; • Landscape: Conserve, enhance and manage the character and appearance of the landscape and townscape, maintaining and strengthening its distinctiveness; • Pollution and waste: Ensure sustainable management of waste whilst minimizing the extent and impacts of water, air and noise pollution; • Natural resources: Protect, enhance and ensure the efficient use of the Plan area’s land, soils and water; • Housing: Provide a range of housing to meet the needs of the community; • Health: Safeguard and improve physical and mental health of residents; • Cultural heritage: Conserve, enhance and manage sites, features and areas of historic and cultural importance; • Transport and accessibility: Improve choice and efficiency of sustainable transport in the Plan area and reduce the need to travel; • Education: Improve education, skills and qualifications in the Plan area; and • Economy and employment: Support a strong, diverse, vibrant and sustainable local economy to foster balanced economic growth.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 14 Page 81
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The SA Framework is comprised of SA Objectives and decision-making criteria. Acting as yardsticks of sustainability performance, the SA Objectives are designed to represent the topics identified in Annex 1(f)16 of the SEA Directive. Including the SEA topics in the SA Objectives helps ensure that all of the environmental criteria of the SEA Directive are represented. Consequently, the SA Objectives reflect all subject areas to ensure the assessment process is transparent, robust and thorough.
It is important to note that the order of SA Objectives in the SA Framework does not infer prioritisation. The SA Objectives are at a strategic level and can potentially be open-ended. In order to focus each objective, decision making criteria are presented in the SA Framework to be used during the appraisal of policies and sites.
Assessment of reasonable alternatives
The purpose of this document is to provide an appraisal of the reasonable alternatives, also known as ‘options’, (those listed in Table 1.1) in line with Article 5 Paragraph 1 of the SEA Directive17:
“Where an environmental assessment is required under Article 3(1), an environmental report shall be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated. The information to be given for this purpose is referred to in Annex I.”
This document also provides information in relation to the likely characteristics of effects, as per the SEA Directive (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: Annex II of the SEA Directive
Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects (Article 3(5) of SEA Directive)
The characteristics of plans and programmes, having regard, in particular, to: • the degree to which the plan or programme sets a framework for projects and other activities, either with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions or by allocating resources; • the degree to which the plan or programme influences other plans and programmes including those in a hierarchy; • the relevance of the plan or programme for the integration of environmental considerations in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development; • environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme; and • the relevance of the plan or programme for the implementation of Community legislation on the environment (e.g. plans and programmes linked to waste management or water protection).
Characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected, having regard, in particular, to: • the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects;
16 Annex 1(f) identifies: ‘the likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors’. 17 EU SEA Directive. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042&from=EN [Date Accessed: 04/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 15 Page 82
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Criteria for determining the likely significance of effects (Article 3(5) of SEA Directive) • the cumulative nature of the effects; • the transboundary nature of the effects; • the risks to human health or the environment (e.g. due to accidents); • the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected); • the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to: o special natural characteristics or cultural heritage; o exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values; o intensive land-use; and • the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, Community or international protection status.
Impact assessment and determination of significance
Significance of effect is a combination of impact sensitivity and magnitude. Impact sensitivity can be expressed in relative terms, based on the principle that the more sensitive the resource, the greater the magnitude of the change, and as compared with the do-nothing comparison, the greater will be the significance of effect.
Impact sensitivity
Impact sensitivity has been measured through consideration as to how the receiving environment will be impacted by a plan proposal. This includes assessment of the value and vulnerability of the receiving environment, whether or not environmental quality standards will be exceeded, and for example, if impacts will affect designated areas or landscapes.
A guide to the range of scales used in determining impact sensitivity is presented in Table 2.2. For most receptors, sensitivity increases with geographic scale.
Table 2.2: Impact sensitivity
Scale Typical criteria
Designations that have an international aspect or consideration of transboundary International/ effects beyond national boundaries. This applies to effects and designations/receptors national that have a national or international dimension.
This includes the regional and sub-regional scale, including county-wide level and Regional regional areas.
Local This is the district and neighbourhood scale.
Impact magnitude
Impact magnitude relates to the degree of change the receptor will experience, including the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact. Impact magnitude has been determined on the basis of the susceptibility of a receptor to the type of change that will arise, as well as the value of the affected receptor (see Table 2.3).
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 16 Page 83
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Table 2.3: Impact magnitude
Impact magnitude Typical criteria
• Likely total loss of or major alteration to the receptor in question; High • Provision of a new receptor/feature; or • The impact is permanent and frequent.
Partial loss/alteration/improvement to one or more key features; or The impact is one of the following: • Frequent and short-term; Medium • Frequent and reversible; • Long-term (and frequent) and reversible; • Long-term and occasional; or • Permanent and occasional.
Minor loss/alteration/improvement to one or more key features of the receptor; or The impact is one of the following: Low • Reversible and short-term; • Reversible and occasional; or • Short-term and occasional.
Significant effects
A single value from Table 2.4 has been allocated to each SA Objective for each reasonable alternative. Justification for the classification of the impact for each SA objective is presented in an accompanying narrative assessment text for all reasonable alternatives that have been assessed through the SA process. The assessment of impacts and subsequent evaluation of significant effects is in accordance with the footnote of Annex 1(f) of the SEA Directive, where feasible, which states:
“These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects”.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 17 Page 84
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Table 2.4: Guide to scoring significant effects
Significance Definition (not necessarily exhaustive)
The size, nature and location of a development proposal would be likely to:
• Permanently degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of a quality receptor, such as a feature of international, national or regional importance; Major Negative • Cause a very high-quality receptor to be permanently diminished;
-- • Be unable to be entirely mitigated;
• Be discordant with the existing setting; and/or
• Contribute to a cumulative significant effect.
Minor The size, nature and location of development proposals would be likely to: Negative • Not quite fit into the existing location or with existing receptor qualities; and/or
- • Affect undesignated yet recognised local receptors.
Negligible Either no impacts are anticipated, or any impacts are anticipated to be negligible. 0
Uncertain It is entirely uncertain whether impacts would be positive or adverse. +/-
The size, nature and location of a development proposal would be likely to:
Minor Positive • Improve undesignated yet recognised receptor qualities at the local scale;
+ • Fit into, or with, the existing location and existing receptor qualities; and/or
• Enable the restoration of valued characteristic features.
The size, nature and location of a development proposal would be likely to:
• Enhance and redefine the location in a positive manner, making a contribution at a Major Positive national or international scale;
++ • Restore valued receptors which were degraded through previous uses; and/or
• Improve one or more key elements/features/characteristics of a receptor with recognised quality such as a specific international, national or regional designation.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 18 Page 85
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
When selecting a single value to best represent the sustainability performance, and to understand the significance of effects of a spatial option in terms of the relevant SA Objective, the precautionary principle18 has been used. This is a worst-case scenario approach. If a positive effect is identified in relation to one criterion within the SA Framework (see the second column of the SA Framework in Appendix A) and a negative effect is identified in relation to another criterion within the same SA Objective, the overall impact has been assigned as negative for that objective. It is therefore essential to appreciate that the impacts are indicative summarily and that the accompanying assessment text provides a fuller explanation of the sustainability performance of the spatial option.
The assessment considers, on a strategic basis, the degree to which a location can accommodate change without adverse effects on valued or important receptors (identified in the baseline).
Significance of effect has been categorised as minor or major. Table 2.4 sets out the significance matrix and explains the terms used. The nature of the significant effect can be either positive or negative depending on the type of development and the design and mitigation measures proposed.
Each reasonable alternative spatial option that has been identified in this report has been assessed for its likely significant impact against each SA Objective in the SA Framework, as per Table 2.4. Likely impacts are not intended to be summed.
It is important to note that the assessment scores presented in Table 2.4 are high level indicators. The assessment narrative text should always read alongside the significance scores. Topic specific methods and assumptions in Boxes 2.1 to 2.12 offer further insight into how each significant effect score was arrived at.
Limitations of predicting effects
SA/SEA is a tool for predicting potential significant effects. Predicting effects relies on an evidence-based approach and incorporates expert judgement. It is often not possible to state with absolute certainty whether effects will occur, as many impacts are influenced by a range of factors such as the design and the success of mitigation measures.
The assessments in this report are based on the best available information, including that provided to us by the SWCs and information that is publicly available. Every attempt has been made to predict effects as accurately as possible.
18 The European Commission describes the precautionary principle as follows: “If a preliminary scientific evaluation shows that there are reasonable grounds for concern that a particular activity might lead to damaging effects on the environment, or on human, animal or plant health, which would be inconsistent with protection normally afforded to these within the European Community, the Precautionary Principle is triggered”.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 19 Page 86
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA operates at a strategic level which uses available secondary data for the relevant SA Objective. All reasonable alternatives and preferred options are assessed in the same way using the same method. Sometimes, in the absence of more detailed information, forecasting the potential impacts of development can require making reasonable assumptions based on the best available data and trends. However, all options must be assessed in the same way and any introduction of site-based detail should be made clear in the SA report as the new data could potentially introduce bias and skew the findings of the assessment process.
The assessment of development proposals is limited in terms of available data resources. For example, up to date ecological surveys and/or landscape and visual impact assessments have not been available.
All data used is secondary data obtained from SWC or freely available on the Internet.
Plan area statistics
To calculate some of the likely adverse impacts of the proposed development, an average people per dwelling needed to be calculated for each of the three districts. Table 2.5 below shows the estimated population size and dwelling stock of each district, was used to calculate the average people per dwelling. All data used was accurate and up to date at the time of assessment.
Table 2.5: Average people per dwelling in Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon in 2019
Estimated Population District Dwelling Stock20 People per Dwelling Size19
Malvern Hills 78,113 35,680 2.19
Worcester 101,891 45,800 2.22
Wychavon 127,340 57,100 2.23
SEA Topic methodologies and assumptions
A number of topic specific methodologies and assumptions have been applied to the appraisal process for specific SA Objectives (see Boxes 2.1 to 2.12). These should be borne in mind when considering the assessment findings.
19 Office of National Statistics (2019) Estimates of the population for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforuken glandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland [Date Accessed: 17/06/20] 20 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) Number of dwellings by tenure and district, England. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants [Date Accessed: 17/06/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 20 Page 87
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 1 - Climate Change Mitigation
Box 2.1: SA Objective 1. Climate Change Mitigation - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
Carbon Emissions 1. Climate Change Mitigation: Minimise SW’s Development proposals which would be likely to increase greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to emissions in the local area would make it more difficult for the SWCs to reduce the Plan climate change. area’s contribution towards the causes of climate change. Worcester City Council declared a climate emergency in July 2019 and have committed to take action in helping the city become carbon neutral by 203021. The Draft Environmental Sustainability Strategy for Worcester22 indicates that collaborative work across all sectors will need to be undertaken to tackle emissions and ensure that the Council can deliver on its pledges. This includes the de-carbonisation of transport (e.g. widespread adoption of electric vehicles), energy efficient homes and businesses, and renewable energy schemes.
The incorporation of GI within developments presents several opportunities to mitigate climate change, for example, through providing natural cooling to combat the ‘urban heat island’ effect, reducing the effects of air pollution and providing more pleasant outdoor environments to encourage active travel23 24.
However, it is assumed that development on previously undeveloped or greenfield land would result in an increase in GHG emissions due to the increase in the local population and the number of operating businesses and occupied homes.
The increase in GHG emissions caused by new developments is associated with impacts of the construction phase, the occupation and operation of homes and businesses, oil, gas and coal consumption and increases in local road transport with associated emissions. This impact is considered to be permanent and non-reversible.
25 The total CO2 emissions estimate for each district in 2017 was :
• Malvern Hills – 495,200 tonnes
• Worcester – 358,700 tonnes
• Wychavon – 1,020,800 tonnes
21 Worcester City Council (2020) Draft Environmental Sustainability Strategy for the City of Worcester 2020-2030. Available at : http://committee.worcester.gov.uk/documents/s46914/Environmental%20Sustainability%20Strategy%20v0.6.pdf [Date Accessed: 17/06/20] 22 Ibid 23 TCPA (2007) The essential role of green infrastructure: eco-towns green infrastructure worksheet. Available at: https://www.tcpa.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=dd06b21d-6d41-4c4e-bec5-4f29a192f0c6 [Date Accessed: 07/04/20] 24 Worcestershire County Council (2014) Green Infrastructure Framework 4: Socio-economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/downloads/download/707/worcestershire_green_infrastructure_framework_documents [Date Accessed: 25/06/20] 25 DBEIS (2019) UK local authority and regional carbon dioxide emissions national statistics: 2005-2017. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-local-authority-and-regional-carbon-dioxide-emissions-national-statistics-2005-to-2017 [Date Accessed: 17/06/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 21 Page 88
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.1: SA Objective 1. Climate Change Mitigation - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions The carbon footprint per person per year for each district was26:
• Malvern Hills - 6.4 tonnes
• Worcester – 3.5 tonnes
• Wychavon – 8.1 tonnes
As a general rule, it is considered that development proposals which could potentially increase the Plan area’s carbon emissions by 1% or more in comparison to the 2017 estimate would be expected to have a major negative impact for this objective. Development proposals which may be likely to increase the Plan area’s carbon emissions by 0.1% or more in comparison to the 2017 estimate would be expected to have a minor negative impact for this objective. For the purpose of this report, this threshold has been deduced from available guidance27.
As carbon emissions have been calculated per person per dwelling, sites proposed for employment or non-residential end use have not been included in this assessment.
Sites that are proposed for development which would result in a less than 0.1% increase in carbon emissions in comparison to the 2017 estimate, or are proposed for other end uses, would be expected to have a negligible impact on carbon emissions across the Plan area.
Development proposals which include the provision or use of renewable energy would be likely to have a more positive impact on climate change mitigation.
SA Objective 2 - Climate Change Adaptation
Box 2.2: SA Objective 2. Climate Change Adaptation - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
Fluvial Flooding 2. Climate Change Adaptation: Plan for the anticipated The level of fluvial flood risk present across the Plan area is based on the Environment impacts of climate Agency’s flood risk data28, such that: change. • Flood Zone 3: 1% - 3.3+% chance of flooding each year;
• Flood Zone 2: 0.1% - 1% chance of flooding each year; and
• Flood Zone 1: Less than 0.1% chance of flooding each year.
It is assumed that development proposals will be in perpetuity and it is therefore likely that development will be subject to the impacts of flooding at some point in the future, should it be situated on land at risk of fluvial flooding.
26 Ibid 27 DTA Publications (2017) The Habitats Regulations Assessment Journal: Air Pollution. 28 Environment Agency (2013) Flood Map for Planning Risk. Available at: http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/cy/151263.aspx [Date Accessed: 17/06/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 22 Page 89
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.2: SA Objective 2. Climate Change Adaptation - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Where development proposals coincide with Flood Zone 2, a minor negative impact would be expected. Where development proposals coincide with Flood Zone 3 (either Flood Zone 3a or 3b), a major negative impact would be expected.
Where development proposals are located within Flood Zone 1, a minor positive impact would be expected for climate change adaptation.
The potential for negative impacts to occur as a result of the proposed strategic locations coinciding with Flood Zones 2 or 3 have been considered relative to the size of the strategic location, taking into account the potential for development to be located in Flood Zone 1.
Pluvial Flooding
Areas determined to be at high risk of pluvial flooding have more than a 3.3% chance of flooding each year, medium risk between 1% and 3.3%, and low-risk between 0.1% and 1% chance.
Development proposals located in areas at low and medium risk of surface water flooding would be expected to have a minor negative impact on pluvial flooding. Development proposals located within areas at high risk of surface water flooding would be expected to have a major negative impact on pluvial flooding.
The potential for negative impacts to occur as a result of strategic locations coinciding with areas at surface water flood risk has been considered relative to the total area of the strategic location.
Where development proposals are not located in areas determined to be at risk of pluvial flooding, a negligible impact would be expected for climate change adaptation.
It is assumed that development proposals will be in perpetuity and it is therefore likely that development would be subject to the impacts of flooding at some point in the future, should it be situated on land at risk of surface water flooding.
SA Objective 3 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Box 2.3: SA Objective 3. Biodiversity and Geodiversity - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions The biodiversity objective considers adverse impacts of the proposed development at a 3. Biodiversity and Geodiversity: landscape-scale. It focuses on an assessment of proposed development on a network of Protect, enhance designated and undesignated sites, wildlife corridors and individual habitats within the and manage the flora, fauna, Plan area. Receptors include the following: biodiversity and geodiversity assets Designated Sites: of SW. • Natura 2000 sites; (Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar sites).
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 23 Page 90
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.3: SA Objective 3. Biodiversity and Geodiversity - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions • Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
• National Nature Reserves (NNR).
• Local Nature Reserves (LNR).
• Local Wildlife Sites (LWS).
• Local Geological Sites (LGS).
Habitats and Species:
• Ancient woodland.
• Priority habitats.
• Road Verge Nature Reserves (RVNR).
The area within which development has the potential to have a direct/ indirect adverse impact on the integrity of a European site (SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites) is referred to as the buffer zone. For the purposes of this report, a 5km buffer zone has been used to consider pressures and threats on European sites as a result of the development proposed. Research suggests that this is the ‘zone’ in which public access/ disturbance threats and pressures are likely to be exacerbated at European sites as a result of development.
Where a site is coincident with, adjacent to or located in close proximity of an ecological receptor, it is assumed that negative effects associated with development will arise to some extent. These negative effects include those that occur during the construction phase and are associated with the construction process and construction vehicles (e.g. habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation, noise, air, water and light pollution) and those that are associated with the operation/occupation phases of development (e.g. public access associated disturbances, increases in local congestion resulting in a reduction in air quality, changes in noise levels, visual disturbance, light pollution, impacts on water levels and quality etc.).
Negative impacts would be expected where the following ecological designations may be harmed or lost as a result of proposals: SPAs, SACs, Ramsar sites, SSSIs, ancient woodlands, NNRs, LNRs and LWSs as well as priority habitats29 protected under the 2006 NERC Act30. The assessment is largely based on a consideration of the proximity of a site to these ecological receptors.
For the purposes of this assessment, impacts on priority habitats have been considered in the context of Natural England’s publicly available Priority Habitat Inventory database31. It is acknowledged this may not reflect current local site conditions in all instances.
29 Source Natural England Priority Habitat Inventory April 2012 30 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents [Date Accessed; 17/06/20] 31 Natural England (2020) Priority Habitat Inventory (England). Available at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/4b6ddab7-6c0f-4407-946e- d6499f19fcde/priority-habitat-inventory-england [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 24 Page 91
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.3: SA Objective 3. Biodiversity and Geodiversity - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions It is assumed that construction and occupation of previously undeveloped greenfield land would result in a net reduction in vegetation cover in the Plan area. This would also be expected to lead to greater levels of fragmentation and isolation for the wider ecological network, such as due to the loss of stepping stones and corridors. This will restrict the ability of ecological receptors to adapt to the effects of climate change. The loss of greenfield land is considered under the Natural Resources objective (SA Objective 6) in this assessment.
It should be noted that no detailed ecological surveys have been completed by Lepus to inform the assessments made in this report.
Protected species survey information is not available for the sites within the Plan area. It is acknowledged that data is available from the local biological records centre. However, it is noted that this data may be under recorded in certain areas. This under recording does not imply species absence. As a consequence, consideration of this data on a site-by-site basis within this assessment would have the potential to skew results – favouring well recorded areas of the Plan area. As such impacts on protected species have not been assessed on a site-by-site basis.
It is anticipated that the SWCs will require detailed ecological surveys and assessments to accompany future planning applications. Such surveys will determine on a site by site basis the presence of Priority Species and Priority Habitats protected under the NERC Act.
It is assumed that mature trees and hedgerows will be retained where possible.
Natural England has developed Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for each SSSI unit in the country. IRZs are a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool which allow a rapid initial assessment of the potential risks posed by development proposals to: SSSIs, SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites. They define zones around each site which reflect the particular sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and indicate the types of development proposal which could potentially have adverse impacts32. Where a site falls within more than one SSSI IRZ the worst-case risk zone is reported upon in the assessment. The IRZ attribute data draws a distinction between rural and non-rural development. For the purposes of this assessment non-rural sites are considered to be those that are located within an existing built-up area. Sites at greenfield locations at the edge of a settlement or those that are more rural in nature have been considered to be rural.
Where development proposals coincide with a Natura 2000 site, a SSSI, NNR, LNR, LWS or ancient woodland, or are adjacent to a Natura 2000 site, SSSI or NNR, it is assumed that development would have a permanent and irreversible impact on these nationally important biodiversity assets, and a major negative impact would be expected.
32 Natural England (2020) Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones for Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Available at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/5ae2af0c-1363-4d40-9d1a-e5a1381449f8/sssi-impact-risk-zones [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 25 Page 92
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.3: SA Objective 3. Biodiversity and Geodiversity - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Where development proposals coincide with priority habitats, are adjacent to an ancient woodland, LNR or LWS, are located within a SSSI IRZ which states to “consult Natural England” or are located in close proximity to a Natura 2000 site, SSSI, NNR, LNR or stand of ancient woodland, a minor negative impact would be expected.
Where a site proposal would not be anticipated to impact a biodiversity asset, a negligible impact would be expected for this objective.
SA Objective 4 - Landscape
Box 2.4: SA Objective 4. Landscape and Townscape - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Impacts on landscape will be largely determined by the specific layout and design of 4. Landscape and Townscape: development proposals, as well as the site-specific landscape circumstances, as Conserve, enhance experienced on the ground. Detailed proposals for each site are uncertain at this stage of and manage the character and the assessment. Furthermore, this assessment comprises a desk-based exercise which has appearance of the not been verified in the field. Therefore, the nature of the potential impacts on the landscape and landscape are, to an extent, uncertain. However, there is a risk of negative effects townscape, maintaining and occurring, some of which may be unavoidable. As such, this risk has been reflected in the strengthening their assessment as a negative impact where a site is located in close proximity to sensitive distinctiveness. landscape receptors. The level of impact has been assessed based on the nature and value of, and proximity to, the landscape receptor in question.
Where a site proposal would not be anticipated to impact a designated or local landscape, a negligible impact would be expected for this objective.
The Malvern Hills and Cotswolds AONBs
The Malvern Hills AONB and Cotswolds AONB are both nationally designated landscapes. The Malvern Hills AONB is partially located within Malvern Hills District to the west. A section of the Cotswolds AONB is located within Wychavon District to the south.
Objective LO1 of the Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019 – 202433 aims to “conserve and enhance the distinctive landscapes of the AONB and its setting, particularly those that are most sensitive or have little capacity for change”.
The main purposes of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2018 – 202334 are to “conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds AONB [and to] increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Cotswolds AONB”.
33 Malvern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019 – 2024. Available at: https://www.malvernhillsaonb.org.uk/managing-the-aonb/management-plan/ [Date Accessed: 17/06/20] 34 Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2018 – 2023. Available at: https://www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/planning/cotswolds-aonb-management-plan/ [Date Accessed: 17/06/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 26 Page 93
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.4: SA Objective 4. Landscape and Townscape - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Development proposals which are coincident with or are located adjacent to one of these AONB’s would be likely to alter the character of the nationally designated landscape to some extent and therefore, a major negative impact would be expected. Development proposals located in close proximity to, and that could potentially be visible from, one of these AONB’s could potentially alter the setting of the nationally designated landscape and a minor negative impact would be expected.
Discordant with LCA:
Baseline data on Landscape Description Units (LDUs) within the Plan area are derived from the Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Guidance35. Key characteristics of each LDU have informed the appraisal of each site proposal against the landscape objective. Given that the detailed nature of the landscape in relation to each site is unknown, the assessment of impact is based on the overall landscape character guidelines and key characteristics. Development proposals which are considered to be potentially discordant with the guidelines and characteristics provided in the published Landscape Character Assessment would be expected to have a minor negative impact on the landscape objective. Development proposals located within areas classed as ‘urban’ within the Landscape Character Assessment, and therefore comprise built-up areas, have been excluded from this assessment.
A drive-over of the Plan area was carried out in July 2019 to inform landscape assessments in terms of the lay of the land.
Country Parks:
Development proposals which coincide with Worcester Woods Country Park have the potential to result in irreversible adverse impacts on this Country Park and therefore would be expected to have a major negative impact on the landscape objective.
Development proposals which are located adjacent or in close proximity to this Country Park, and therefore could potentially adversely affect views from Country Parks, would be expected to have a minor negative impact on the landscape objective.
Views:
Development proposals which may alter views of a predominantly rural or countryside landscape experienced by users of the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network and/ or local residents would be expected to have a minor negative impact on the landscape objective.
In order to consider potential visual effects of development, it has been assumed that the proposals would broadly reflect the character of nearby development of the same type.
35 Worcestershire County Council (2012) Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Guidance. Available at: h http://gis.worcestershire.gov.uk/website/LandscapeCharacter/Documents/lca%20sg.pdf [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 27 Page 94
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.4: SA Objective 4. Landscape and Townscape - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Potential views from residential properties are identified through reference to aerial mapping and the use of Google Maps36.
It is anticipated that the SWCs will require developers to undertake Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs) to accompany any future proposals, where relevant. The LVIAs should seek to provide greater detail in relation to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings, the views available towards the site, the character of those views and the sensitivity and value of the relevant landscape and visual receptors.
Urban Sprawl/ Coalescence:
Development proposals which are considered to increase the risk of future development spreading further into the wider landscape would be expected to have a minor negative impact on the landscape objective.
Development proposals which are considered to reduce the separation between existing settlements and increase the risk of the coalescence of settlements would be expected to have a potential minor negative impact on the landscape objective.
SA Objective 5 – Pollution and Waste
Box 2.5: SA Objective 5. Pollution and Waste - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
Air, Noise and Light Pollution: 5. Pollution and Waste: Reduce waste generation, Exposure of new residents to air pollution has been considered in the context of the increase the reuse development proposal location in relation to established Air Quality Management Areas and recycling of materials whilst (AQMAs) and main roads. It is widely accepted that the effects of air pollution from road minimizing the transport decreases with distance from the source of pollution i.e. the road carriageway. extent and impacts The Department for Transport (DfT) in their Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) consider of water, air and noise pollution. that, “beyond 200m, the contribution of vehicle emissions from the roadside to local pollution levels is not significant”37. This statement is supported by Highways England and Natural England based on evidence presented in a number of research papers38 39. A buffer distance of 200m has therefore been applied in this assessment.
It is assumed that development would result in an increase in traffic and thus traffic generated air pollution. Both existing and future site users would be exposed to this
36 Google Maps (no date) Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 37 Department for Transport (2019) TAG unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag-unit-a3-environmental-impact-appraisal-december-2015 [Date Accessed; 14/12/20] 38 Bignal, K., Ashmore, M & Power, S. 2004. The ecological effects of diffuse air pollution from road transport. English Nature Research Report No. 580, Peterborough. 39 Ricardo-AEA, 2016. The ecological effects of air pollution from road transport: an updated review. Natural England Commissioned Report No. 199.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 28 Page 95
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.5: SA Objective 5. Pollution and Waste - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
change in air quality. Residential sites proposed for the development of between ten and 99 dwellings would therefore be expected to have a minor negative impact on local air pollution40. Residential sites proposed for the development of 100 dwellings or more would be expected to have a major negative impact. Employment sites which propose the development of between 1ha and 9.9ha of employment space would be expected to have a minor negative impact and sites which propose 10ha or more would be expected to have a major negative impact.
Where a site is proposed for the development of nine dwellings or less, or for 0.99ha of employment floorspace or less, a negligible impact on local air quality would be anticipated.
The proximity of a site in relation to a main road determines the exposure level of site end users to road related air and noise emissions41. In line with the DMRB guidance, it is assumed that site end users would be most vulnerable to these impacts within 200m of a main road. This distance has therefore been applied throughout this assessment to both existing road and rail sources.
Development proposals located within 200m of a main road would be expected to have a minor negative impact on site end users’ exposure to air and/ or noise pollution. Development proposals located over 200m from a main road would be expected to have a negligible impact on site end users’ exposure to noise and vibration pollution.
Development proposals located within 200m of a railway line would be expected to have a minor negative impact on site end users’ exposure to noise pollution and vibrations. Development proposals located over 200m from a railway line would be expected to have a negligible impact on site end users’ exposure to noise pollution and vibrations.
Groundwater:
The vulnerability of groundwater to pollution is determined by the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil and rocks, which control the ease with which an unprotected hazard can affect groundwater. Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) indicate the risk to groundwater supplies from potentially polluting activities and accidental releases of pollutants. As such, any site that is located within a groundwater SPZ could potentially have an adverse impact on groundwater quality.
Development proposals located within the total catchment (Zone III), outer zone (Zone II) or inner zone (Zone I) of an SPZ would be likely to have a minor negative impact on groundwater quality.
40 Institute of Air Quality Management (2017) Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning for Air Quality. Paragraph 5.8. 41 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11: Environmental Assessment, Section 3: Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 1: Air Quality, Annex D2: Road Type. Available at: http://www.semmms.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Design-Manual-for-Roads-and-Bridges- Volume-11-Section-3-Part-1.-PDF-981Kb.pdf [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 29 Page 96
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.5: SA Objective 5. Pollution and Waste - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
Watercourses:
Construction activities in or near watercourses have the potential to cause pollution, impact upon the bed and banks of watercourses and impact on the quality of the water42. An approximate 10m buffer zone from a watercourse should be used in which no works, clearance, storage or run-off should be permitted43. However, it is considered that development further away than this has the potential to lead to adverse impacts such as those resulting from runoff. In this assessment, a 200m buffer zone was deemed appropriate.
Development proposals located within 200m of a watercourse would be expected to have a minor negative impact on local water quality.
Waste:
For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that new residents in South Worcestershire will have an annual waste production of 409.3kg per person, in line with the England average44.
Between 2018 and 2019, the total waste collected by each local authority was45:
• Malvern Hills – 255,502 tonnes
• Worcester – 34,205 tonnes
• Wychavon – 49,986 tonnes
A minor negative impact would be expected for development proposals which would be likely to increase household waste generation by between 0.1% and 0.99% in comparison to 2019 levels. A major negative impact would be expected for development proposals which would be likely to increase household waste generation by 1% or more in comparison to 2019 levels.
As waste generation has been calculated per person per household, development proposed for employment or non-residential end use have not been included in this assessment.
42 World Health Organisation (1996) Water Quality Monitoring - A Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Freshwater Quality Studies and Monitoring Programmes: Chapter 2 – Water Quality. Available at: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/wqmchap2.pdf [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 43 Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (no date) Advice and Information for planning approval on land which is of nature conservation value. Available at: https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/advice-and-information-planning-approval-land-which-nature- conservation-value [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 44 Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (2020) Local authority collected waste generation from April 2000 to March 2019 (England and regions) and local authority data April 2018 to March 2019. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local- authority-collected-waste-annual-results-tables [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 45 Ibid
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 30 Page 97
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 6 – Natural Resources
Box 2.6: SA Objective 6. Natural Resources: - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
6. Natural Previously Developed Land: Resources: Protect, enhance In accordance with the core planning principles of the NPPF46, development on previously and ensure the developed land is recognised as an efficient use of land. Development of previously efficient use of SW’s land, soils undeveloped land and greenfield sites is not considered to be an efficient use of land. and water. Development of an existing brownfield site would be expected to contribute positively to safeguarding greenfield land in South Worcestershire, and therefore, have a minor positive impact on this objective.
Development proposals situated on previously undeveloped land would be expected to pose a threat to soil within the site perimeter due to excavation, compaction, erosion and an increased risk of pollution and contamination during construction.
In addition, development proposals which would result in the loss of greenfield land would be expected to contribute towards a cumulative loss of ecological habitat. This would be expected to lead to greater levels of habitat fragmentation and isolation for the local ecological network restricting the ability of ecological receptors to adapt to the effects of climate change. The loss of greenfield land has therefore been considered to have an adverse effect under this objective.
For the purpose of this report, a 20ha threshold has been used based on available guidance47.
Development proposals which would result in the loss of less than 20ha of greenfield land would be expected to have a minor negative impact on this objective. Development proposals which would result in the loss of 20ha or more of greenfield land would be expected to have a major negative impact on this objective.
Agricultural Land Classification:
The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into five categories according to versatility and suitability for growing crops. The top three grades, Grades 1, 2 and 3a, are referred to as the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land48. In the absence of site- specific surveys to identify Grades 3a and 3b, and in line with the precautionary principle, ALC Grade 3 is considered as BMV land.
46 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) National Planning Policy Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 47 Natural England (2009) Agricultural Land Classification: protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land. Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/35012 [Date Accessed: 23/03/20] 48 Natural England (1988) Agricultural Land Classification of England And Wales: Revised criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land. Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6257050620264448?category=5954148537204736 [Date Accessed: 23/03/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 31 Page 98
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.6: SA Objective 6. Natural Resources: - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Adverse impacts are expected for development proposals which would result in a net loss of agriculturally valuable soils. Development proposals which are situated on Grade 1, 2 or 3 ALC land, and would therefore risk the loss of some of the Plan area’s BMV land, would be expected to have a minor negative impact for this objective.
Development proposals which are situated on Grade 4 and 5 ALC land, or land classified as ‘urban’ or ‘non-agricultural’ and would therefore help prevent the loss of the Plan area’s BMV land, would be expected to have a minor positive impact for this objective.
Water Consumption:
It is assumed that development proposals will be in accordance with the national mandatory water efficiency standard of 125 litres per person per day, as set out in the Building Regulations 201049.
It is assumed that all housing proposals in the SWDPR will be subject to appropriate approvals and licensing for sustainable water supply from the Environment Agency.
Minerals:
Minerals are a finite, non-renewable resource and as such, their conservation and safeguarding for future generations is important. Nationally and locally important mineral resources are identified in Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA)50.
Where a strategic location coincides with an identified MSA, there is potential for sterilisation of the mineral resource as a result of the proposed development, meaning the minerals will be inaccessible for potential extraction in the future. This would therefore result in an adverse impact under the natural resources SA objective.
SA Objective 7 - Housing
Box 2.7: SA Objective 7. Housing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions The SWC’s have prepared evidence documents in relation to the housing needs in South 7. Housing: Provide a range of Worcestershire over the Plan period. This includes a Strategic Housing Market Assessment housing to meet (SHMA)51 and Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment the needs of the community.
49 The Building Regulations 2010. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/contents/made [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 50 Worcestershire County Council (2019) Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/info/20657/emerging_minerals_local_plan_consultation_stages [Date Accessed: 21/07/20] 51 South Worcestershire Council (2018) Strategic Housing Markey Assessment (SHMA). Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/south- worcestershire-development-plan/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence-base/strategic-housing-market-assessment [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 32 Page 99
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.7: SA Objective 7. Housing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions (SHELAA)52. Options are assessed for the extent to which they will help to meet the diverse needs of current and future residents of the Plan area.
When striving for sustainable development, housing density should be considered carefully. High population densities can limit the accessibility of local key services and facilities such as hospitals, supermarkets and open spaces, including playgrounds and sports fields. High population densities also influence perceptions of safety, social interactions and community stability53.
Development proposals which would result in an increase of 99 dwellings or less would be likely to have a minor positive impact on the local housing provision. Development proposals which would result in an increase of 100 dwellings or more would be likely to have a major positive impact on the local housing provision.
Unless otherwise stated, it is assumed development options will provide a good mix of housing type and tenure opportunities.
Development proposals which would be expected to result in a net loss of housing across the Plan area would be expected to have an adverse impact on SWCs’ ability to meet the required housing demand.
Development proposals which would result in the loss of nine dwellings or less would be likely to have a minor negative impact on local housing provision. Development proposals which would result in the loss of ten dwellings or more would be likely to have a major negative impact on the local housing provision.
Development proposals which would result in no net change in dwellings would be expected to have a negligible impact on the local housing provision.
SA Objective 8 – Health and Wellbeing
Box 2.8: SA Objective 8. Health and Wellbeing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Public Greenspace/ PRoW or Cycle Network: 8. Health and Wellbeing: Safeguard and New development sites have been assessed in terms of their access to the local PRoW improve the networks and public greenspace. In line with Barton et al.54, a sustainable distance of physical and mental health of 600m has been used for the assessments. Sites that are located within 600m of a PRoW/ residents. cycle path or a public greenspace would be expected to have a minor positive impact on
52 South Worcestershire Councils (2018) Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA). Available at: https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/south-worcestershire-development-plan/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence-base/strategic-housing-and- employment-land-availability-assessment [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 53 Dempsey. N., Brown. C. and Bramley. G. (2012) The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progress in Planning 77:89-141 54 Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 33 Page 100
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.8: SA Objective 8. Health and Wellbeing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions site end users’ access to a diverse range of natural habitats. Development proposals located over 600m from a PRoW/ cycle path or a public greenspace could potentially have a minor negative impact on site end users’ access to natural habitats, and therefore have an adverse impact on the physical and mental health of local residents.
Air Quality:
It is assumed that sites located in close proximity to main roads would expose site end users to transport associated noise and air pollution. In line with the DMRB guidance, it is assumed that receptors would be most vulnerable to these impacts located within 200m of a main road55. Negative impacts on the long-term health of site end users would be anticipated where residents would be exposed to air pollution.
Development proposals located within 200m of a main road would be expected to have a minor negative impact on site end users’ exposure to air pollution. Development proposals located over 200m from a main road would be expected to have a minor positive impact on site end users’ exposure to air pollution.
Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) are considered to be an area where the national air quality objective will not be met.
Development proposals which would locate site end users within 200m of an AQMA would be expected to have a moderate negative impact on human health. Development proposals which would locate site end users over 200m from an AQMA would be expected to have a minor positive impact on human health.
Health Facilities:
In order to facilitate healthy and active lifestyles for existing and new residents, it is expected that the SWDPR should seek to ensure that residents have access to NHS hospitals, GP surgeries, leisure centres and a diverse range of accessible natural habitats and the surrounding PRoW network. Sustainable distances to each of these necessary services are derived from Barton et al.56.
Adverse impacts are anticipated where the proposed development would not be expected to facilitate active and healthy lifestyles for current or future residents.
For the purposes of this assessment, accessibility to a hospital has been taken as proximity to an NHS hospital with an A&E service. Distances of sites to other NHS facilities (e.g. community hospitals and treatment centres) or private hospitals has not been taken into consideration in this assessment. There is one NHS hospital with an A&E department
55 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11: Environmental Assessment, Section 3: Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 1: Air Quality, Annex D2: Road Type. Available at: http://www.semmms.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Design-Manual-for-Roads-and-Bridges- Volume-11-Section-3-Part-1.-PDF-981Kb.pdf [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 56 Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 34 Page 101
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.8: SA Objective 8. Health and Wellbeing - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions within the Plan area; Worcestershire Royal Hospital located in Worcester to the east. The Alexandra Hospital is located in Redditch, approximately 3.5km north east of the Plan area.
Development proposals located within 5km of one of these hospitals would be expected to have a minor positive impact on site end users’ access to emergency health services. Development proposals located over 5km from these hospitals would be likely to have a minor negative impact on site end users’ access to emergency health care.
There are numerous GP surgeries located across the Plan area. Development proposals located within 800m of a GP surgery would be expected to have a minor positive impact on site end users’ access to this essential health service. Development proposal located over 800m from a GP surgery would be likely to have a minor negative impact on site end users’ access to essential health care.
Access to leisure centres can provide local residents with opportunities to facilitate healthy lifestyles through exercise. Development proposals located within 1.5km of a leisure centre would be expected to have a minor positive impact on site end users’ access to these facilities. Development proposal located over 1.5km from a leisure centre would be likely to have a minor negative impact on site end users’ access to these facilities.
SA Objective 9 – Cultural Heritage
Box 2.9: SA Objective 9. Cultural Heritage - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Impacts on heritage assets will be largely determined by the specific layout and design of 9. Cultural Heritage: development proposals, as well as the nature and significance of the heritage asset. There Conserve, enhance is a risk of adverse effects occurring, some of which may be unavoidable. As such, this risk and manage sites, features and areas has been reflected in the assessment as a negative impact where a site is in close proximity of historic and to heritage assets. cultural importance. Adverse impacts are recorded for options which have the potential to have an adverse impact on sensitive heritage designations, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments (SM), Registered Parks and Gardens (RPG), and Conservation Areas.
It is assumed that where a designated heritage asset coincides with a site proposal, the heritage asset will not be lost as a result of development (unless otherwise specified in the SWDPR). Adverse impacts on heritage assets are predominantly associated with impacts on the existing setting of the asset and the character of the local area, as well as adverse impacts on views of, or from, the asset.
Setting:
Development which could potentially be discordant with the local character or setting, for example, due to design, layout, scale or type, would be expected to adversely impact the setting of nearby heritage assets that are important components of the local area. Views
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 35 Page 102
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.9: SA Objective 9. Cultural Heritage - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions of, or from, the heritage asset are considered as part of the assessment of potential impacts on the setting of the asset.
Heritage Assets:
Where a Grade I, Grade II* or Grade II Listed Building, SM or RPG coincides with a site proposal, it is assumed that the setting of these features will be permanently altered, and a major negative impact would be expected. Where a site lies adjacent to a Grade I Listed Building it is assumed that the proposal would also permanently alter the setting to the asset and a major negative impact on the historic environment would be expected.
Where the site lies adjacent to, or in close proximity to, a Grade II* or Grade II Listed Building, a SM, or a RPG, or where the site lies in close proximity to a Grade I Listed Building, an adverse impact on the setting of the asset would be likely, to some extent, and a minor negative impact would therefore be expected. Potential impacts on Conservation Areas and their setting are recorded as minor negative impacts.
Archaeological Sensitive Areas have been identified within Worcester City. Development proposals which are coincident with or are located adjacent to an Archaeological Sensitive Area would be likely to have a minor negative impact on the local historic environment. At this stage of the Plan preparation process there is no data available to indicate areas of archaeological potential within Malvern Hills or Wychavon, and as such no assessment has been carried out with regard to archaeology in these two District’s at present.
Where development proposals are not located in close proximity to any heritage asset, or the nature of development is determined not to affect the setting or character of the nearby heritage asset, a negligible impact would be expected for this objective.
Heritage assets identified on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register may be identified as being at risk for a number of reasons, for example, due to dilapidation of the building fabric or other sources of risk such as coastal erosion, cultivation or scrub encroachment57. Where Heritage at Risk assets could potentially be impacted by the proposed development at a site, this has been stated.
It is anticipated that the SWCs will require a Heritage Statement to be prepared to accompany future planning applications, where appropriate. The Heritage Statement should describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposals, including any contribution made by their settings.
57 Historic England Heritage at Risk Register. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk/search-register [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 36 Page 103
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 10 – Transport and Accessibility
Box 2.10: SA Objective 10. Transport and Accessibility- Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
Public Transport: 10. Transport and Accessibility: Improve the choice In line with Barton et al.’s sustainable distances58, site end users should be situated within and efficiency of 2km of a railway station and 400m of a bus stop offering a frequent service. Bus service sustainable 59,60 transport in SW frequency and destination information was obtained from Google Maps . and reduce the need to travel. In order for a positive impact to be anticipated with regard to access to public transport, consideration has been given to the proportion of a site within the target distance of these key transport services. To be sustainable, the bus stop should provide users with hourly services. Where a physical barrier prevents access to one of these services, this has been noted within the assessment text.
Development proposals located within the target distance to a railway station or bus stop would be expected to have a minor positive impact on local transport and accessibility. Development proposals located outside of the target distance to a railway station or a bus stop would be expected to have a minor negative impact on transport and accessibility.
Consideration has been made of the proximity of the strategic locations to existing railway stations, as well as proposals as part of development to extend stations, build new stations, or provide improved pedestrian and cycle routes to surrounding railway stations.
Pedestrian Access:
New development sites have been assessed in terms of their access to the surrounding footpath network. In order for a positive impact to be anticipated with regard to pedestrian access, consideration has been given to safe access to and from the site e.g. footpath. Safe access is determined to be that which is suitable for wheelchair users and pushchairs.
Development proposals which would be expected to provide site end users with adequate access to the surrounding footpath network would be expected to have a minor positive impact on pedestrian access. Development proposals which would not be anticipated to provide adequate access would be expected to result in a minor negative impact on pedestrian access.
It is anticipated that all strategic locations will incorporate safe pedestrian access and footpath links alongside the development, allowing sustainable travel to local services and facilities.
58 Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010. 59 Google Maps (no date) Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps [Date Accessed: 14/12/20] 60 Live departure boards available from Google Maps have been used to assess the frequency of services at bus stops within the Plan area. These are obtained from local bus timetables.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 37 Page 104
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.10: SA Objective 10. Transport and Accessibility- Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions
Road Access:
New development sites have been assessed in terms of their access to the surrounding road network. Development proposals which would be likely to provide site end users with adequate access to the surrounding road network would be expected to have a minor positive impact on road access. Development proposals which would not be anticipated to provide adequate access would be expected to have a minor negative impact on road access.
Overall:
Development proposals which would locate site end users in close proximity to all the above receptors would be expected to have a major positive impact for this objective.
Development proposals which would locate site end users away from all the above receptors would be expected to have a major negative impact for this objective.
SA Objective 11 - Education
Box 2.11: SA Objective 11. Education - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions It is assumed that new residents in the Plan area require access to primary and secondary 11. Education: Improve education services to help facilitate good levels of education, skills and qualifications of education, skills residents. and qualifications. In line with Barton et al.’s sustainable distances61, for the purpose of this assessment, 800m is assumed to be the target distance for travelling to a primary school and 1.5km to secondary schools. All schools identified are publicly accessible state schools.
It is recognised that not all schools within South Worcestershire are accessible to all pupils. For instance, independent and academically selective schools may not be accessible to all. Local primary schools may only be Infant or Junior schools and therefore not provide education for all children of primary school age. Some secondary schools may only be for girls or boys and therefore would not provide education for all. This has been considered within the assessment.
At this stage, there is not sufficient information available to be able to accurately predict the effect of new development on the capacity of local schools, or to incorporate local education attainment rates into the assessment.
Development proposals which would locate site end users within the target distances of a primary school or secondary school would be expected to have a minor positive impact for this objective.
61 Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 38 Page 105
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.11: SA Objective 11. Education - Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Development proposals which would locate site end users outside of the target distances of a primary or secondary school would be expected to have a minor negative impact for this objective.
Development proposals which would locate new residents within the target distance to both a primary and secondary school would be expected to have a major positive impact on the education objective.
Development proposals which would locate new residents outside of the target distance to both a primary and secondary school would be likely to have a major negative impact on the education objective.
Development proposals for employment or non-residential use have not been assessed for their proximity to educational establishments. Sites proposed for non-residential uses would have a negligible impact for this objective.
SA Objective 12 – Economy and Employment
Box 2.12: SA Objective 12. Economy and Employment- Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions Employment Opportunities: 12. Economy and Employment: Support a strong, It is assumed that, in line with Barton et al.’s sustainable distances62, new residents should diverse, vibrant be situated within 5km of key employment areas to ensure they have access to a range of and sustainable local economy to employment opportunities capable of meeting their needs. Key employment areas are foster balanced defined as locations which would provide a range of employment opportunities from a economic growth. variety of employment sectors, including retail parks, industrial estates and major local employers. These areas have bene identified by SWC’s.
Development proposals which would locate new residents within the target distance of a key employment area would be expected to have a minor positive impact for this objective. Development proposals which would locate new residents outside the target distance to a key employment area would be expected to have a minor negative impact for this objective.
Employment Floorspace:
An assessment of current land use at all sites has been made through reference to aerial mapping and the use of Google Maps63.
Development proposals which would result in a net increase in employment floorspace would be expected to have a major positive impact on the local economy. Development
62 Barton, H., Grant. M. & Guise. R. (2010) Shaping Neighbourhoods: For local health and global sustainability, January 2010 63 Google Maps (no date) Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps [Date Accessed: 14/12/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 39 Page 106
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Box 2.12: SA Objective 12. Economy and Employment- Assessment Methodologies and Assumptions proposals which would result in a net decrease in employment floorspace would be expected to have a major negative impact on the local economy.
Development proposals for employment floorspace that currently comprise employment floorspace would be likely to have an overall negligible impact on the economy objective.
Due to the scale of the proposed development at each strategic location, employment opportunities would be likely to be incorporated in the development at each location. Details of employment and/or retail provision are presented in the descriptions of each strategic location.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 40 Page 107
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx 3 Strategic Locations
Chosen Strategy of New or Expanded Settlements
Part of the SWCs’ preferred spatial development strategy for the distribution of growth within South Worcestershire is to focus strategic growth at free standing and expanding settlements across the three districts.
In 2018, at the Issues and Options consultation stage64, the SWCs considered four options in relation to the overall development strategy:
A. Rail Station Focused Development – locate all significant new development within two miles of an existing, enhanced or proposed rail station. B. Continuation of the Adopted SWDP Development Strategy – locate new development throughout South Worcestershire on the periphery of the city, towns and villages linking to the existing road network. C. Increasing Densities through Regeneration – locate new development in existing urban areas, through intensification in urban centres and regeneration of underused or vacant sites, taking advantage of active travel and sustainable transport hubs, and reducing the need to travel. This option will not be sufficient to meet all the development needs of South Worcestershire. D. Large Urban Extension – locate new development in large urban extensions, using existing transport corridors.
Broadly, there was support for a rail-based strategy and there was concern that the continuation of the adopted SWDP strategy would put pressure on existing villages across the Plan area. There was strong support for increasing densities through regeneration, but many respondents acknowledged that this alone would not deliver sufficient development to meet the identified need. There was strong support for a large urban extension and/or new settlements, with many respondents suggesting Worcestershire Parkway as a suitable location for growth.
The SA of these four options identified Options A (rail-based development) and C (increasing densities through regeneration) as the best performing options. Option A could potentially result in benefits in particular to sustainable transport options within South Worcestershire. Option C, on the other hand, could potentially result in benefits in regard to local flooding issues, biodiversity assets and natural resources. Therefore, a mix of both strategies could potentially result in a greater number of sustainability benefits.
64 South Worcestershire Councils (2018) South Worcestershire Development Plan Review Issues and Options Consultation – November 2018 https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SWDPR-IO-Nov18-RFS.pdf [Date Accessed: 06/04/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 41 Page 108
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Identification of Strategic Locations
Whilst the R18(II) stages had assessed the SWDPR proposed new settlements considered as part of the Preferred Options version of the plan, plan makers agreed that the plan making process, and in light of representations, needed to revisit the approach to strategic allocations to enable a wider range of potential strategic allocations to be identified, described and evaluated through the SA process as alternatives (reasonable or otherwise).
In the context of the SWDPR, the guidance threshold for strategic allocations is approximately 1,000 dwellings, the two main factors being the significance of that number vs the 14,000 additional dwellings SWDPR requirement/supply and the point at which typically on-site school provision is required. A few Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) ‘Call for Sites’ submissions were of the aforementioned scale and there were also a few locations where there were many (Call for Sites) CfS submissions which if aggregated could deliver at least 1,000 dwellings.
Nine locations where sufficient land is available to accommodate circa 1,000 dwellings and above have been identified. The identification of potential strategic scale locations has been determined through the long running and iterative SHELAA process. Potential strategic allocations have been described in terms of a redline boundary and where available an associated potential development description of aspirations for the location.
It is considered that the R18(III)/R19 SA work updates and supersedes SA outputs prepared at the R18(2) stage for strategic sites.
By focusing strategic growth within South Worcestershire towards strategic locations, the SWCs aim to ensure that future development is located within proximity to a range of services, facilities and employment opportunities, or creates new ones by virtue of critical mass, which may often not exist in smaller development sites.
The Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) contains a number of available land holdings large enough to accommodate a strategic site of a size which could deliver a reasonable degree of self-containment. Sites have been identified as potentially contributing to a strategic location because:
• the site is able to accommodate sufficient land, homes, employment and other land uses at a scale of approximately 1000 or more houses; • the site is in close proximity to a railway station (existing or planned) which is on a line(s); • there is or could be passenger growth capacity; • the site is not overly constrained by environmental constraints e.g. flooding, landscape sensitivity etc.; • the site has the potential to create a high-quality environment for a new community; and • the site could reasonably meet some of Worcester City’s unmet housing and employment needs.
Nine potential strategic locations have been identified by the Councils:
• Land south of ‘Worcester South’ (Kempsey); • Land west of ‘Worcester West’ (Lower Broadheath);
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 42 Page 109
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
• Rushwick; • Throckmorton Airfield (Throckmorton); • Worcestershire Parkway; • Land at Mitton (Mitton); • Land south west of Evesham (Hinton on the Green); • Land at Hanley Castle; and • Strensham.
Figure 3.1 shows the nine strategic locations within South Worcestershire.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 43 SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx Page 110
Figure 3.1: The nine reasonable alternative strategic locations within South Worcestershire [note to client: map needs updating to include Strensham]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 44 Page 111
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Sustainability Appraisal findings
The sustainability appraisal of the nine strategic locations demonstrated that each location would have mixed effects with regards to sustainability. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the likely impacts under each SA Objective.
Full explanations and reasoning behind each overall ‘score’ presented in Table 3.1 can be found in Appendix B. It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to predict effects accurately, the sustainability impacts have been assessed at a high level and are reliant upon the current understanding of the baseline. These overall impacts should be read alongside the methodologies, assumptions and limitations of the assessments presented within Boxes 2.1 – 2.12. These assessments have been based on information provided by the SWCs, as well as expert judgement.
Table 3.1: Impact matrix of all strategic location assessments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Housing Education Mitigation Adaptation Townscape Economy Economy & Transport & Accessibility Geodiversity Landscape Landscape & Employment Biodiversity & Climate Change Climate Change Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing
Hanley Castle - 0 - - - -- ++ + - - ++ + Hinton on the -- 0 ------++ + - - ++ ++ Green Kempsey - 0 - - - -- ++ ++ 0 - ++ ++ Lower - 0 - - - -- ++ ++ 0 - ++ ++ Broadheath Mitton - 0 - - - -- ++ + 0 + ++ + Rushwick - + - - - -- ++ ++ - ++ + ++ Throckmorton - 0 ------++ ++ - + ++ ++ Worcestershire - 0 ------++ ++ - ++ ++ ++ Parkway Whilst Table 4.1 provides a broad overview of the likely sustainability impacts at each strategic location, additional analysis has been required to separate out these effects further where strategic locations have performed similarly. In order to identify the best performing strategic location, a ranking exercise has been carried out to determine the most sustainable options under each SA Objective.
The ranking exercise considered the findings of the SA as presented above, as well as applying local knowledge and expert judgement. This is therefore a subjective exercise and should not be relied upon alone in determining likely sustainability impacts.
Tables 3.2 – 3.13 present the likely overall SA impacts (as per Table 3.1), alongside the identified rank, with 8 being the best performing and 1 being the least suitable for development compared to the other options, with respect to that particular objective. The accompanying narrative explains how these ranks have been determined.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 45 Page 112
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 1 – Climate Change Mitigation
Table 3.2: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 1
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 1
– Climate Change Green Mitigation Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ------Rank 4 1 2 3 5 6 8 7
All strategic locations would be expected to result in adverse impacts on climate change mitigation to some extent, due to the large scale of development proposed.
The proposed development at Throckmorton and Worcestershire Parkway includes solar energy generation. The provision of renewable energy would be expected to help reduce GHG emissions and reliance on energy produced from fossil fuels. Throckmorton is considered to perform marginally better than Worcestershire Parkway as the information provided by the SWCs indicates it would be fully solar powered whereas Worcestershire Parkway would be in part.
The remaining strategic locations were ranked primarily based on size of site (and subsequent loss of soil) as well as proximity to railway stations providing sustainable transport options. The proposed development at Rushwick includes a railway station, and Mitton is located close to an existing station.
Hanley Castle is the smallest strategic location so although it is situated further away from town/city centres than the other strategic locations, it is considered to perform better than Lower Broadheath and Kempsey, both of which cover larger areas of land and have capacity to scale up, delivering more dwellings beyond the Plan period. Hinton on the Green has the lowest rank under this objective, due to covering the largest area of land (814ha) and its remote location away from railway stations.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 46 Page 113
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 2 – Climate Change Adaptation
Table 3.3: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 2
All eight strategic locations contain some areas of fluvial and pluvial flood risk. However, Strategic Location
SA Objective
2 – Climate Change Adaptation Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 Rank 7 2 6 5 1 8 4 3 these impacts would be expected to be mitigated considering the NPPF requirement for the inclusion of SUDS within large developments, incorporation of enhanced GI, and the opportunities within the strategic location boundaries to locate development away from areas of flood risk.
As the areas of fluvial flood risk at Rushwick are restricted to a small section within Flood Zone 2, this is identified as the best performing option for climate change adaptation.
Ranking considered the size of the strategic locations as an indicator of the likely loss of existing GI and ecosystem service provision. Therefore, Hanley Castle has been identified as the next best performing, followed by Kempsey, Lower Broadheath, Throckmorton, Worcestershire Parkway and Hinton on the Green. Mitton contains the largest proportion of land within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and as such would be the least suitable for development in this regard.
SA Objective 3 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Table 3.4: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 3
Strategic Location
SA Objective
3 – Biodiversity & Geodiversity Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ------Rank 3 1 6 4 2 5 8 7
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 47 Page 114
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The proposed development at all strategic locations would be expected to result in an adverse impact on biodiversity due to the large scale of development posing risks to designated and undesignated biodiversity assets, as well as connectivity between biodiversity assets. Some of these impacts could be mitigated through incorporation of GI providing opportunities to enhance habitats, protect natural capital, and deliver biodiversity net gain. The differences between each strategic location’s performance under this objective is minimal. Proximity to a European site has been considered with greater weight in the ranking.
Throckmorton is not located in close proximity to any European sites and has few on-site constraints, and therefore, would be likely to have the least impact on biodiversity following delivery of suitable mitigation measures. Despite the presence of an SSSI within the identified boundary of Worcestershire Parkway, it is considered that there is potential within the large identified strategic location area to avoid some adverse impacts on biodiversity through good design and careful consideration of layout.
Kempsey’s location close to the River Severn means that there may be increased risk to biodiversity compared to Throckmorton and Worcestershire Parkway. Rushwick and Lower Broadheath’s smaller site areas relative to the presence of priority habitat and other constraints means that there may be less potential to avoid impacts, although Rushwick would be anticipated to perform marginally better than Lower Broadheath in this respect. Hanley Castle is located directly adjacent to the River Severn, and as such, would be likely to result in reductions in water quality affecting downstream habitats.
Mitton lies adjacent to a watercourse (the Carrant Brook) and is located in close proximity to Bredon Hill SAC. The proposed development of 5,000 dwellings in close proximity to Bredon Hill SAC means that development at this location would be likely to have the greatest potential for negative impacts under this objective.
SA Objective 4 – Landscape and Townscape
Table 3.5: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 4
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 4 – Landscape Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ------Rank 2 1 3 4 8 5 7 6
There is likely to be a significant impact on landscape at all strategic locations. It is acknowledged that masterplanning and considerate design may reduce these impacts to some extent, however, the large proportion of proposed development situated on previously undeveloped land would be expected to lead to a significant change in landscape character and result in increased urbanisation of the countryside.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 48 Page 115
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The strategic location with the greatest potential to avoid these adverse impacts is considered to be Mitton, due to its location adjacent to nearby detractors such as existing built form on the outskirts of Tewkesbury and the M5. This is followed by Throckmorton, which contains an area of previous development (the airfield) and lies within a fairly disrupted area of landscape.
Next in the ranking, the proposed development at Worcestershire Parkway would be expected to have some scope to mitigate landscape impacts through good design. The proposed development at Rushwick, Lower Broadheath and Kempsey may result in adverse impacts associated with the spread of urban area of Worcester city into the surrounding landscape to varying degrees.
It is considered that the proposed development at Hanley Castle would significantly change the character of the existing small village. The proposed development at Hinton on the Green would be expected to result in the most significant adverse impact on the landscape, primarily due to its location with respect to the Cotswolds AONB.
SA Objective 5 – Pollution and Waste
Table 3.6: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 5
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 5 – Pollution & Waste Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ------Rank 8 1 6 7 5 4 3 2
All eight strategic locations would be expected to result in a negative impact due to the expected significant increase in pollution and household waste generation. All strategic locations coincide with or are situated in close proximity to watercourses, and the construction and occupation of a large amount of development could potentially risk decreasing water quality. Consideration has been given to the proposed number of dwellings at each strategic location, as well as the proximity to major roads and/or AQMAs which would result in reductions in air quality that new residents would be exposed to.
Hanley Castle would be expected to result in the least impact in regard to pollution and waste, as although it is proposed for the development of more dwellings within the Plan period than Kempsey or Lower Broadheath, it is situated away from major roads and AQMAs. Lower Broadheath would be expected to perform marginally better than Kempsey as the larger site area would allow development to be directed away from areas of existing poor air quality (i.e. main roads) or receptors which may be sensitive to pollution from the strategic location (i.e. watercourses).
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 49 Page 116
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Mitton and Rushwick are both proposed for the development of 1,000 dwellings; however, Mitton is situated further away from sources of air pollution than Rushwick and as such, would perform marginally better. Although there are no AQMAs or main roads in close proximity to Throckmorton, the proposed development of 2,000 dwellings would be expected to generate a significant amount of waste and pollution, followed by Worcestershire Parkway which is proposed for 5,000 dwellings.
The proposed development at Hinton on the Green would be expected to result in the generation of the most waste and pollution and expose residents to the effects of poor air quality that can be associated with road traffic, due to the presence of the A46 which passes through the strategic location.
SA Objective 6 – Natural Resources
Table 3.7: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 6
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 6 – Natural Resources Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ------Rank 7 2 4 3 8 6 5 1
All of the strategic locations comprise large areas of previously undeveloped land and are situated wholly or partially on ALC Grades 1, 2 and 3 land. ALC Grades 1 and 2 land, and potentially Grade 3 land, are classed as BMV agricultural land. The potential for degradation of soil health and depletion of natural resources as a result of the proposed development at all eight strategic locations would therefore be expected to result in a significant adverse impact on natural resources.
The ranking under this objective is based on the area of BMV land likely to be lost as a result of development and the area of MSA within each strategic location.
Mitton has been identified as the best performing option, as it covers one of the smallest areas of BMV land of the eight locations and one of the smallest areas of MSA. Hanley Castle and Rushwick both cover lower areas of BMV land in comparison to the other six locations but cover larger areas of MSA than Mitton.
Throckmorton, Kempsey and Lower Broadheath are the next in the ranking. Although Throckmorton covers the most BMV land out of the three, this location does not coincide with an MSA and therefore has been ranked higher than Kempsey and Lower Broadheath.
Hinton on the Green covers the largest area of BMV of the eight strategic locations but does not coincide with an MSA. Worcestershire Parkway covers the second largest area of BMV land and the highest area of MSA and has therefore been identified as having the potential to result in the greatest impact in terms of natural resources.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 50 Page 117
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 7 – Housing
Table 3.8: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 7
By definition, strategic locations would deliver a large amount of housing and would be Strategic Location
SA
Objective 7 – Housing Green Mitton nley Castle Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Ha Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Rank 1 8 3 2 4 5 6 7 expected to make a significant contribution towards meeting the identified housing needs in South Worcestershire. Ranking was based on the identified approximate number of residential dwellings that each strategic location could deliver within the Plan period.
Hinton on the Green and Worcestershire Parkway are both proposed for the development of 5,000 dwellings. Hinton on the Green has capacity for a further 11,000 dwellings beyond the Plan period, whereas Worcestershire Parkway has capacity for a further 5,000 dwellings; therefore, Hinton on the Green performs better under this objective. Throckmorton would perform next best, proposing 2,000 dwellings during the Plan period.
Rushwick and Mitton are both proposed for the development of 1,000 dwellings, however, Rushwick is considered to perform marginally better as the dwellings would be spread over a larger area. Kempsey and Lower Broadheath are both proposed for the development of 500 dwellings but have the capacity to deliver an additional 3,800 and 3,500 dwellings beyond the Plan period, respectively. Therefore, Kempsey would be likely to perform marginally better than Lower Broadheath in the long term. Hanley Castle is proposed for the development of 900 dwellings, and therefore, would make the smallest contribution towards residential growth.
SA Objective 8 – Health and Wellbeing
Table 3.9: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 8
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 8 – Health & Wellbeing Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score + + ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ Rank 2 1 7 6 3 5 4 8
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 51 Page 118
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
All strategic locations would be likely to have a positive impact on health, through providing new health infrastructure and/or improved public transport networks in order to access existing health services, and open spaces. Enhanced GI at each strategic location would also present the opportunity to design multi-functional GI networks which can facilitate active travel to services and facilities, as well as having numerous benefits for the health of ecosystems and humans. In the ranking, greater weight has been given to the locations’ proximity to existing facilities rather than those where new health facilities are proposed.
The best performing strategic location for health is considered to be Worcestershire Parkway, primarily due to its location with respect to Worcestershire Royal Hospital. This is closely followed by Kempsey, then Lower Broadheath and Rushwick. Lower Broadheath is considered to perform marginally better than Rushwick as it has a smaller area within close proximity to main roads and Worcester AQMA.
Throckmorton is the next furthest from a hospital, followed by Mitton and Hanley Castle. The strategic location which would be expected to have the least positive impact under this objective is Hinton on the Green, which is located approximately 20km from the nearest hospital and would be reliant upon new facilities to serve the 5,000 proposed new homes.
SA Objective 9 – Cultural Heritage
Table 3.10: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 9
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 9 – Cultural Heritage Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score - - 0 0 0 - - - Rank 1 3 6 7 8 4 2 5
Whilst all eight strategic locations are situated in close proximity to heritage assets including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and/or Scheduled Monuments, it is considered that some locations would have greater scope to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts on the historic environment than others.
The proposed development at Mitton would be expected to have the greatest scope to avoid adverse impacts on heritage, due to its location amongst existing development and the potential to direct development away from the surrounding Grade II Listed Buildings. The strategic location at Lower Broadheath also does not contain any heritage assets, and it is likely that impacts on the setting of surrounding heritage assets would be mitigated through design. This is then followed by Kempsey, which only has one Listed Building within the site.
The large area within Worcestershire Parkway would be expected to provide some scope to reduce adverse impacts on local heritage assets, which are primarily restricted to the village of Stoulton. This is followed by Rushwick, where the Grade II Listed Buildings within the site are located amongst the existing settlement.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 52 Page 119
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
In comparison, Hinton on the Green and Throckmorton contain Listed Buildings and SMs within the identified boundaries, although there is still likely to be some scope within the large site areas to direct development away from these areas to minimise adverse impacts.
Hanley Castle would be expected to have the least potential to avoid adverse impacts. There are many Listed Buildings and a Conservation Area within the existing rural village, and it is likely that some adverse impacts on the character and setting of the historic environment would be unavoidable.
SA Objective 10 – Transport and Accessibility
Table 3.11: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 10
Strategic Location
SA Objective
10 – Transport & Accessibility Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score - - - - + ++ + ++ Rank 1 2 3 4 6 7 5 8
The proposed development at all strategic locations would be expected to provide public transport via bus, as well as improved pedestrian and cycle networks, and the incorporation of suitable road access. As a result, the ranking of the strategic locations was primarily based on access to existing or proposed railway stations.
Worcestershire Parkway is considered to provide the best option with regard to transport, largely due to the new railway station located within the centre of the site. Secondly, the proposal at Rushwick includes the development of a new railway station. The proposed development at these two strategic locations would be likely to encourage new residents to use public transport and have the greatest reduction in reliance on personal car use.
The proposed development at Mitton would provide access to the nearby Ashchurch for Tewkesbury Railway Station. Throckmorton would be situated outside of a sustainable distance to the nearest railway station; however, it is considered that improved bus services and cycle routes would help to ensure that the nearby Pershore Railway Station is more accessible.
The Hanley Castle, Hinton on the Green, Kempsey and Lower Broadheath strategic locations would be expected to result in a negative impact on transport, largely due to the lack of a nearby railway station to provide more sustainable access to employment and facilities. Lower Broadheath is situated marginally closer to the railway stations in Worcester than Kempsey.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 53 Page 120
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Hanley Castle and Hinton on the Green are located away from railway stations; however, it is considered that Hinton on the Green would provide better road access to reach the closest facilities, including the train station in Evesham. In contrast, Hanley Castle is situated in a rural area with poorer connections to towns and would have the least potential for accessibility via sustainable transport modes.
SA Objective 11 – Education
Table 3.12: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 11
Strategic Location
SA
Objective 11 – Education Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ Rank 6 5 7 3 8 1 2 4
All eight strategic locations would be expected to result in a positive impact on education, as all options provide new schools and/or improved access to existing nearby schools. Proximity to existing schools was considered with more weight in the ranking than potential new schools.
The strategic location at Mitton is situated close to existing primary and secondary schools, and as such, has been identified as the best preforming option. Kempsey is near to an existing primary school and secondary schools in Worcester city. Hanley Castle is served by an existing secondary school.
Hinton on the Green is considered to be the next best option due to the presence of nearby schools in Evesham, followed by Worcestershire Parkway and Lower Broadheath which are fairly close to existing primary schools and secondary schools in Worcester. Throckmorton is situated further away from existing schools and new residents would be reliant upon the development of new primary and secondary schools on site.
The proposed development at Rushwick would include the provision of a new primary school, however, the location is situated outside of a sustainable distance to secondary schools, and no new secondary schools are proposed. As such, Rushwick would be expected to have the least positive impact compared to the other seven strategic locations.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 54 Page 121
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA Objective 12 – Economy and Employment
Table 3.13: Strategic location ranking – SA Objective 12
All strategic locations would be expected to result in positive impacts on the economy and
Strategic Location
SA Objective
12 – Economy & Employment Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
SA Score + ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ Rank 1 7 5 4 2 3 6 8 employment. It is likely that the greatest benefits would arise at strategic locations which propose to increase employment floorspace provision within the Plan area.
The greatest benefit to the local economy would therefore be expected at Worcestershire Parkway, as the proposed development includes 50ha of employment land, and the on-site railway station would be likely to provide good access for commuters, both to and from the strategic location. The proposed development at Hinton on the Green would also provide 50ha of new employment land, although it would be likely to have marginally reduced accessibility compared to Worcestershire Parkway.
The development of 20ha of employment land is proposed at both Throckmorton and Kempsey. The Throckmorton Strategic Location is considered to provide marginally better access in terms of train services than Kempsey, due to the proximity of Throckmorton to Pershore Railway Station. Lower Broadheath would provide 14ha of new employment land, and as such, would result in increased provision compared to Rushwick at 10ha.
The development proposals at Hanley Castle and Mitton do not include new employment floorspace provision, however, these strategic locations would be expected to provide some access to jobs in the surrounding area. Mitton is considered to perform better than Hanley Castle due to its location in the outskirts of Tewkesbury adjacent to existing employment opportunities, whereas Hanley Castle is more remote.
Identifying the Best Performing Option
The summed ranks for each strategic location provide one interpretation of the overall best performing option (see Table 3.14). The most sustainable options in this context would be those which have been identified as performing the best across the most objectives.
There are many different aspects to sustainability. It should be noted that the following is only an indication and, as has been discussed within section 3.3, sustainability performance of the strategic locations varies greatly depending on the SA Objective in question.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 55 Page 122
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Table 3.14: Overall ranking of each strategic location
Based on this ranking exercise, the best performing strategic location has been identified as
Strategic Location
Green Mitton Parkway Kempsey Rushwick Hanley Castle Hinton on the Throckmorton Worcestershire Lower Lower Broadheath
Summed Rank 43 34 58 52 60 59 60 66
Worcestershire Parkway. This location performs best across SA Objectives 8, 10 and 12 and second-best across a SA Objectives 1, 3 and 7.
This is followed by Throckmorton and Mitton, which achieved identical overall ranks. However, there is little difference in ranking between Mitton, Rushwick, Kempsey, Throckmorton and Lower Broadheath.
The lowest summed ranks, and as such potentially the least sustainable options, would be Hanley Castle and Hinton on the Green. The strategic location which is least suitable for development has been identified as Hinton on the Green, which is a very large site situated away from convenient transport options.
Selection of Preferred Strategic Locations
The SWCs have considered alternative spatial development strategies in relation to the settlement hierarchy. This includes continuing with the strategy set out in the adopted SWDP which focusses most of the growth on urban extensions, particularly at Worcester and which was found to be sound by the examination inspector in 2016.
By their very nature, new settlements or urban extensions tend to be further away from the main centres where the majority of services lie. These new settlements would typically be further away from the nearest railway station. Increased distances will also make walking and cycling more challenging and a less realistic alternative to car-based journeys.
The combination of these factors, combined with an ongoing decline in the economics of commercial bus service provision, means that the car would become even more dominant as the chosen mode of transport. Given the highway network is already heavily constrained at a number of important road junctions across the Plan area and the economic and environmental costs associated with traffic congestion, this is clearly an outcome to be avoided.
The allocation of additional large scale new settlements would also have an unacceptable impact on existing infrastructure, for example, the A46(T) at Evesham; would result in the coalescence of settlements, e.g. Worcester with Lower Broadheath or Kempsey; and will necessitate encroachment into land unsuitable for development, e.g. land in medium to high flood risk (at Worcester, Pershore, Tenbury and Upton), the Green Belt (at Droitwich Spa), and the Malvern Hills and Cotswolds AONBs.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 56 Page 123
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Further, a spatial strategy of directing strategic level growth to rural settlements would be less effective in planning terms due to the lack of services for these settlements; the relatively high cost of securing new services such as bus transport; fewer employment opportunities and the increased commuting distances and other car trips.
The four strategic locations of Hanley Castle, Hinton-on-the-Green, Kempsey and Lower Broadheath all have poor access to train stations. Hanley castle is located 6.8km south east of Great Malvern Station, Hinton-on-the-Green is located approximately 4.4km south of Evesham Station, Kempsey is located approximately 3.2km south west of Worcestershire Parkway Station and Lower Broadheath is located approximately 2.7km north west of Worcester Foregate Station.
In addition, the proposed development at Hinton-on the-Green has the potential to impact the Cotswolds AOB which partially coincides with the strategic location. The proposed development at Kempsey would be likely to increase the risk of coalescence between Worcester city and Kempsey town. The proposed development at Lower Broadheath would result in the loss of open space which is vital for residents within the highly populated Worcester city.
As a result, the strategic locations of Hanley Castle, Hinton-on-the-Green, Kempsey and Lower Broadheath have not been selected for allocation within the SWDPR.
Preferred options
Worcestershire Parkway Development at Worcestershire Parkway offers a rare opportunity to direct residential and economic growth around a new, national train station.
The quantum of development considered deliverable by 2041 at Worcestershire Parkway is 5,000 dwellings, 50ha of employment land and associated infrastructure which would include a secondary school, four primary schools, a town centre (to include retail and other commercial space, leisure centre, medical service provision) and a minimum of 40% Green Infrastructure. This development will be phased over at least 10 years. Worcestershire Parkway Station opened on the 23rd February 2020. The station is the essential element of the infrastructure necessary to reduce and shorten the length of car trips. The area is within 3km of the urban edge of Worcester, such that it is reasonable to envisage that it can meet some of the city’s unmet employment and housing needs.
There is more than enough land in Flood Zone 1 within the strategic location to deliver the proposed development without direct some development to Flood Zones 2 or 3. The land is neither Green Belt nor in an AONB. There are a few important localised environmental designations, however, these can be protected through the plan policies and subsequent master planning.
Much of the strategic infrastructure necessary to allow development to progress can be relatively easily implemented. This could allow development to commence early in the plan period. In order to achieve this, work will need to be undertaken to demonstrate a clear route map to delivery. It is anticipated that the delivery of Worcestershire Parkway will be driven by a comprehensive masterplan and further supplementary planning guidance to inform infrastructure provision, design quality etc.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 57 Page 124
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Throckmorton Throckmorton Airfield has been identified as a suitable broad location for growth. The quantum of deliverable growth by 2041 is considered to be 2,000 dwellings and 20ha of employment land and the associated infrastructure to include two primary schools, a secondary school, plus a Local Centre with retail and leisure uses. The detailed masterplan and the fine-tuned infrastructure requirements are to be set out in a separate Development Plan Document which will subject to a separate public examination. A new settlement will require a new, direct road from the centre to the A44 before any development commences. In addition, safe pedestrian and cycle links covering the 3km from the new settlement to Pershore railway station will be required.
The core of the site is brownfield land, coinciding with the derelict Throckmorton runway and associated buildings.
The site is close to Pershore Railway Station, which is located to the north of Pershore, and it is considered likely that pedestrian and cycle routes to the railway station from the strategic location would be incorporated into the design.
Note to client: anything further to add here?
Rushwick Rushwick is located to the west of Worcester. There is a strong business case to open a new railway station at Rushwick as a railway line from Worcester Foregate Station to Malvern Link station passes through the current settlement. The development of a rail station here would both help to address current traffic congestion issues in the wider area and offer a genuine opportunity for new residents to access employment, retail and leisure destinations by train. However, it is acknowledged an expanded settlement will not function effectively without the railway station being secured in advance.
The development considered at Rushwick comprises 1,000 dwellings, 10ha of employment land, a new primary school and a local centre to include retail and community uses. High level infrastructure requirements will be set out in the SWDPR but the detail, including a masterplan, will be the subject of a separate Development Plan Document process.
Note to client: anything further to add here?
Mitton Councils to provide text.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 58 Page 125
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx 4 Policy Assessments
Preface
Table 4.1 list the 48 draft SWDPR policies. Appendix C sets out the assessment of these policies.
Table 4.1: The 48 draft SWDPR policies Strategic Policies SWDPR 1: Employment, Housing and Retail Requirements SWDPR 2: The Spatial Development Strategy and Associated Settlement Hierarchy SWDPR 3: Strategic Transport Links SWDPR 4: Green Infrastructure SWDPR 5: Historic Environment SWDPR 6: Infrastructure SWDPR 7: Health and Wellbeing Economic Growth SWDPR 8: Providing the Right Land and Buildings for Jobs SWDPR 9: Non Allocated Employment Development SWDPR 10: City, Town and Local Centres SWDPR 11: Employment in Rural Areas Housing SWDPR 12: Effective Use of Land SWDPR 13: Market Housing Mix SWDPR 14: Meeting Affordable Housing Needs SWDPR 15: Providing Opportunities for Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding SWDPR 16: Residential Access Standards SWDPR 17: Residential Space Standards SWDPR 18: Rural Exception Sites SWDPR 19: Meeting the Needs of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople SWDPR 20: Replacement Dwellings in the Open Countryside SWDPR 21: Dwellings for Rural Workers SWDPR 22: Meeting the Needs of Older Residents and Residents with Special Needs SWDPR 23: Reuse of Rural Buildings SWDPR 24: Extensions to Residential Curtilage Environmental Enhancement and Protection SWDPR 25: Design SWDPR 26: Biodiversity and Geodiversity SWDPR 27: The Cotswolds and Malvern Hills Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) SWDPR 28: Management of the Historic Environment SWDPR 29: Landscape Character Resource Management SWDPR 30: Electronic Communications SWDPR 31: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy SWDPR 32: Management of Flood Risk SWDPR 33: Sustainable Drainage Systems SWDPR 34: Water Resources, Efficiency and Treatment SWDPR 35: Amenity SWDPR 36: Air Quality SWDPR 37: Land Stability and Contaminated Land SWDPR 38: Minerals Tourism and Leisure SWDPR 39: Tourist Development SWDPR 40: Visitor Accommodation SWDPR 41: Static and Touring Caravans, Chalets and Camping Sites SWDPR 42: Built Community Facilities SWDPR 43: Green Space SWDPR 44: Provision of Green Space and Outdoor Community Uses in New Development
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 59 Page 126
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SWDPR 45: Waterfronts SWDPR 46: Marinas and Moorings SWDPR 47: Residential Moorings SWDPR 48: Equestrian Developments
Overview of policy assessments
The impact matrices for all policy assessments are presented in Table 4.2. These impacts should be read in conjunction with the assessment text narratives in Appendix C, as well as the topic specific methodologies and assumptions presented in Boxes 2.1 to 2.12.
Table 4.2: Impact matrix of the 48 draft SWDPR policies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Housing Mitigation Education Adaptation Townscape Economy Economy & Policy Reference Transport & geodiversity Accessibility employment Landscape & Biodiversity & Climate Change Climate Change Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing
SWDPR 1 -- +/- +/- +/- -- -- ++ - +/- - +/- ++ SWDPR 2 + - - - - - ++ + - - + ++ SWDPR 3 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 ++ + + SWDPR 4 + + + + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 5 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 + SWDPR 6 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + 0 SWDPR 7 + + + 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 + + + SWDPR 8 +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- - 0 + +/- + 0 ++ SWDPR 9 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ++ SWDPR 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + SWDPR 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + SWDPR 12 + + + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 0 SWDPR 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 18 0 0 0 0 0 - + 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + SWDPR 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 23 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 SWDPR 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 60 Page 127
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Housing Mitigation Education Adaptation Townscape Economy Economy & Policy Reference Transport & geodiversity Accessibility employment Landscape & Biodiversity & Climate Change Climate Change Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing
SWDPR 25 + 0 0 ++ + 0 0 + ++ + 0 0 SWDPR 26 + + ++ + + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 27 0 0 + ++ 0 + 0 + + 0 0 + SWDPR 28 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 SWDPR 29 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 SWDPR 30 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + SWDPR 31 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 32 0 ++ + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 33 0 + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 34 + 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 35 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 36 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 37 0 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 38 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 39 0 0 + + 0 + 0 + + + 0 + SWDPR 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + SWDPR 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + SWDPR 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + + + SWDPR 43 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 44 0 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 45 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 SWDPR 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + SWDPR 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 SWDPR 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0
Summary of policy assessments
The majority of the policy assessments have identified minor positive or negligible impact in relation to sustainability.
SWDPR 1 is the only policy where the assessment has identified major negative impacts. this is due to the fact that Policy SWDPR 1 proposes the development of 13,957 homes and 316ha of employment floorspace within the Plan period. The identified adverse impacts are associated with an increase in carbon emissions and increase in waste generation and a significant loss of soil resources. The policy also identifies a range of uncertain impacts, as the scale and located of the proposed development is not yet known.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 61 Page 128
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
The assessment of SWDPR 2 also identifies a range of minor negative impacts, as the policy sets out the settlement hierarchy. The minor negative impacts are associated with development across the settlement hierarchy.
SWDPR 8 aims to meet the identified requirements for employment floorspace within South Worcestershire over the Plan period, however, as the location of the employment sites are currently unknown, the policy has been assessed as having uncertain impacts on the environment.
The majority of the other policies seek to set out requirements for development proposals which ultimately seek to protect the natural and built environment and ensure there is sufficient social infrastructure to support new residents. This includes ensuring the delivery of an appropriate housing mix, protecting the Cotswolds AONB, managing flood risk, protecting air quality and enhancing community facilities. As these policies seek to protect existing assets or enhance the provision of these features, minor positive impacts have been identified.
Overall, the policies set out a suite of requirements which would be likely to help avoid potential impacts, and where necessary, mitigate adverse effects. Likely mitigating impacts of the 48 draft SWDPR policies is set out in Appendix F and recommendations to further improve the performance of the policies is set out section 4.4.
Recommendations
Recommendations to help improve the sustainability performance of the draft SWDPR policies have been listed in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3: Recommendations for improvements to the draft SWDPR policies
SA SA sub- SA Recommendations Objective category
1. Climate Energy • Consider setting higher standards than required by the Building Change efficiency Regulations65 for residential-led developments such as the former Code Mitigation for Sustainable Homes (CFSH) Level 466. • Development proposals should aim to be low-carbon. • Employment policies should aim to exceed the standards set out in the Building Regulations67 where possible. • Seek to achieve no biodegradable waste to landfill to reduce emissions, in line with ‘Net Zero The UK's contribution to stopping global warming’68. • Consider retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient. • Evidence the carbon capture and storage properties of the Plan area.
65 MHCLG (2016) Building Regulations: Approved Document. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 66 Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide November 2010. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5976/code_for_sustainable_homes_tech guide.pdf [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 67 MHCLG (2016) Building Regulations: Approved Document. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 68 Committee on Climate Change (2019) Net Zero The UK's contribution to stopping global warming. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/ [Date Accessed: 16/01/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 62 Page 129
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA SA sub- SA Recommendations Objective category • Consider local partnerships to establish locally appropriate solutions to the climate crisis. • Understand what role the Local Plan can play in monitoring the plan areas’s carbon footprint. • Understand and help set carbon budgets for land use activities determined through the development control process via appropriate policy development.
Natural • It is recommended that the Worcestershire Green Infrastructure environment Strategy69 is updated to continue to inform the provision of green and blue infrastructure alongside development throughout the Plan period. • Design policy to help ensure that agriculture-related development proposals take into consideration the latest guidance on climate and farming, for example, ‘Climate Smart Agriculture: Mapping guidance on climate change’70 and ‘Land use: Reducing emissions and preparing for climate change’71.
2. Climate Surface water • Use policy to help ensure development proposals take into account the Change flood zones recommendations of the Sustainable Drainage Systems non-statutory Adaptation technical standards for sustainable drainage systems72.
3. International/ • Promote development which aims to provide supporting habitat to SACs, Biodiversity European SPAs and Ramsar sites. and designated Geodiversity sites
Green network • Improve the resilience of the ecological network through increased quantity of habitat and enhanced habitat connectivity through landscape scale management. Ensure a high quality and comprehensive ecological network map is prepared and used to inform policy. • Retain individual trees, groups of trees, hedges and woodland. Ensure the provision of trees where appropriate. • It is recommended that a Tree and Woodland Strategy is prepared, or an update is prepared for the existing ‘Trees and Woodland in Worcestershire: Biodiversity and Landscape Guidelines for their planting and management’73.
69 Worcestershire County Council (2013) Green Infrastructure Strategy 2013 – 2018. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3780/worcestershire_gi_strategy_document_2013-2018.pdf [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 70 Evidence on Demand (2013) Climate Smart Agriculture: Mapping guidance on climate change. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a05e5274a31e00003a0/EoD_HD091_Oct2013_CSAG.pdf [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 71 Committee on Climate Change (2018) Land use: Reducing emissions and preparing for climate change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Land-use-Reducing-emissions-and-preparing-for-climate-change-CCC-2018.pdf [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 72 DEFRA (2015) Sustainable Drainage Systems. Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415773/sustainable-drainage-technical- standards.pdf [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 73 Worcestershire County Council and the Forestry Commission (2010) Trees and Woodland in Worcestershire: Biodiversity and Landscape Guidelines for their planting and management. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4790/woodland_guidelines.pdf [Date Accessed: 15/01/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 63 Page 130
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA SA sub- SA Recommendations Objective category • Ensure policy recognises the wider benefits of natural capital and ecosystem services.
4. Nationally and • Recognise the setting of nationally important AONBs: the Cotswolds Landscape locally AONB and Malvern Hills AONB. and designated • Ensure development proposals aim to protect and enhance the special Townscape landscapes qualities of country parks.
5. Pollution Air pollution • Policy should reflect recommendations within the Air Quality Action and Waste Plan74 and the outputs of the Progress Reports75.
Noise pollution • Using design codes, ensure visual and auditory buffers are incorporated at the edge of development proposals located in close proximity to railway lines to help mitigate noise pollution. • Policies should aim to protect areas identified as tranquil. An example method for identifying tranquility include ‘Mapping Tranquillity’76.
Water pollution • Policies should recognise the most recent Water Cycle Study77 and other relevant documents within the Evidence Base, including Water Resource Management Plans, Catchment Flood Management Plan and Basin Management Plans.
Waste • Policies should aim to ensure that development proposals demonstrate measures to minimise waste generation during construction. • Policy requirements and potentially design codes should be used to integrate well-designated waste storage space to facilitate effective waste storage, recycling and composting.
6. Natural Previously • The retention of trees and other vegetation should be encouraged to help Resources undeveloped retain the stability of the soil and prevent erosion. land • Consider the requirement for Construction Environmental Management Plans and Planning Conditions. • Where sites contain bare soil following construction of development, it is recommended that vegetation, in particular native plant species, be used to cover the ground.
BMV • Where appropriate, site-specific ALC studies should be encouraged. agricultural land • To protect the soil resource, where possible provide open space or green infrastructure, such as community orchards and allotments, in areas of BMV land within a site boundary.
74 Worcestershire Regulatory Services (2013) Air Quality Action Plan for Worcestershire. Available at: https://worcsregservices.gov.uk/media/486190/Final-AQAP-Whole-Doc-v23b-adopted.pdf [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 75 Worcestershire Regulatory Services (2019) Air Quality Action Plan Progress Reports. Available at: https://worcsregservices.gov.uk/pollution/air-quality/air-quality-action-plan.aspx [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 76 CPRE (2005) Mapping Tranquillity. Available at: https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/mapping-tranquility/ [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 77 JBA Consulting (2019) South Worcestershire Councils Water Cycle Study – Phase 1 Scoping Study. Available at: https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/WCS-South-Worcestershire-Final-Report-v1.0.pdf [Date Accessed: 16/01/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 64 Page 131
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA SA sub- SA Recommendations Objective category
7. Housing Provision of • Use policy to ensure all development proposals are built to a high-quality housing/ design in line with the ‘Design: process and tools’78 government guidance. accommodation
8. Health Access to • Ensure the retention of existing GP surgeries and leisure centres across and health-related the Plan area. Wellbeing facilities • Increase the provision or capacity of GP surgeries and leisure centres across the Plan area. • Use policy to help ensure that development proposals take into consideration the findings of the reports within the South Worcestershire Sports Facilities Framework79, along with other relevant documents within the Evidence Base. It is recommended that these documents are updated.
Air pollution • Policy should take into consideration recommendations within the Air Quality Action Plan80 and the outputs of the Progress Reports81.
Access to • Policy or design codes for new development proposals should encourage natural and applicants to take into consideration the findings of the Rights of Way outdoor spaces Improvement Plan82. It is recommended that an update to this plan is prepared alongside LTP4. • Policy requirements should ensure development proposals take into consideration the findings of the Worcestershire GI Framework 3: Access and Recreation83.
Amenity and • Where appropriate, the SWDPR should provide policy support for community community ownership of facilities and services. cohesion
9. Cultural Heritage assets • Development proposals which have the potential to harm the significance Heritage of a heritage asset should be subject to a site-specific Heritage Statement.
Historic • Policy and design codes should ensure development proposals adhere to character the recommendations within the Historic Landscape Characterisation Report84. • Ensure the SWDPR takes a positive approach to the conservation, enjoyment and understanding of the historic environment.
78 MHCLG (2019) Guidance. Design: process and tools. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 79 Nortoft (2010) South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy Sports Facilities Framework. Available at: https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/?page_id=2288 [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 80 Worcestershire Regulatory Services (2013) Air Quality Action Plan for Worcestershire. Available at: https://worcsregservices.gov.uk/media/486190/Final-AQAP-Whole-Doc-v23b-adopted.pdf [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 81 Worcestershire Regulatory Services (2019) Air Quality Action Plan Progress Reports. Available at: https://worcsregservices.gov.uk/pollution/air-quality/air-quality-action-plan.aspx [Date Accessed: 15/01/20] 82 Worcestershire County Council (2010) Worcestershire Local Transport Plan 3: Rights of Way Improvement Plan. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3539/rights_of_way_improvement_plan_rowip.pdf [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 83 Worcestershire County Council (2013) Green Infrastructure Framework 3: Access and Recreation. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3776/worcestershire_green_infrastructure_framework_3.pdf [Date Accessed: 16/01/20] 84 Worcestershire County Council (2012) Worcestershire Historic Landscape Characterisation. Available at: http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4584/hlc_report.pdf [Date Accessed: 16/01/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 65 Page 132
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
SA SA sub- SA Recommendations Objective category
10. Access to • Policy and design codes should ensure development proposals consider Transport sustainable the recommendations of the National Cycling Strategy85. and transport • Policy and design codes should ensure development proposals take into Accessibility options consideration the access of HGV and emergency vehicles.
11. Education Access to • Increase the provision and capacity of primary and secondary schools primary and across the Plan area in line with the identified need. secondary education
12. Economy Provision of • Development proposals which would exceed the identified employment and employment need for the Plan area should ensure the proposal would not result in an Employment floorspace increased need for residential development or other infrastructure.
85 National Cycling Strategy. Available at: http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk/ [Date Accessed: 16/01/20]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 66 Page 133
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx 5 Site Assessments
Preface
Appendices D and E provide an appraisal of the additional reasonable alternatives and the reallocated sites considered by the SWCs. Each appraisal includes an SA impact matrix which provides an indication of the nature and magnitude of impacts pre-mitigation. Assessment narratives follow the impact matrices for each site, within which the findings of the appraisal and the rationale for the recorded impacts are described.
The SWCs have identified an additional 41 additional reasonable alternative sites and 79 reallocated sites, for residential, employment or mixed uses. A cluster analysis of these sites has been undertaken. Sites within each cluster are generally expected to have similar effects against the SA Objectives. Additional commentary has been prepared within each assessment where there is a receptor which influences a specific site.
The 120 sites assessed within this section and their associated cluster group are set out in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Site references and addresses
Site Reference Number Site Address
Additional Reasonable Alternative Sites
Malvern Hills SWDPNEW114 Land at Barnard's Green, Malvern CFS0042sc Hope Lane, Clifton upon Teme Land lying to south of Tinkers Coppice Farm, Main Road, Hallow (northern parcel) CFS0343sc Plot 1 CFS0362sc Land east and west of Terrills Lane and south of Tenbury Wells Business Park CFS0407sc Land south of Madresfield Road, Malvern CFS0425sc Land at Steps Farm, The Village, Clifton-on-Teme, Worcester, WR6 6EN CFS0601sc Land East of Clows Top Rd, Abberley Land to the north of Digaway CFS0696 SO 86734 40989 Ryall CFS0905sc Land on the South Side of Guarlford Road, Malvern, WR14 3QP CFS0911sc Land off Stourport Road and the B4197, Great Witley (Site 1) CFS1019 Land to the west of Worcester Road, Open Barn Farm, Kempsey Worcester City SWDP44/8 St Clement’s Gate Opportunity Zone CFS0287sc Land formerly associated with Tolladine Golf Course, Worcester CFS0587sc Land at Blackpole Rd, Worcester Wychavon CFS0061a Hartlebury Trading Estate, Crown Lane, Hartlebury, DY10 4JB CFS0061b Hartlebury Trading Estate, Crown Lane, Hartlebury, DY10 4JB CFS0061c Hartlebury Trading Estate, Crown Lane, Hartlebury, DY10 4JB CFS0061d Hartlebury Trading Estate, Crown Lane, Hartlebury, DY10 4JB CFS0061e Hartlebury Trading Estate, Crown Lane, Hartlebury, DY10 4JB
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 67 Page 134
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Site Reference Number Site Address CFS0061f Hartlebury Trading Estate, Crown Lane, Hartlebury, DY10 4JB CFS0102 South of Keytec East, Business Park, Pershore Pershore CFS0142 Parcel A - Land adjacent Broadway Road, Wickhamford, Evesham CFS0143 Parcel B - Land adjacent Broadway Road, Wickhamford, Evesham CFS0194sc Land at Church Lane, Norton, Worcestershire Norton-Juxta-Kempsey CFS0350sc Land at Orchard Farm, Pershore CFS0393 SO 9058 4897, Stoulton CFS0400sc Eatons Farm, Church Lane, Tibberton, Droitwich, WR9 7NW CFS0401sc Double Gates Farm, Pershore Road, Upton Snodsbury CFS0472sc Land at Kennel Lane / High Street, Broadway CFS0630sc Speed-the-Plough, Plough Road, Tibberton CFS0691sc Land off Wyre Road, Pershore CFS0844sc Land at Brewers Lane, Badsey CFS0855A&B Land north/south of Union Lane, Droitwich CFS0855B Land south of Union Lane, Droitwich CFS0866sc Land adjacent to & west of the Galton Arms, Himbleton CFS0880 Land beside Strensham Court Wood, Twyning Road, WR8 PLR Upper Strensham CFS0891 Land south of Vale Park, Evesham CFS0925 Two Shires Park, Weston Road, Honeybourne, Worcestershire, WR11 7PY CFS1044b Land at Mitton, East of Bredon Road, Tewkesbury CFS1044bsc Land at Mitton, East of Bredon Road, Tewkesbury CFS1056sc Land at Hampton, Evesham Reallocated Sites
Malvern Hills SWDP52* Barracks Store, Court Road SWDP52/1 Walsh's Yard, Poolbrook Common Road SWDP52/2 Former BMX track, Mayfield Road SWDP52d Land at Mill Lane, Poolbrook SWDP52m Former Railway Sidings, Peachfield Road SWDP52s Victoria Road Car Park SWDP53 Malvern Technology Centre (QineticQ) SWDP54 Blackmore Park SWDP55 Three Counties Showground SWDP56 Development at north east Malvern SWDP57/2 Land at the Haven, Oldwood Road SWDP57a Land at Mistletoe Row SWDP57c Land south of the Oaklands SWDP58c Land off A4104, north east of Upton Marina SWDP59* Land adjacent to Henwick Mill House, Martley Road SWDP59/1 Land at the Orchard SWDP59/11 Strand Cottages, Peachley Lane SWDP59/2R Land west of Apostle Oak Cottage SWDP59/3 Land at Hope Lane SWDP59/6R Land between the school and Westmere SWDP59a Land at Walshes Farm
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 68 Page 135
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Site Reference Number Site Address SWDP59zzi Land south of Greenhill Lane SWDP60/1 Land adjoining Severne Green SDWP60/3 Land at Wheatfield Court SWDP60/4 Land adjacent to Highbrae SWDP61/* Land off Pearl Lane Worcester SWDP43/3 Ribble Close and Gas Holder Site SWDP43/4R Old Northwick Farm SWDP43/7 Sansome Walk Swimming Pool SWDP43/9 Old Brewery Service Station, Barbourne Road SWDP43/15 Worcester Woods Business Park, Newtown Road SWDP43/21 Land adjacent to the Masonic Hall SWDP43/29 Chequers Lane/Henwick Road SWDP43/29A Land at Chequers Lane/ Henwick Road SWDP43aa Lowesmoor Wharf SWDP43c Malvern Gate, Bromwich Road SWDP43eR Land at Hopton Stree SWDP43f County Council Offices, Sherwood Lane SWDP43g County Council Offices, Bilford Road SWDP43h Laugherne Garage, Bransford Road SWDP43kR Land off Bromyard Terrace SWDP43n Land at Earl's Court Farm SWDP43qR Zig Zag site, St John's SWDP43sR Rose Avenue SWDP43u Royal Worcester Porcelain - Gap Site SWDP44/2 Fire Station/ Crowngate/ Angel Place/ The Butts SWDP44/3 Trinity House/ Cornmarket/ Lowesmoor SWDP44/4 Shrub Hill Opportunity Zone SWDP44/5 Blockhouse/ Carden Street Opportunity Zone SWDP44/6 Cathedral Quarter Sidbury Opportunity Zone SWDP44/7 Riverside Opportunity Zone SWDP45/1 Worcester South Urban Extension SWDP45/2 Worcester West Urban Extension SWDP45/6 Worcester Technology Park Wychavon SWDP46/1 Garage, High Street SWDP46/4 Garage Court, Abbots Road SWDP46/5 Land adjacent Conningsby Drive SWDP48/2 Boxing Club, Kidderminster Road SWDP48/3 Oakham Place SWDP48/4 Acre Lane SWDP48/5 Willow Court, Westwood Road SWDP48/6 Canal Basin (Netherwich) SWDP49/3 Stonebridge Cross Business Park SWDP50/2 Employment site, top of Kings Road
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 69 Page 136
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
Site Reference Number Site Address SWDP50/4 Land off Davies Road (former leisure centre) SWDP50/5 Land at Offenham Road East SWDP50/6R Land behind Lichfield Avenue SWDP50/7 Land off Abbey Road SWDP51/3 Vale Industrial Park SWDP59/19 Land adjacent Station Road SWDP59/24 Laurels Avenue SWDP59/25R The Racks SWDP59/26 Land north of Woodhall Lane SWDP59/26A Land north of Woodhall Lane, Ombersley SWDP60/9 Station Road SWDP60/15 Land off Roman Meadow, Pershore Road SWDP60/20 Site adjacent Nine Acres SWDP60/28 Garage site off A422 and land to the rear SWDP61/3 Land at Conderton Close SWDP61/10 Land at Park Farm, Jobs Lane
Overview of site assessments pre-mitigation
The impact matrices for all reasonable alternative site assessments pre-mitigation are presented in Table 5.2. These impacts should be read in conjunction with the assessment text narratives in Appendices D and E, as well as the topic specific methodologies and assumptions presented in Boxes 2.1 to 2.12.
Table 5.2: Impact matrix of the 41 additional reasonable alternative sites and 79 reallocated sites pre-mitigation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Accessibility Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation
Additional Reasonable Alternative Sites (pre-mitigation assessment) Malvern Hills SWDPNEW114 0 + - 0 0 + 0 - 0 ++ - +/- CFS0042sc 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + CFS0343sc 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - - + CFS0362sc 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - - + CFS0407sc ------++ - - - -- + CFS0425sc 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - - + CFS0601sc 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + CFS0696 0 + 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0905sc ------++ - - - - + CFS0911sc 0 - 0 - - - + - - - - + CFS1019 0 - 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 70 Page 137
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Accessibility Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation Worcester City SWDP44/8 0 -- - - - + 0 - -- ++ 0 +/- CFS0287sc 0 + - - - - + - - ++ - + CFS0587sc 0 - - - - - 0 - - - 0 ++ Wychavon CFS0061a 0 + 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061b 0 + 0 0 - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061c 0 + 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061d 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061e 0 -- 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 ++ CFS0061f 0 -- 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 ++ CFS0102 0 + 0 0 - - 0 - - - 0 ++ CFS0142 0 - 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0143 0 -- 0 - - - 0 - 0 -- 0 ++ CFS0194sc 0 - - - - - + - - - -- + CFS0350sc ------++ - - - -- + CFS0393 +/- - 0 - +/- - +/- - 0 - -- + CFS0400sc 0 ------0 - - - 0 ++ CFS0401sc 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - - + CFS0472sc 0 - 0 -- - - 0 - - - 0 ++ CFS0630sc 0 ------+ - - - - + CFS0691sc 0 -- 0 - - - + - - - - + CFS0844sc 0 -- 0 - - - + - 0 - - + CFS0855A&B ------+ ++ - - ++ - + CFS0855B 0 + 0 0 - + 0 - 0 ++ 0 ++ CFS0866sc 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - - CFS0880 0 + - - -- - 0 - 0 -- 0 ++ CFS0891 0 - - - - - 0 - 0 -- 0 ++ CFS0925 0 -- 0 - -- -- 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS1044b ------++ - - - -- + CFS1044bsc ------++ - - - -- + CFS1056sc 0 + - - - - + - 0 - - +
Reallocated Sites (pre-mitigation assessment) Malvern Hills SWDP52* 0 - 0 - - + + - - - ++ + SWDP52/1 0 + - - - + + - 0 - - + SWDP52/2 0 ------+ - 0 ++ -- +
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 71 Page 138
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Accessibility Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation SWDP52d 0 ------+ - 0 - - + SWDP52m 0 - - -- - + + - - - ++ + SWDP52s 0 + 0 - - + + - - ++ - + SWDP53 - - - 0 -- - ++ - 0 - - + SWDP54 0 - - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ SWDP55 0 ------0 - 0 - 0 +/- SWDP56 ------++ - - - -- ++ SWDP57/2 0 - 0 - - - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP57a 0 - 0 - - - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP57c 0 - 0 - - - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP58c 0 - 0 - - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP59* 0 + - - - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP59/1 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP59/11 0 + 0 - 0 - + - - - - + SWDP59/2R 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + SWDP59/3 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + SWDP59/6R 0 - - - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP59a 0 - 0 - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP59zzi 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + SWDP60/1 0 + 0 - 0 - + - - - - + SWDP60/3 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/4 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP61/* 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - -- + Worcester City SWDP43/3 0 ------+ - 0 - ++ + SWDP43/4R 0 + - - - - + - - - -- + SWDP43/7 0 - - 0 - + + - - ++ ++ + SWDP43/9 0 + - - - - + - - ++ ++ + SWDP43/15 0 + - - -- - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ SWDP43/21 0 + - - - - + - - ++ - + SWDP43/29 0 ------0 - - ++ 0 ++ SWDP43/29A 0 -- - - - + 0 - - ++ 0 +/- SWDP43aa 0 - - 0 -- + ++ - - ++ ++ + SWDP43c 0 -- - 0 - + + ------SWDP43eR 0 - - - - - + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43f 0 + - - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP43g 0 ------+ - 0 - ++ + SWDP43h 0 -- - 0 - + + - 0 - ++ -- SWDP43kR 0 - - - - - + - - ++ ++ +
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 72 Page 139
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Accessibility Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation SWDP43n 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + SWDP43qR 0 - - 0 - - + - - ++ ++ + SWDP43sR 0 + - 0 - - + - 0 ++ ++ -- SWDP43u 0 + - 0 - + + - - ++ ++ + SWDP44/2 0 -- - 0 - + 0 - -- ++ 0 +/- SWDP44/3 0 - - 0 - + 0 - - ++ 0 +/- SWDP44/4 - -- - 0 -- + ++ - -- ++ ++ + SWDP44/5 0 - - 0 -- + ++ - - ++ ++ + SWDP44/6 0 -- - - - + 0 - +/- ++ 0 +/- SWDP44/7 0 -- - +/- - -- 0 - +/- - 0 +/- SWDP45/1 ------++ ------++ SWDP45/2 ------++ ------++ SWDP45/6 0 ------0 - 0 - 0 ++ Wychavon SWDP46/1 0 + - 0 - + + - - ++ ++ + SWDP46/4 0 + - 0 - + + - 0 - - + SWDP46/5 0 - - - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP48/2 0 - - - - - + - - ++ - + SWDP48/3 0 - - - - - + - - ++ ++ + SWDP48/4 0 + 0 0 - + + - 0 ++ ++ -- SWDP48/5 0 + 0 0 - + + - - ++ ++ + SWDP48/6 0 ------+ - -- ++ - + SWDP49/3 0 ------0 - - -- 0 ++ SWDP50/2 0 -- 0 - -- - ++ - 0 - ++ -- SWDP50/4 0 - 0 0 - + + - 0 ++ ++ -- SWDP50/5 0 ------+ - 0 - ++ + SWDP50/6R 0 + 0 0 - + + - 0 - ++ + SWDP50/7 0 ------++ - -- - - + SWDP51/3 0 ------0 - -- -- 0 ++ SWDP59/19 0 ------++ - - - -- + SWDP59/24 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP59/25R 0 + 0 - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP59/26 0 + - - - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP59/26A 0 + - - - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP60/9 0 + - -- 0 - + - - - - + SWDP60/15 0 + -- - - - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/20 0 + - -- 0 - + - - - - + SWDP60/28 0 + 0 - - - + - - - - + SWDP61/3 0 + - -- 0 - + - - - - +
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 73 Page 140
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Accessibility Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation SWDP61/10 0 - - -- 0 + + - - - -- +
Overview of site assessments post-mitigation
The impact matrices for all reasonable alternative site assessments post-mitigation are presented in Table 5.3. These impacts should be read in conjunction with Table F.1.1 in Appendix F, as well as the topic specific methodologies and assumptions presented in Boxes 2.1 to 2.12.
Table 5.3: Impact matrix of the 41 additional reasonable alternative sites and 79 reallocated sites post-mitigation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Accessibility Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation Additional Reasonable Alternative Sites (post-mitigation assessment) Malvern Hills SWDPNEW114 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 ++ 0 ++ CFS0042sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0343sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0362sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0407sc 0 + 0 - - - ++ - 0 - -- + CFS0425sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0601sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0696 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0905sc 0 + 0 - - - ++ - 0 - - + CFS0911sc 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS1019 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ Worcester City SWDP44/8 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 ++ 0 0 CFS0287sc 0 + 0 0 0 - + + 0 ++ - + CFS0587sc 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ Wychavon CFS0061a 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061b 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061c 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 74 Page 141
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Accessibility Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation CFS0061d 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061e 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0061f 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0102 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0142 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0143 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0194sc 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - -- + CFS0350sc 0 + 0 - - -- ++ - 0 - -- + CFS0393 +/- + 0 - +/- - +/- - 0 - -- + CFS0400sc 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0401sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0472sc 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - - ++ CFS0630sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0691sc 0 0 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0844sc 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0855A&B 0 + 0 0 - + ++ - 0 ++ - + CFS0855B 0 + 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 ++ 0 ++ CFS0866sc 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + CFS0880 0 + 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0891 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS0925 0 0 0 0 - -- 0 - 0 - 0 ++ CFS1044b 0 0 0 - - -- ++ - 0 - -- + CFS1044bsc 0 0 0 - - -- ++ - 0 - -- + CFS1056sc 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - +
Reallocated Sites (post-mitigation assessment) Malvern Hills SWDP52* 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 - ++ + SWDP52/2 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ -- + SWDP52m 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 - ++ + SWDP52s 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 ++ - + SWDP53 0 + 0 0 - - ++ - 0 - - ++ SWDP54 0 + 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ SWDP56 0 + 0 - - -- ++ - 0 - -- ++ SWDP57/2 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP57a 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP57c 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP58c 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - -- + SWDP59* 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - -- +
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 75 Page 142
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Accessibility Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation SWDP59/1 0 0 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP59/11 0 + 0 0 0 - ++ - 0 - - + SWDP59/2R 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP59/3 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP59/6R 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP59a 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP59zzi 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/1 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/3 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/4 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - -- + Worcester City SWDP43/3 0 + 0 0 0 - + + 0 - ++ + SWDP43/4R 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - -- + SWDP43/7 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43/9 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43/15 0 0 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ SWDP43/21 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ - + SWDP43/29 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 + 0 ++ 0 ++ SWDP43aa 0 + 0 0 - + ++ - 0 ++ ++ ++ SWDP43c 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 - - + SWDP43eR 0 + 0 0 0 - + + 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43f 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP43g 0 0 0 0 0 - + + 0 - ++ + SWDP43h 0 0 0 0 0 + + - 0 - ++ + SWDP43kR 0 + 0 0 0 - + + 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43n 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP43qR 0 + 0 0 0 - + + 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43sR 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP43u 0 + 0 0 0 + + + 0 ++ ++ + SWDP44/2 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 ++ 0 ++ SWDP44/3 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 ++ 0 ++ SWDP44/4 0 + 0 0 - + ++ + 0 ++ ++ ++ SWDP44/5 0 + 0 0 - + ++ - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP44/6 0 0 0 0 - + 0 + 0 ++ 0 +/- SWDP44/7 0 0 0 0 - -- 0 + 0 - ++ +/- SWDP45/1 - + 0 - -- -- ++ - 0 - -- ++ SWDP45/2 0 + 0 - -- -- ++ - 0 - -- ++ SWDP45/6 0 + 0 - - -- 0 - 0 - 0 ++ Wychavon
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 76 Page 143
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Site Reference Accessibility Housing Education Cultural Heritage Pollution & Waste Natural Resources Health & Wellbeing Landscape Landscape & Townscape Transport & Economy Economy & Employment Climate Change Mitigation Biodiversity & Geodiversity Climate Change Adaptation SWDP46/1 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 ++ ++ ++ SWDP46/4 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 - - + SWDP46/5 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP48/2 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ - + SWDP48/3 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP48/4 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP48/5 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP48/6 0 0 0 0 0 - + - 0 ++ - ++ SWDP49/3 0 + 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ SWDP50/2 0 0 0 0 - - ++ - 0 - ++ + SWDP50/4 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 ++ ++ + SWDP50/5 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - ++ + SWDP50/6R 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 - ++ + SWDP50/7 0 0 0 - - - ++ - 0 - - + SWDP51/3 0 + 0 - - - 0 - 0 - 0 ++ SWDP59/19 0 + 0 0 - - ++ - 0 - -- + SWDP59/24 0 0 0 0 0 - + - 0 - -- + SWDP59/25R 0 + 0 0 - - + - 0 - - + SWDP59/26 0 + 0 0 - - + - 0 - -- + SWDP60/9 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/15 0 + 0 0 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/20 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP60/28 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP61/3 0 + 0 - 0 - + - 0 - - + SWDP61/10 0 + 0 0 0 + + - 0 - -- +
Selection and Rejection
Following the consideration of the post-mitigation of the reasonable alternative sites, the Councils have identified some preferred sites for allocations within the SWDPR. Appendix G sets out the reasons for selecting the sites set out in the Preferred Options Document and rejecting other reasonable alternatives considered.
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 77 Page 144
SA of the SWDPR: Regulation 18 (III) December 2020 LC-668_SWDPR_SA_Reg18(III)_5_181220CW.docx 6 Next steps
Consultation on the Regulation 18 (III) SA Report
This Regulation 18 (III) SA Report is subject to consultation.
This report represents the latest stage of the SA process. The SA process will take on-board any comments on this report and use them to furnish the next report with greater detail and accuracy.
Responding to the consultation
This Regulation 18 (III) SA Report will be published by the SWCs for consultation. Consultation findings will be used to inform subsequent stages of the SA process.
All responses on this consultation exercise should be sent to:
South Worcestershire Development Plan Team, Civic Centre, Queen Elizabeth Drive, Pershore, WR10 1PT
Tel: 01386 565000 Email: [email protected]
© Lepus Consulting for South Worcestershire Councils 78 Page 145
Habitat Regulations Assessments
Sustainability Appraisals
Strategic Environmental Assessments
Landscape Character Assessments
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments
Green Belt Reviews
Expert Witness
Ecological Impact Assessments
Habitat and Ecology Surveys
© Lepus Consulting Ltd
1 Bath Street Cheltenham GL50 1YE
T: 01242 525222
www.lepusconsulting.com
CHELTENHAM
This page is intentionally left blank Page 147 Agenda Item 9
Report to: Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee, 2nd February 2021
Report of: Corporate Director - Place
Subject: SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE TRAVELLER AND TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT (DPD) – PREFERRED OPTIONS: REGULATION 18 CONSULTATION
1. Recommendation
1.1 That the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee approve the Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document (TTS SA DPD) – Preferred Options: Regulation 18 material (set out in Appendix 1) for consultation from 1st March 2021 for seven weeks.
1.2 That delegated authority is given to the Corporate Director – Place in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee to make minor amendments to the Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD Regulation 18 consultation material prior to publication.
2. Background
2.1 Members will be aware that the South Worcestershire Councils (SWC) are committed to the production of a Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document (TTS SA DPD). This is the third time that the SWC will have consulted upon the DPD Preferred Options – the two previous occasions were in March 2016 and March 2018.
2.2 The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) states – LPAs should: identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets identify a supply of specific, developable sites, or broad locations for growth, for years 6 to 10 and, where possible, for years 11-15
2.3 The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (published Oct 2019) identifies the need for new Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots for the first 5 years and over the longer term. The needs for the plan period (to 2030) are indicated in the table below:
Period Malvern Hills Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon South Traveller Travelling City Traveller Worcestershire Pitches** Showpeople Traveller Pitches** Traveller Plots** Pitches** Pitches** 2019-2023* 15 7 1 14 30 2024-2028 3 1 1 16 20 2029-2030 1.2 0.4 0.4 7.2 8.8
Page 148
Total 2019- 19.2 8.4 2.4 37.2 58.8 2030 *Each year runs from 1 Jan to 31 Dec ** PPTS 2015 definition
2.4 To meet the need identified for the SWDP plan period (to 2030) 58.8 Traveller pitches and 8.4 Traveller Plots are required across south Worcestershire. Since 1 Jan 2019 Wychavon have granted planning consent for 19 pitches but no new pitches or plots have been granted in either Worcester City or Malvern Hills, therefore the total pitch/plot figure is outstanding for Malvern Hills and Worcester City. Wychavon needs to provide an additional 18.2 pitches to meet its need. The number of outstanding pitches/plots required is therefore:
o Malvern Hills: 19.2 pitches and 8.4 Travelling Showpeople plots, o Worcester City: 2.4 pitches and o Wychavon: 37.2 – 19 = 18.2 pitches
2.5 The status of the sites included in the previous version of the Preferred Option (2018) (and its associated Site Assessment Background Report) has been checked, and the following changes are made:
Malvern Hills: Mountain View, Bastonford – site removed due to landscape impact Willows End, Guarlford – site removed as not within 800m of a town or Cat 1, 2 or 3 village
Wychavon: Shorthill Caravan Park, Crossway Green - site removed as not within 800m of a town or Cat 1, 2 or 3 village (Crossway Green is no longer a Category 3 village) Severn Acres, Main Road, Cropthorne - added back in (is within 800m of Cropthorne’s development boundary) - there is a pending application for 2 pitches on the site (20/012133)
2.6 Officers have considered Council owned land and none is suitable, available and deliverable for Traveller provision.
2.7 The most recent call for sites (Oct/Nov 2020) resulted in 10 submissions but none were considered acceptable as a Traveller site allocation. The Sustainability Appraisal has been updated to consider these 10 new sites.
2.8 Contact has been made with approximately 30 landowners/agents who submitted their land as housing/employment allocations for the SWDPR and whose land is within 800m of a town (i.e. Malvern, Tenbury Wells and Upton upon Severn) or Category 1 village in Malvern Hills. None have confirmed that they wanted their land to be considered as a potential Traveller site allocation.
Page 149
3. Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD Preferred Options (2021)
3.1 The sites, and number of pitches, suggested for inclusion in the Traveller DPD are listed below (none are proposed within Worcester City). It is anticipated that additional sites and pitches will come forward through the DM process in Wychavon, but evidence indicates that this is doubtful in Malvern Hills and Worcester City.
Malvern Hills: Hillbee Farm, Welland Rd, Upton upon Severn 3 pitches
Wychavon: The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Evesham 5 pitches Blossom Hill, Village St, Aldington 2 pitches Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Badsey 6 pitches Severn Acres, Main Road, Cropthorne (subject to pending application) 2 pitches
3.2 If no additional pitches are approved through the DM process then it is likely therefore that there will be a shortfall of provision in all 3 SWC areas: Malvern Hills shortfall of 16 Pitches and 8 Travelling Showpeople plots Worcester City shortfall of 2 pitches and Wychavon shortfall of 3 pitches
3.3 Some of this shortfall could be met by the new Strategic Growth Areas at Worcestershire Parkway, Rushwick and Throckmorton but these are unlikely to come forward in the short/medium term (i.e. within the next 5/10 years).
3.4 Despite the anticipated shortfall it is considered important to continue with the DPD process to allow the SWC to demonstrate that they have explored all reasonable avenues to identify a five year supply of deliverable and suitable sites to meet the identified need.
3.5 The latest Preferred Options (2021) will be reported to each of the 3 SWC in January and February with the intention of the seven week public consultation commencing on 1 March (same date and duration as the SWDPR Reg 18(iii) consultation which is also on this agenda).
4. Consultation Approach
4.1 The approaches to public consultation on planning policy documents relating to the statutory stages of plan making are set out in the 2018 adopted Statement of Community Involvement. In accordance with the revised regulations issued in July 2020 regarding public consultation in the planning process, since the advent of Covid-19 the SCI was temporarily amended in October 2020. Essentially this amended any of the ‘face to face’ requirement to ensure social distancing could be observed in accordance with Government guidance.
4.2 The public consultation will run for seven weeks from 1st March to 19th April 2021. The consultation documents and any supporting information will be placed on deposit in the following locations:
Council reception or contact centres
Page 150
Public libraries (where open) Relevant council websites and the SWDPR website
4.3 All the statutory bodies, neighbouring local authorities, parish councils, organisations and individuals held on the SWDP database will be advised via e-mail of the consultation and a press release will be issued in the w/b 22nd February 2021. In addition, householders within 200m of a proposed site allocation will also be notified of the PO consultation.
4.4 An on-line briefing will be provided for parish, town councils on Monday 1st March and at two on-line public meetings on 16 and 18 March from 6pm (open to district and city councillors). This will address the content and purpose of the consultation and provide a Q&A opportunity.
5. Alternative Options Considered
5.1 The alternative option is not to produce a DPD but to rely upon the DM process to approve planning applications for new Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots. This approach is not in accordance with the pro-active plan-making aims of the Planning for Traveller Sites as described in para. 2.2 above.
6. Implications
6.1 Financial and Budgetary Implications There are financial implications associated with preparing the DPD. The biggest cost is staff resources – the evidence base has been updated (2019) but there is an additional cost to continue work on the accompanying SA (approx. £9,400) and for representation at the Examination if required – but this cost will be shared across all 3 SWC.
6.2 Legal and Governance Implications The production of a DPD is governed by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended. The SA is a legal requirement of this act (S19(5) - the present statutory requirement for SA lies in The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012), and SEA has been transposed into English law by The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SEA Regulations).
6.3 Risk Implications Not having a Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD may result in a lack of provision of Traveller pitches with implications for the DM process and appeals.
6.4 Corporate/Policy Implications The DPD will update the council’s planning policies on accommodation needs for Traveller and Travelling Showpeople. It is being prepared in accordance with the relevant corporate policies.
6.5 Equality Implications The PO will include allocations to help meet the accommodation needs of Traveller and Travelling Showpeople across south Worcestershire. An Equality Impact Assessment is required.
Page 151
6.6 Human Resources Implications None
6.7 Health and Safety Implications None
6.8 Social, Environmental and Economic Implications The TTS SA DPD is subject to Sustainability Appraisal which examines the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the sites submitted to the DPD call for sites and proposes mitigation measures to overcome any negative impacts identified.
Ward(s): All Contact Officer: Corin Beames – Acting Team Leader (Planning Policy) Tel: 01905 722546 E-mail: [email protected]
Background Papers:
GTAA (2019) https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/swdp-review/swdp- review-evidence-base/south-worcestershire-gypsy-and-traveller- accommodation-assessment
Appendix:
TTS SA DPD PO (2021) and Site Assessment Background Report (2021)
This page is intentionally left blank Page 153 Agenda Item 9 Appendix 1
South Worcestershire Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Site Allocations Development Plan Document
Revised Preferred Options Consultation
January 2021 Page 154
Contents
Page
1. Introduction and Context
Purpose of the Consultation 5
Purpose of the Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations 5 Development Plan Document
Sustainability Appraisal 6
How to Comment 6
Definition of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople 7
National Planning Policy Context 7
Local Plan Context 8
Policy SWDP 17 and Related Policies 8
Existing Provision of Traveller Pitches and Showpeople Plots in South 10 Worcestershire
Why We Need A Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations 10 Development Plan Document
2. What We Have Done So Far
Vision 12
Objectives 12
The Evidence Base 13
Development to Date 15
Tolerated Sites 16
Call for Sites – Spring 2015 16
Preferred Options Consultation – Spring 2016 17
Call for Sites – Winter 2016/17 17
Site Selection Process 18
3. Proposed Site Allocations
Meeting The Need For Deliverable Traveller Pitches To 2021/22 20
Specific Consultation Questions
2 Page 155
Travelling Showpeople 22
Transit Sites 22
Proposed Deliverable Pitches 22
Meeting The Need For Developable Pitches and Plots 23
Figure 1 : Broad Locations for the Growth of Sites for Travellers and 24 Travelling Showpeople
4. Other Planning Issues
Tenure Of Proposed New Pitches 25
Nomadic Habit Of Life 25
Rural Exception Sites 26
Site Design Considerations 26
Safeguarding Of Sites 28
General 28
5. Next Steps
Timetable 29
Appendix 1 Glossary 30
Appendix 2 Site Assessment Criteria and Detailed Considerations 33
Appendix 3 Proposed Site Allocations 35
Figure 2: Location of Proposed Deliverable & Developable Sites 35
Hillbee Farm, Welland Road, Upton upon Severn 36
The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Evesham 37
Blossom Hill, Village St, Aldington 41
Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Badsey 42
3 Page 156
1. Introduction and Context
Purpose of the Consultation
The South Worcestershire Councils (Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon) are preparing a Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document which will set out the requirement for the number of pitches and plots to be provided to meet the needs of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in south Worcestershire over the coming years.
The final Development Plan Document (DPD) will allocate new sites or extensions/intensifications to existing Travellers and Travelling Showpeople sites and will become part of the Development Plan for the South Worcestershire Councils (SWCs).
The South Worcestershire Councils undertook three “calls for sites”: February to March 2015, November 2016 – January 2017 and the latest October – November 2020. The calls for sites provided an opportunity for individuals and organisations to suggest sites that they considered might be suitable for allocation as a Traveller or Travelling Showpeople site. It was made clear that proposals could be for either new sites or an expansion or intensification of an existing site. Proposals were invited for permanent residential sites or transit sites / temporary stopping places – although it should be noted that the latest GTAA (Oct 2019) suggests that transit or temporary stopping places are not required due to the Toleration Policy currently operative across Worcestershire.
Sites were sieved out which failed on the grounds of either the site being unavailable for Travellers or Travelling Showpeople purposes or the site had major constraints such as being within planning designations, areas prone to flooding, or on contaminated land, etc. Remaining sites went through a more detailed assessment. This is explained further in the section on Site Selection Process (page 17).
Purpose of the Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document
The Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document (TTS DPD) allocates sites to meet the need as identified in the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (Oct 2019).
The short term needs (for the first 5 years) will be met through the allocation of sites to meet the identified needs in the GTAA – this includes the allocation of existing tolerated sites, i.e. sites which do not have planning permission but do not cause any planning harm.
The medium term need (for years 6 to 10) will be met via the new sites on the urban extensions and/or windfall sites coming forward in the broad locations indicated on Map 1.
The longer term need (11 to15 years) is not covered by this DPD because the level of need is likely to have changed by that time and there will have been a review of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP).
The Revised Preferred Options consultation seeks views on these matters.
4 Page 157
Sustainability Appraisal
The TTS DPD is informed by a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which will contribute to the evidence base with the aim of delivering sustainable development.
For the purposes of this consultation an Interim Sustainability Appraisal has been prepared to set out the assessment of the strategic options and sites and can be viewed at (link to be inserted) A full Sustainability Appraisal Report will be published alongside the Publication version of the Plan.
How to Comment
The consultation period runs for 7 weeks from 1 March to 19 April 2021 and comments can be made using the on-line form via the SWDP website (link to be inserted)
Alternatively you may wish to submit comments:
By email. To: [email protected] or
By post. To: South Worcestershire Development Plan, c/o Wychavon District Council, Civic Centre, Queen Elizabeth Drive, Pershore, Worcestershire, WR10 1PT.
Further information about the TTS DPD and an electronic copy of the Response Form are available on the SWDP website at (link to be inserted)
Hard copies of this Consultation Document are also available at Libraries.
Please be aware that copies of representations will be made available for public inspection and cannot be treated as confidential. This information will include your name, organisation and your comment. Representations will also be available on the councils’ websites.
Inappropriate comments submitted as part of the consultation will not be considered. These may include, but are not be limited to, representations that are deemed to be racist or discriminatory.
5 Page 158
Definition of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
For the purposes of planning, The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) defines Gypsies and Travellers as:
Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group of Travelling Showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites also says that “in determining whether persons are “Gypsies and Travellers” for the purposes of this planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters:
a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.”
Travelling Showpeople are defined as:
Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined above.
The National Planning Policy Context
The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (paragraph 10) states that local planning authorities should, in producing their Local Plan “identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets”. Further, Local Plans should “identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years six to ten and, where possible, for years 11-15.”
The Planning Policy for Traveller Sites says that to be deliverable , sites should be:
Available now;
Offer a suitable location for development now; and be
Achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development on the site is viable.
To be considered developable , sites should be in a suitable location for Traveller site development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.
The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites also says that “criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need. Where there is no identified need, criteria-based policies should be included to provide a basis for decisions in case applications nevertheless come forward. Criteria based policies should be fair and should
6 Page 159
facilitate the traditional and nomadic life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.” (paragraph 11)
Local Plan Context
The SWC prepared the SWDP which was adopted in February 2016. The SWDP sets out the strategy, together with policies and site allocations to guide the location of new pitches in south Worcestershire up to 2030.
One of the issues that the SWDP addresses is meeting the accommodation needs of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.
A new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was published in Oct 2019 to inform the need for this DPD.
Policy SWDP 17 (Travellers and Travelling Showpeople)
The pitch requirements set out in the SWDP in Policy SWDP 17 have been superseded by the evidence in the GTAA (Oct 2019).
Policy SWDP17 also sets out a number of criteria 1 to guide land supply allocations and provide a basis for decisions when planning applications come forward.
The SWDP Review will include a similar Traveller policy to the SWDP – both setting out the need for new Traveller pitches and a criteria based policy for determining planning applications.
1 Criterion xi) is no longer applicable because of the cancellation of the CLG Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites
7 Page 160
Existing Provision of Travellers Pitches and Showpeople Plots in South Worcestershire
In Spring 2019, the GTAA records that there were 217 permanent Traveller pitches and 12 Travelling Showpeople plots within south Worcestershire:
131 authorised private pitches, 86 local authority managed pitches (plus 4 unoccupied) 1 Travelling Showperson’s yard located in Malvern Hills which provides 12 plots.
In addition, there were: 30 transit pitches (24 with temporary planning permission and 6 not yet developed) 20 residential private pitches with temporary planning permission 7 pitches located on unauthorised developments (1 pitch in Malvern Hills regarded as unauthorised and 6 pitches in Wychavon referred to by the local authority as tolerated pitches) There were 29 potential pitches (i.e. pitches with planning permission but which had not yet been developed) located in Wychavon.
Table 1 Traveller Pitches in South Worcestershire Spring 2019)
Malvern Hills Worcester Wychavon Total
Local Authority Site 5 15 66 86 Housing Associ ation Site 0 0 0 0 Private Site – Authorised 15 0 116 131 Private Site – Temporary 8 0 12 20 Authorised ** Unauthorised 1 0 0 1 Unauthorised - tolerated 0 0 6 6 TOTAL 29 15 200 244 **Plus an additional 24 transit pitches at Crossway Green
Why Do We Need A Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document? The SWC are required to identify and update annually, a supply of deliverable Travellers pitches sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against locally set targets. It is important to be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of sites and the adoption of a DPD is the best way to evidence a suitable supply of sites and thus reduce the risk of less appropriate sites being approved, or granted temporary consent. Further, the failure to allocate sufficient land to meet the need for new pitches could have a number of impacts including: Continuing the problem of unauthorised development and encampments with the associated tensions with the settled community, Restricting the Council’s ability to enforce against unauthorised development as our ability to enforce is related to efforts to meet the need for new provision, and
8 Page 161
Increasing the difficulty of ensuring that the Traveller and Travelling Showpeople community has access to the same public services that are available to the settled community. The TTS DPD will therefore seek to address these issues by identifying deliverable sites to meet the accommodation needs of Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in south Worcestershire in the first 5 years and identify broad locations for years 6 to 10. Doing nothing to address the issues is therefore not considered a viable option.
9 Page 162
2. What Have We Done So Far?
Vision
The Vision for the TTS DPD is that by 2030 south Worcestershire will be an area where:
Travellers and Travelling Showpeople have the same opportunities and responsibilities as the settled community to secure a decent home which allows them to pursue and preserve their traditional way of life and there is sufficient land and pitches available to meet the identified need for accommodation.
Sites are well located, sustainable and of high quality where residents enjoy living and where they and the site are well integrated with the wider local community.
Unauthorised developments and encampments are reduced and there are harmonious relationships between the Traveller, Travelling Showpeople and settled communities.
Both the travelling and settled communities have security and certainty about their future and that of their local environment.
Objectives
The overarching objective to deliver this Vision is to:
To provide authorised pitches for Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in south Worcestershire in line with evidence of established need in the most appropriate locations to reduce the number of unauthorised developments and encampments and enable Travellers and Travelling Showpeople to access the services and facilities that meet their needs, whilst respecting the interests of the settled community.
To achieve this it will be necessary to:
Identify sites that are available, suitable and deliverable;
Allocate and grant planning permission for sufficient land and pitches to meet identified needs within south Worcestershire in the most appropriate locations;
Allocate sites and pitches in the most sustainable locations to enable reasonable access to local services and facilities including health, education and employment;
Ensure sites are of high quality design and are safe and pleasant places to live; and
Provide clear guidance for making decisions on planning applications regarding Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites.
10 Page 163
The Evidence Base
In October 2019 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) was published for south Worcestershire which identifies the future accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. The south Worcestershire GTAA is available at: https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence-base/south- worcestershire-gypsy-and-traveller-accommodation-assessment
The GTAA identified the need for new Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople plots from 2019 to 2041 and is summarised in Table 2.
Table 2 Need for Permanent Traveller Pitches and Travelling Showpeople - 2019 – 2041
Malvern Malvern Worcester Wychavon South Hills Hills City Traveller Worcestershire Traveller Travelling Traveller Pitches** Traveller Pitches** Showpeople Pitches** Pitches** Plots ** 2019- 15 7 1 14 30 2023 * 2024- 3 1 1 16 20 2028 2029- 3 1 1 18 22 2033 2034- 4 1 2 26 32 2041 2019- 25 10 5 74 104 20 41 source: South Worcestershire Addendum to the GTAA, October 2019 *Each year runs from 1 Jan to 31 Dec ** PPTS 2015 definition
11 Page 164
Development to Date
The SWC will update annually the supply of deliverable sites, with a rolling five-year cumulative requirement for pitches, set against a rolling five-year delivery of pitches.
When planning permissions are granted for permanent pitches through the development management process they will contribute towards the required 5-year land supply.
Since 1 Jan 2019 planning permission has been granted for 21 new pitches 2 (all in Wychavon) – these count towards meeting the need for pitches in Wychavon.
Table 3 below indicates the outstanding need for the SWDP plan period to 2030 taking into account planning permissions granted.
Table 3 Outstanding need for Traveller pitches and Travelling Showpeople Plots
Malvern Malvern Worcester Wychavon South Hills Hills City Traveller Worcestershire Traveller Travelling Traveller Pitches** Traveller Pitches** Showpeople Pitches** Pitches** & Plots ** Plots 2019- 19.2 8.2 2.4 16.2 58.8 pitches & 2030 8.2 plots
Tolerated Sites
It is suggested that the existing tolerated sites are allocated in the TTS DPD notwithstanding that they do not have planning permission as they have been in existence for many years and are not considered to cause any planning harm. The tolerated sites are all in Wychavon and are:
The Gravel, Lineholt: 2 pitches,
The Orchards, Knowle hill, Evesham: 2 pitches, and
Sands Lane, Badsey: 2 pitches.
The inclusion of these tolerated sites will in effect increase supply by 6 pitches but without actually physically increasing the number of pitches on any of the sites. This would reduce the requirement from 58 pitches to 52 pitches for the period to 2030.
Call for Sites
The call for sites was advertised on the SWDP website and contact was made with owners of existing authorised sites, sites with temporary planning permission, tolerated sites, unauthorised developments and caravan parks.
2 Up to 21 January 2021
12 Page 165
17 sites were submitted during the first call for sites in February / March 2015. In addition, the potential suitability of the only Traveller site in south Worcestershire (at Crossway Green), which had temporary planning permission and no conditions limiting the site to named individuals, was also assessed.
21 sites were submitted to the second call for sites in Nov 2016 to Jan 2017. In addition, three sites which were either located within the proposed urban extensions or on sites beyond the urban extensions in lieu of sites on the urban extensions were also assessed.
10 sites were submitted to the latest call for sites in Oct/Nov 2020.
The full list of sites submitted to the councils is available in a separate Site Assessment Background Report available on the SWDP website at (new link)
It was made clear that any sites submitted in the call for sites exercise, together with those proposed for the urban extensions, would be assessed for their suitability against the criteria in SWDP17 and other good practice guidance, and then subject to public consultation, in order to determine which sites may be identified for allocation in this DPD.
In addition, Council owned land across south Worcestershire and sites submitted to the SHELAA for housing and/or employment within 800m of Malvern, Tenbury Wells, Upton upon Severn or Cat 1 village in Malvern Hills were also assessed. None were found to be suitable, available and deliverable.
Preferred Options Consultations
There have been 2 previous Preferred Options consultation - March / April 2016 and March/April 2018. Comments received from those consultations have been considered in the preparation of this latest Preferred Options.
The SWC have not discounted the possibility of other sites coming forward during the preparation of this DPD or through approvals of planning applications.
Site Selection Process
The Site Assessment Background Report (add link) explains the assessment process which included a 2 stage desk-based assessment of the submitted sites. Sites which did not satisfy 1 or more of the essential criteria were rejected. Essential criteria included within 800m of a town, cat 1, 2 or 3 village, suitable and safe access, not on land liable to flood, not within Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or significant Gap and not causing harm to Heritage or biodiversity assets.
The remaining sites were also assessed against ‘desirable’ criteria to determine their distance from e.g. schools, shops and doctors surgeries – but this was for information and to prioritise more sustainably located sites in the event of a choice of potential sites.
The Site Assessment Criteria and detailed considerations are summarised in Appendix 2.
13 Page 166
3. Proposed Site Allocations
Following the detailed assessment of all of the sites listed in the Site Assessment Background Report the following 4 sites meet, or have the potential to meet, the essential site suitability criteria and are proposed as potentially deliverable sites. These are listed in Table 4 below.
A copy of the Site Assessment Background Report is available on the SWDP website at (add link)
Further information is provided on each of the 4 sites in Appendix 3.
Table 4 – New/extended Traveller sites
Site Name and Location District New site or Proposed Extension to Number of or Additional intensification Permanent of Existing Pitches Site Hillbee Farm, Welland Road, Upton upon Malvern Hills Existing: 3 Severn Intensification The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Evesham Wychavon Existing: 5* Extension Blossom Hill, Village St, Aldington Wychavon Existing: 2 Extension Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Badsey Wychavon New 6 Total 16 *including the 2 Tolerated pitches
The SWC will update annually the supply of deliverable sites, with a rolling five-year cumulative requirement for pitches, set against a rolling five-year delivery of pitches. When planning permissions are granted through the development management process, these will contribute towards meeting the required 5-year land supply.
14 Page 167
Specific Consultation Questions
Travelling Showpeople
The GTAA (Oct 2019) identifies that 8 plots are required for the period from 2019 to 2030
Question 1 There have not been any suggested sites for Travelling Showpeople plots and therefore it is proposed that the SWC work with the Showman’s Guild to identify a suitable site. Do you agree with this approach?
If no, please give your reasons.
Transit Sites
Question 2 The GTAA (Oct 2019) suggests that no new transit pitches are required because of the toleration policy operating across Worcestershire. Do you agree with this approach?
If no, please give your reasons.
Proposed Deliverable Traveller Pitches (first 5 years)
Question 3 Do you have any comments on the suitability of increasing the number of pitches (by 3 pitches) at the existing Traveller site at Hillbee Farm in Upton upon Severn?
Question 4 Do you have any comments on the suitability of increasing the number of pitches at the existing Traveller site by 5 pitches (to include the 2 Tolerated pitches) at The Orchard, Knowle Hill in Evesham?
Question 5 Do you have any comments on the suitability of increasing the number of pitches (by 2 pitches) by extending the existing Traveller site at Blossom Hill, Village Street in Aldington?
Question 6 Do you have any comments on the suitability of land at Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Badsey as a potential new permanent Traveller site for 6 pitches?
Meeting the Need for Developable Pitches and Plots (years 6 to 10)
The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites says that local planning authorities should identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years’ six to ten.
Question 7 The SWDPR will include Traveller Site Allocations for the new settlements at Worcestershire Parkway, Rushwick and Throckmorton Airfield. Worcestershire Parkway shall include 2 Traveller sites and Rushwick Expanded Settlement and Throckmorton Airfield Strategic Allocation shall both include 1 Traveller site. Each site to be around 10 pitches. Do you agree with this approach?
If no, please give reasons.
15 Page 168
Broad locations for growth are shown on Figure 1, which shows areas within 800 metres (the recognised threshold beyond which it is very unlikely people would walk to access a service) of a town or Category 1, 2 or 3 settlement excluding land within either the Green Belt or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (in accordance with the Site Assessment Methodology and reflecting SWDP 17Ci). In the ten year period, April 2007 to March 2017, 66 Traveller pitches were granted consent in South Worcestershire within 800 metres of towns or Category 1, 2 or 3 settlements. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that further windfall sites will come forward within or on the edge of towns or Category 1, 2 or 3 settlements through the development management process to meet any outstanding need in the period to 2027. Windfall development proposals will be assessed in accordance with the criteria in Policy SWDP17 and the policies in the emerging SWDPR.
Figure 1: Broad Locations for the Growth of Sites for Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Question 8 Do you agree with this approach of identifying broad locations of growth?
If no, please give reasons.
16 Page 169
4. Other Planning Issues
Tenure of New Pitches and Plots
There is a waiting list for social rented pitches for Travellers who are unable afford to purchase a pitch, therefore ideally a mixture of private and socially-rented sites should be provided.
In the previous Preferred Options consultations respondents indicated that there could be difficulties in assessing applicant’s incomes and establishing discounted market values for pitches.
Question on Tenure
Question 9 Do you have any suggestions as to how the SWC can encourage the provision of socially rented pitches?
Nomadic Habit of Life
The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) says that in determining whether persons are Gypsies and Travellers for the purposes of planning policy, consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters:
a) whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life b) the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life c) whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.
The Government has not provided guidance on how long someone would need to cease travelling, or in what circumstances, before they are no longer classed as a Traveller for the purposes of planning policy. Currently, there is also no Government guidance for councils on the criteria that they should use to assess whether Gypsies and Travellers live a nomadic lifestyle.
In the previous Preferred Options consultations respondents suggested information could be sought from applicants on their working locations over the previous 5 years and how long the Travellers are away from the site.
Question about Nomadic Habit of Life
Question 10 When determining planning applications the SWC will have to assess whether persons are Gypsies and Travellers for the purposes of planning policy. Do you have any suggestions about how the SWC should assess whether Gypsies and Travellers are leading or have permanently ceased their nomadic habit of life?
If yes, please provide suggestions.
General
In the previous Preferred Options consultations respondents indicated that the distribution of existing Traveller sites is not reflected equally across Worcestershire and therefore does not enable Travellers to live in other areas; sites are over concentrated in certain areas with no
17 Page 170
apparent upper limit; Travellers should become more involved in local life; if sites are too large they lead to more friction between local and travelling communities.
Question 11 Are there any other comments you wish to make about this Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Revised Preferred Options Document?
18 Page 171
5. Next Steps
The timetable for the preparation of the TTS DPD is outlined in each of the SWC Local Development Schemes, published in November 2019.
The proposed timetable for the development of the TTS DPD is summarised as follows:
Stage Timetable Commencement September 2014 Preferred Options Consultations May – June 2016 (Regulation 18) February - April 2018 March/April 2021
Publication Sept/October 2021 (Regulation 19) Submission April 2022 (Regulation 22) Independent Examination May/June 2022 (Regulation 24) Precise dates of examination hearing sessions will be determined by the Inspector Receipt of Inspector’s Report June 2022 (Regulation 25) Adoption July 2022 (Regulation 26)
The next stage in the process will be for the SWC to consider and assess responses to the latest Preferred Options consultation.
A Draft DPD will then be prepared, including the recommended final site allocations. The Draft DPD will be consulted on at the Publication stage in Sept/October 2021, the Draft DPD, together with the representations received on it, will be submitted to the Secretary of State in April 2022.
An Examination in Public will follow and the Inspector will then publish their report. Subject to the Plan being found sound it will then be adopted.
19 Page 172
Appendix 1
Glossary
Authorised Site: A site with planning permission for use as a Traveller or Travelling Showpeople site. These sites can be private or Council-owned. Most authorised sites in south Worcestershire are permanent, but they can sometimes be temporary (see ‘Temporary Sites’). Call for Sites: The way in which the councils give the public an opportunity to suggest sites for potential Traveller or Travelling Showpeople development. Respondents filled out a form with the details of the suggested site which was then considered by the councils. Caravans : Mobile living vehicles - includes touring caravans. Section 29 (1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 Act defines a caravan as ‘any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted’.
Category 1, 2 and 3 Settlements : The results of the Village Facilities and Rural Public Transport Survey (2019) enabled a hierarchy of settlements to be ranked according to their sustainability and access to local services. Category 1 settlements have at least four key services in the Village Facilities Survey. Category 2 settlements have at least two key services including a shop and have access to at least daily public transport services for employment and shopping purposes. Category 3 settlements have at least one key service (other than a parish / village hall) and have access within the settlement to at least a daily bus service to a “designated town”. DCLG : Department for Communities and Local Government. Government department responsible for making the planning system work efficiently and effectively, including planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Development Plan : A document setting out the local planning authority's policies and proposals for the development and use of land and buildings in the authority’s area. This includes adopted Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. The Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations DPD will be one of the Local Plans that form part of the Development Plan for south Worcestershire. Green Infrastructure : Green Infrastructure and Green Space are the network of green spaces that intersperse and connect our cities, towns and villages, providing multiple benefits for environment, economy and communities. The components of Green Infrastructure and Green Space include biodiversity, landscape, historic environment, access and recreation and water. Gypsies and Travellers : Defined by DCLG Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) as “persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excluding members of an organised group of Travelling Showpeople or circus people travelling together as such”. When determining whether persons are “gypsies and travellers”, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites says that “consideration should be given to the following issues amongst other relevant matters - whether they previously led a nomadic habit of life, the reasons for ceasing their nomadic habit of life, and whether there is an intention of living a nomadic habit of life in the future, and if so, how soon and in what circumstances.” Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA): This was a study carried out for the six Worcestershire districts to assess the need for additional Gypsy, Traveller and
20 Page 173
Travelling Showpeople accommodation in the County, including the SWC. The Worcestershire GTAA was published in November 2014. Mobile Home : Legally a caravan but not normally capable of being moved by towing, may also be known as a ‘trailer’, ‘static caravan’ or ‘chalet’. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) : NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Perpetuity : For all time, for eternity, for always. Pitch : Area of land on a Gypsy/Traveller site required to accommodate one household and their caravans, parking space and enough room for turning vehicles. There is no ‘one-size fits all’ measurement for a pitch; as with standard housing, this depends on the size of individual families and their particular needs. Plot : A piece of land of unspecified size which accommodates Travelling Showpeople’s caravans, trailers, mobile homes and sometimes equipment. This terminology differentiates between residential pitches for Gypsies and Travellers and mixed-use plots for Travelling Showpeople, which will need to incorporate space or be split to allow for the storage of equipment such as fairground rides. These areas used for storage are also called ‘yards’. Site : An area of land where Gypsy/Travellers live. These can be privately owned (often by particular families) or socially rented (where the site is owned by a council or registered social landlord). A site may consist of a single pitch, or may have a number of pitches and be home to several families/households. Stopping places : A term used to denote an unauthorised temporary camping area tolerated by local authorities, used by Gypsies and Travellers for short-term encampments, and sometimes with the provision of temporary toilet facilities, water supplies and refuse collection services. Temporary Site : This is an authorised site that has been granted temporary planning permission. At the end of the specified time period (usually between 2-4 years, defined by a planning condition) the use of the site must cease and the site should be restored to its former condition. Tolerated site : An unauthorised encampment/site where a local authority has decided not to take enforcement action to seek its removal. Transit site : A permanent site intended for short-term temporary use by Travellers on the move. The site is usually permanent and authorised, but there is a limit on the length of time residents can stay. Travelling Showpeople : Defined by DCLG Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) as “Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family’s or dependants’ more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined above”. Turnover rate : Indicates the number of pitches available annually due to turnover of stock. Turnover enables existing stock to absorb current and future households considered in need. Unauthorised Encampment : Land where Gypsies or Travellers reside in vehicles or tents without permission. Unauthorised encampments can occur in a variety of locations (roadside, car parks, parks, fields, etc.) and constitute trespass. The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act made it a criminal offence to camp on land without the owner’s consent. Unauthorised encampments fall into two main categories: those on land owned by local authorities and those on privately owned land. It is up to the land owner to take enforcement action in conjunction with the Police.
21 Page 174
Unauthorised Development : Establishment of Gypsy and Traveller sites without planning permission, usually on land owned by those establishing the site. Unauthorised development may involve ground works for roadways and hard standings. People parking caravans on their own land without planning permission are not classed as Unauthorised Encampments in that they cannot trespass on their own land – they are therefore Unauthorised Developments and enforcement is always dealt with by Local Planning Authorities enforcing planning legislation.
22 Page 175
Appendix 2
Site Assessment Criteria and Detailed Considerations
The full list of sites submitted to the councils is available in a separate Site Assessment Background Report available on the SWDP website at (new link)
The following essential and desirable site criteria are based on:
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2015) SWDP Policy SWDP17 Good Practice Guide: Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2008, cancelled in August 2015), and General preferences of the Travelling community, based on published reports and the Worcestershire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)
The site assessment methodology differentiates between ‘essential’ criterion which must be satisfied if a site is to be acceptable and ‘desirable’ criterion which are important sustainability criteria, but may not be essential for a site to be acceptable.
Essential Site Criteria
Availability Whether the landowner is willing to sell or is interested in developing the site for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeop le purposes . Suitability Physical Whether the site is within, or on the edge of 3, a town or Constraints Category 1, 2 or 3 settlement 4 or within a proposed urban extension. Whether the site is outside Flood Zone 1 or vulnerable to surface water flooding. Whether the site is located on relatively flat and stable land. Whether the site is affected by contamination which cannot be mitigated. Whether the site has safe and convenient access to the public highway . Environmental, Whether the site is within an International (Special Protection Historic or Area, Special Area of Conservation or Ramsar) or National Landscape planning designation (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Constraints National Nature Reserves, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Ancient Woodlands, Veteran Trees, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Listed Buildings) . Whether there are any local designations affecting the site
3 ‘On the edge of’ equates to 800m from the development boundary – in this case the distance is measured along the road network and is not a radius measurement from the site. 4 Category 1, 2 and 3 Settlements - The results of the Village Facilities and Rural (Public) Transport Survey enabled a hierarchy of settlements to be ranked according to their sustainability and access to local services. Category 1 settlements have at least four key services in the Village Facilities Survey. Category 2 settlements have at least two key services including a shop and have access to at least daily bus services for employment and shopping purposes. Category 3 settlements have at least one key service (other than a parish / village hall) and have access within the settlement to at least a daily bus service to a “designated town”.
23 Page 176
(including Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, Local Geological Sites, Local Heritage Assets, Conservation Areas, Local Green Space, Tree Preservation Orders). Whether the site is within the Green Belt 5. Whether the site falls within a Significant Gap. Whether there are any known protected species or habitats recognised in the Biodiversity Action Plan on the site . Potential impacts Whether there is any likely adverse visual impact which cannot be adequately minimised. Whether there is likely to be any adverse impact on privacy and residential amenity for both site residents and neighbouring land uses which cannot be mitigated. Whether the site (and possible number of caravans stationed) respects the scale of, and would not dominate, the nearest settled community. Whether there is likely to be any adverse impact from noise for both site residents and neighbouring land uses which cannot be mitigated . Achievability Whether the site is likely to be capable of providing adequate on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage - or whether there are any likely abnormal costs which would prejudice the ability of the site from being developed.
Proposed Desirable Sustainability Criteria
Suitability Sustainability Whether the site is accessible by walking, cycling and public Criteria transport to local services and facilities including shops, schools and health facilities. Whether the site would be an extension to or intensification of an existing serviced site. Whether the site would be on previously developed land. Whether the site would have an adverse impact on the Green Infrastructure and Green Space as identified in SWDP 5.
5 An exceptional limited alteration to the Green Belt boundary would be required for such a site to be considered (DCLG (2015) Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2015))
24 Page 177
Appendix 3
Proposed Site Allocations for Traveller and Travelling Showpeople
To meet the need for the deliverable permanent residential Traveller pitches in the first 5 years the SWC propose that new or additional pitches be allocated at 4 existing or new sites. The location of the proposed deliverable sites is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Location of Proposed Deliverable and Developable Sites 6 (to be updated)
Details of the each of the sites suggested to accommodate the new pithes are given below.
.
25 Page 178
Site at Hillbee Farm, Welland Road, Upton upon Severn
Potential Pitch Provision: 3 additional pitches
The site has been identified by the landowner as being available for Traveller use. It is an existing authorised Traveller site with planning permission for 2 caravans. The site is located 450 metres from Tunnel Hill and comprises a paddock with a static mobile home and hard standing for a touring caravan. Adjacent uses include mainly farmland as well as 7 residential properties within 50 metres from the site. The site is relatively flat and not affected by flooding. There are no international or national planning designations affecting the site. The site would not have a significant impact on local designations that cannot be mitigated. The site takes access from A4104 within a 40mph speed limit. The highway authority have indicated that they would need evidence that an appropriate level of visibility could be provided for the actual traffic speeds on the road and would also require alterations to the access so that vehicles could make the left turn out of the site without crossing onto the far side of the carriageway. The existing site is well screened and intensification of the site is unlikely to have a significant impact on the landscape. There are seven residential properties within 50 metres of the site but the impact on the residential amenity for the site residents or neighbouring properties is unlikely to be significant because of existing screening. The site has, and is capable of providing, on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage. The site has good access to health services and schools in Upton upon Severn.
26 Page 179
Site at The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Evesham
Potential Pitch Provision: 5 pitches (including 2 Tolerated pitches)
The site has been identified by the landowner as being available for Traveller use.
This is an existing Traveller site with planning permission for 1 mobile home and 2 tolerated pitches. The site is located 300 metres from Evesham. Adjacent uses include farmland and woodland as well as residential properties approximately 120 metres from the site, but on a slope overlooking the site.
The site is relatively flat and not affected by flooding.
There are no international or national planning designations affecting the site. The site would not have a significant impact on local designations that cannot be mitigated.
The site is considered to have safe access to the highway .
The existing site is well screened to the west and along its eastern extremity there is a woodland which is on land that slopes up from the site. However, additional planting would be required along the other boundaries to reduce the impact on the landscape. There are approximately 8 residential properties within 200 metres of the site. Although the impact on the residential amenity for the site residents or neighbouring properties is unlikely to be significant because of existing screening, but additional planting would be beneficial.
It is not proposed that the whole of the site would be used to accommodate new pitches but to concentrate them on the western half of the site close to the existing pitches this would help to ensure that the size of the site and the number of pitches are of an appropriate scale for the location.
The site has on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage.
The site is approximately 1800 metres from Bengeworth Primary School.
27 Page 180
Site at Blossom Hill, Village St, Aldington
Potential Pitch Provision: 2 additional pitches
The site has been identified by the landowner as being available for Traveller use.
This is site is adjacent to two existing authorised Traveller sites with planning permission for 6 pitches in total.
The site is located 150 metres from Aldington and 370m from Badsey. Adjacent uses include farmland as well as residential properties approximately 130 metres from the site but the impact on the residential amenity for both the site residents and neighbouring properties could be mitigated by additional planting.
The site is on a slope rising up from the road but appears relatively stable and is not affected by flooding.
There are no international or national planning designations affecting the site. The site is within 100m of a Special Wildlife Site – Littleton and Badsey Brook and tributaries but the site would not have a significant impact on local designations that cannot be mitigated.
The site is considered to have the potential for safe access to the highway.
Given the four existing plots on the adjacent existing site and the two additional consented plots, it is not considered that a further additional 2 plots to the rear (western half) of the proposed site would have a significant additional landscape impact. They would be in the least visible part of the site as a whole.
There are approximately 14 residential properties within 200 metres of the site.
The size of the site and the number of pitches in conjunction with the neighbouring sites are considered to be of an appropriate scale for the location.
The neighbouring site has on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage and therefore it is assumed that the expanded site is capable of providing the same.
The site is within 100 metres of a bus stop and 1,330 metres of a primary school in Badsey.
28 Page 181
Site at Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Badsey
Potential Pitch Provision: 6 new pitches
The site has been identified by the landowner as being available for Traveller use.
This is site is adjacent to an existing authorised Traveller sites with planning permission for 3 pitches in total.
The site is located 420 metres from Badsey and 600m from Bretforton. Adjacent uses include farmland and a traveller site. The nearest residential dwelling is approximately 170m form the site.
The site is flat and open to the west and south has an existing access which is shared with the neighbouring traveller site.
There are no international or national planning designations affecting the site.
The size of the site and the number of pitches is considered to be of an appropriate scale for the location.
The neighbouring site has on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage and therefore it is assumed that the same could be provided for this new site.
The site is within 170 metres of a bus stop, 1.2km of a shop and 1.1km of a primary school in Bretforton.
29 Page 182
South Worcestershire Traveller and Travelling Showpeople
Site Allocations Development Plan Document
Further Revised Site Assessment Background Report
January 2021
Page 1 of 35
Page 183
Background
The Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (August 2015) states that local planning authorities should, in producing their Local Plan “identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets”. Further, Local Plans should “ identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years six to ten and, where possible, for years 11-15”.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites says that to be deliverable, sites should:
Be available now,
Offer a suitable location for development now, and
Be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development on the site is viable.
To be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for Traveller site development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites also says that “ criteria should be set to guide land supply allocations where there is identified need. Where there is no identified need, criteria-based policies should be included to provide a basis for decisions in case applications nevertheless come forward. Criteria based policies should be fair and should facilitate the traditional and nomadic life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community ”.
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to set out the methodology for assessing the broad suitability of potential sites for Travellers and Travelling Showpeople to inform proposed allocations in the South Worcestershire Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document.
The methodology has been designed to be consistent with national planning policy, Policy SWDP17 in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) and good practice on designing Gypsy and Traveller sites. SWDP17 includes criteria against which planning applications for Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites will be assessed.
It should be noted that the recommended shortlisting of a potential site using the methodology in this document does not imply that an application for development would be granted planning permission. The Draft Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Development Plan Document will be subject to public consultation and independent examination. Any planning application would also be considered on its merits and against the relevant Development Plan policies operating at the time.
Other land assessed for potential to use for Travellers site The use of council owned land was also investigated for use as a Traveller site – but none was suitable, available and deliverable.
In addition, there was some concern that insufficient Traveller sites would come forward within Malvern Hills district and therefore sites submitted for housing and/or employment to
Page 2 of 35
Page 184
the Call for Sites for the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR), which lay within 800m of Malvern, Tenbury Wells, Upton-upon-Severn or Malvern’s Category 1 villages, were assessed for their suitability as a Traveller site. They were assessed against the same criteria as the other sites in this document and approximately 30 were identified as having potential as a Traveller site allocation. The landowners and/or agents of these sites were then contacted to establish whether they supported a Traveller allocation on their land. None agreed to this and therefore no sites from this exercise have been suggested as Preferred Options.
Page 3 of 35
Page 185
Identifying Potential Sites for Travellers and Travelling Showpeople – Key Considerations
National and Local Designations
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites states that local planning authorities, in producing their Local Plan, should “protect local amenity and the environment ” (paragraph 10). Sites would not be considered appropriate within International (e.g. Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites), National (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves) or Local (e.g. Conservation Areas, Local Green Spaces) designations because the objectives of the designation are likely to be compromised by the development of a Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople site.
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites also says that “Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development. Subject to the best interests of the child, personal circumstances and unmet need are unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to establish very special circumstances ” (paragraph 16). Significant Gaps perform a similar function to Green Belts in preventing a coalescence of settlements. Planning permission would only be granted for development in a Significant Gap if it was considered appropriate to a rural area and had no demonstrably adverse effect on the open and essentially undeveloped character of the area.
Access to Services
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites indicates that local authorities should identify sites with good access to health services and ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis (paragraphs 4 and 13).
The Good Practice Guide on Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (published by DCLG in 2008, cancelled in August 2015) also highlighted the importance of local community services and facilities being within easy access from the site by a variety of modes of transport. Although cancelled and not yet replaced by a more up to date version, the guidance is still considered useful in its coverage of good design for Traveller sites.
In addition, there should be safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access and sites should be easily accessed by towing caravans.
Relationship to Surrounding Land Uses
The Government is keen to promote a peaceful and integrated co-existence between a Gypsy, Traveller or Travelling Showpeople site and the local settled community.
The Good Practice Guide stated that “ where possible, sites should be developed near to housing for the settled community as part of mainstream residential developments”. Planning Policy for Traveller Sites also says that local planning authorities “should consider, wherever possible, including Traveller sites suitable for mixed residential and business uses, having regard to the safety and amenity of the occupants and neighbouring residents ” (paragraph 18).
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites states that local planning authorities should “ very strictly limit new Traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements … ” (paragraph 25). Local planning authorities should also “ ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and
Page 4 of 35
Page 186
avoid placing an undue pressure on local infrastructure ” (paragraph 25). Also, “ when assessing the suitability of sites in rural and semi-rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community ” (paragraph 14).
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites identifies the need “ for proper consideration of the effect of local environmental quality (such as noise and air quality) on the health and well-being of any Travellers that may locate there or on others as a result of new development ” (paragraph 13). The Good Practice Guide suggested that this will include consideration of noise and possible disturbance to residents living on the site, and possible noise and disturbance to the wider community, in particular from movement of Traveller or Travelling Showpeople vehicles. Noise and disturbance from adjoining uses, such as from industrial areas, railway lines or from highways, should also be considered given the greater noise transference through walls of caravans than through the walls of conventional housing.
The Good Practice Guide emphasised the importance of locating Traveller sites away from heavy industry and stated that locations adjacent to industrial areas are unpopular because of their relative isolation, distance from local facilities and because of safety fears.
The Good Practice Guide also suggested that sites should provide visual and acoustic privacy and have characteristics which are sympathetic to the local environment. When selecting locations for permanent sites, consideration needs to be given to the relatively high density of children likely to be on the site.
Site Conditions
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites states that sites should not be located “in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans ” (paragraph 13).
The Good Practice Guide also said that a site must be relatively flat and suitable for purpose. Sites should not be developed on exposed sloping sites where there is risk of caravans being overturned or where there is a high probability of flooding risk.
Brownfield (previously developed) and derelict land may be suitable.
Essential Services
The Good Practice Guide stated that it is essential that sites have access to water, electricity, drainage and sanitation. Sewerage for permanent sites should normally be through mains systems. However, in some locations this may not always be possible and in that case suitable alternative arrangements should be made, for example a biodisc sewage plant system.
Page 5 of 35
Page 187
Site Suitability Criteria
The following essential and desirable site criteria are based on:
Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2015)
South Worcestershire Development Plan Policy SWDP17
Good Practice Guide: Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2008, cancelled in August 2015), and
General preferences of the Travelling community, based on published reports and the Worcestershire Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA)
The site assessment methodology differentiates between “essential” criterion which must be satisfied if a site is to be acceptable and “desirable” criterion which are important sustainability criteria, but may not be essential for a site to be acceptable.
Essential Site Criteria
Availability Whether the landowner is willing to sell or is interested in developing the site for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople purposes Suitability Physical Whether the site is within, or on the edge of 1, a town or Constraints Category 1, 2 or 3 settlement 2 or within a proposed urban extension Whether the site is outside Flood Zone 1 or vulnerable to surface water flooding Whether the site is located on relatively flat and stable land Whether the site is affected by contamination which cannot be mitigated Whether the site has safe and convenient access to the public highway Environmental, Whether the site is within an International (Special Protection Historic or Area, Special Area of Conservation or Ramsar) or National Landscape planning designation (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Constraints National Nature Reserves, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Ancient Woodlands, Veteran Trees, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Listed
1 On the edge of’ equates to within 800m (driving distance) from the development boundary. 2 Category 1, 2 and 3 Settlements – A new Village Facilities and Rural (Public) Transport Survey was published in Sept 2019 and enabled a hierarchy of settlements to be ranked according to their sustainability and access to local services. Category 1 settlements have at least four key services in the Village Facilities Survey and access to all daytime journey types. Category 2 settlements have at least two key services and have access to at least daily services for employment and shopping purposes. Category 3 settlements have at least one key service (other than a parish / village hall) and have access within the settlement to at least a daily bus service to a “designated town”, or three of the daytime journey types. https://www.wychavon.gov.uk/south-worcestershire-development-plan/swdp-review/swdp-review-evidence-base/village- facilities-and-rural-transport-study
Page 6 of 35
Page 188
Buildings) Whether there are any local designations affecting the site (including Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife Sites, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, Local Geological Sites, Local Heritage Assets, Conservation Areas, Local Green Space, Tree Preservation Orders) Whether the site is within the Green Belt 3 Whether the site falls within a Significant Gap Whether there are any known protected species or habitats recognised in the Biodiversity Action Plan on the site Potential impacts Whether there is any likely adverse visual impact which cannot be adequately minimised Whether there is likely to be a significant adverse impact on privacy and residential amenity for either site residents or neighbouring property which cannot be mitigated Whether the site (and possible number of caravans stationed), and cumulatively with any existing sites, respects the scale of, and would not dominate, the nearest settled community Whether there is likely to be any adverse impact from noise for both site residents and neighbouring land uses which cannot be mitigated Achievability Whether the site is likely to be capable of providing adequate on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage - or whether there are any likely abnormal costs which would prejudice the ability of the site from being developed
Proposed Desirable Sustainability Criteria
Suitability Sustainability Whether the site is accessible by walking, cycling and public Criteria transport to local services and facilities including shops, schools and health facilities Whether the site would be on previously developed land Whether the site would have an adverse impact on the Green Infrastructure as defined in SWDP 5 which could not be mitigated 4
3 An exceptional limited alteration to the Green Belt boundary would be required for such a site to be considered suitable (Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (DCLG, 2015))
4 Green Infrastructure is the network of green spaces that intersperse and connect our cities, towns and villages, providing multiple benefits for environment, economy and communities. The components of Green Infrastructure include biodiversity, landscape, historic environment, access and recreation and water.
Page 7 of 35
Page 189
Assessment Process
A traffic light approach was adopted, identifying sites which do not satisfy criteria in red, where criteria may be capable of being satisfied in amber and where criteria are satisfied in green.
Essential Criteria Designation / Issue Red Amber Green
Availability Promoted sites, Owner has Site availability Evidence that public land confirmed that is unknown and landowner willing ownership, etc site is not requires further to sell or develop available, nor is investigation the site for it likely to be Traveller or available in the Travelling future Showpeople purposes Within, or on the Near Settled Site is not N/A Would be within edge of a town or Community within 800 800 metres of a Category 1, 2 or 3 metres of a town or Category Settlement or a town or 1, 2 or 3 Proposed Urban Category 1, 2 settlement or Extension or 3 settlement within proposed or within urban extension proposed urban extension Flood Risk Environment Agency Site is within Site is affected The site is not Indicative Flood Flood Zone 3 by Flood Zones affected by Mapping 1 and/or 2 identified areas of and SFRA requiring site indicative flood FRA (and mapping or is application of located in sequential tests) Flood Zone 1 Contaminated Contaminated Land On On Not on Land Register contaminated contaminated contaminated land which land which could land cannot be be mitigated mitigated Topography Stable location On steep slope Land appears Relatively flat and or unstable land relatively flat or stable land stable land, requiring further investigation Safe & County Council / Site does not Site has or could Site appears to Convenient Highways Authority have or could have access to be able to Access not have public highway accommodate convenient / but requires safe and safe access to further convenient highway investigation access on to the about safety public highway International SPA, Site covered by Site within the The site is not Designation SAC an International buffer of an within an Ramsar sites designation and International International purpose of the designation and designation or its designation purpose of the buffer likely to be designation compromised could be compromised National AONB The site is The site is The site is not Designation SSSI affected by a affected by a affected by or
Page 8 of 35
Page 190
National Nature national national immediately Reserves designation and designation or adjacent to any Scheduled the purpose of immediately national Monuments the designation adjacent to a designations. Listed Buildings is likely to be nationally Ancient Woodland compromised designated site, Veteran Trees by the site. and the purpose Historic Parks and of the Gardens designation could be compromised. Local Conservation Areas The site is The site is in The site is not Designations Local Wildlife Sites covered by a close proximity affected by, or Local Nature local of local immediately Reserves designation and designation and adjacent to, any Sites of Importance the purpose of could local designation. for Nature the designation compromise the Conservation likely to be purpose of the Local Geological compromised designation, Sites requiring further Local Heritage investigation of Assets mitigatory Local Green Space measures. Tree Preservation Orders H&SE hazardous installations/pipelines Sewage Works - Cordon Sanitaire
Priority Species Biodiversity Action The site is The site is No known BAP and Habitats Plan known to home known to home species or priority species or be near habitats on the or habitats known BAP site or in close which would be species or proximity adversely habitats, but affected by mitigatory development measures can be proposed Green Belt Green Belt Site is within Site is within the Site is not within the Green Belt Green Belt but the Green Belt and no exceptional exceptional circumstances circumstances may exist exist Significant Gap Significant Gap Site is within a Site could have Site not within Significant Gap a negative Significant Gap and the impact on the purpose of purpose of designation Significant Gap likely to be designation, compromised requiring further investigation Residential Residential Amenity Adverse impact May be adverse Unlikely to be Amenity / and Neighbouring on privacy and impact on significant Neighbouring Land Uses residential privacy and adverse impact Land Uses amenity for residential on privacy and both site amenity for both residential residents and / site residents amenity for both or neighbouring and / or site residents and
Page 9 of 35
Page 191
land uses which neighbouring neighbouring land could not be land uses which uses mitigated could be mitigated Capable of On- On-Site Services for Site not May be capable Site capable of Site Services water supply, mains capable of of providing providing electricity, waste providing adequate on-site adequate on-site disposal and foul and adequate on- services for services for water surface water site services for water supply, supply, mains drainage water supply, mains electricity, electricity, waste mains waste disposal disposal and foul electricity, and foul and and surface water waste disposal surface water drainage and foul and drainage, surface water requiring further drainage investigation Desirable Criteria Issue Red Amber Green
Distance to Shop Walking distance up Not applicable Site not within Site within 800 to 800 metres 800 metres of a metres of a shop shop Distance to Walking distance up Not applicable Site not within Site within 2,000 Primary School to 2,000 metres 2,000 metres of metres of a a primary school primary school Distance to GP Walking distance up Not applicable Site not within Site within 1,200 to 1,200 metres 1,200 metres of metres of a GP a GP Distance to Walking distance up Not applicable Site not within Site within 800 Public Transport to 800 metres 800 metres of metres of bus (Bus Shop) bus stop stop Previously Brownfield Land Not applicable Not on Would be on Developed Land previously previously developed land developed land Green Green Infrastructure The site is within The site is not Infrastructure an area within an area identified as identified as “protect and “protect and enhance” or enhance” or “protect and “protect and restore” as restore” as identified on the identified on the Environmental Environmental Character Areas Character Areas map in SWDP 5 map in SWDP
The Institute of Highways and Transportation Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot (2000) suggests that for facilities such as shops and bus stops, walking distances of up to 800m can be considered, with the desirable and acceptable distances being 200m and 400m. Acceptable walking distances to facilities are defined as those where a high proportion of the trips generated by new development can be conveniently made by public transport, on foot or by bicycle.
Facilities e.g. shops, Commuting/school Other bus stops Desirable 200m 500m 400m Acceptable 400m 1000m 800m
Page 10 of 35
Page 192
Preferred Maximum 800m 2000m 1200m
Source: Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (IHT 2000)
The South Worcestershire Councils consider that sites within 800m (driving distance) of a development boundary of a town or Category 1, 2 or 3 settlements reflects the Institute of Highways and Transportation Guidelines, provides flexibility for Traveller sites to come forward and reflects the intention of Policy SWDP 17Ci.
Page 11 of 35
Page 193
Assessment Stages
A staged approach was undertaken to identifying and assessing the suitability of potential sites for inclusion in the Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD.
Stage 1: Identification of Potential Land for Site Assessment
The first step in the assessment process was to identify land that may be potentially available for Traveller or Travelling Showpeople use.
The South Worcestershire Councils undertook three “calls for sites”: February to March 2015, November 2016 – January 2017 and the latest October – November 2020. The calls for sites provided an opportunity for individuals and organisations to suggest sites that they considered might be suitable for allocation as a Traveller or Travelling Showpeople site. It was made clear that proposals could be for either new sites or an expansion or intensification of an existing site. Proposals were invited for permanent residential sites or transit sites / temporary stopping places – although it should be noted that the latest GTAA (Oct 2019) suggests that transit or temporary stopping places are not required due to the Toleration Policy currently operative across Worcestershire.
It was also made clear that all sites submitted would undergo a rigorous assessment against specific criteria to assess their potential suitability. Submitting a site for consideration was not a guarantee that it would be found suitable or that it would be allocated as part of the emerging DPD. It was also explained that any sites that were included within the DPD would still be required to follow the normal planning procedures in securing planning permission.
Individuals and organisations that were invited to submit sites in the “call for sites” included:
All Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople households on authorised (permanent and temporary) and unauthorised Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites in south Worcestershire. All registered caravan parks owners in south Worcestershire. Public sector landowners, including the District and County Councils and Housing Associations. Landowners who put land forward for consideration as potential housing allocations in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
Additionally, a Press Release was issued to raise awareness so that others might put sites forward if they desired to do so.
First Call for Sites :
17 valid site submissions were received in the first call for sites – which are summarised in Table 1 below. Additionally, the potential suitability of the only Traveller site in south Worcestershire (at Crossway Green), which had temporary planning permission and no conditions limiting the site to named individuals, was also assessed.
Table 1 – Sites Submitted Considered following the first “Call for Sites” (Feb/March 2015)
Site Name and Location District New or Potential For Existing Number Gypsies/Travellers Site of New or or Travelling Additional Showpeople &/or Pitches Transit Use
Page 12 of 35
Page 194
Hillbee Farm Malvern Hills Existing 5 Gypsy + Upton Upon Severn Showpeople Haylers End Malvern Hills New 30 Gypsy Hanley Swan Lower Howsell Road Malvern Hills New 20 Gypsy Leigh Sinton Fieldview Malvern Hills Existing 6 Gypsy + Transit Gadfield Elm (near Staunt on) Acton Villa, Acton, Wychavon Existing 5 Gypsy Ombersely Comhampton Lane, Wychavon New 4 Gypsy Dunhampton, Ombersley The Hill, Canada Bank, Wychavon Existing 4 Gypsy Charlton Land known as the Tree Wychavon New 10 Transit Nursery, adj Westwood Way and A38 roundabout, Droitwich Land off Narroway Lane, Wychavon New 3 - 4 Gypsy Crossway Green Land off Waresley Road, Wychavon New 2 Gypsy Hartlebury Torton Paddock, Charlton Wychavon Existing 2 Gypsy Lane, To rton The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Wychavon Existing 7 Gypsy Evesham Seven Acres, Main Rd, Wychavon Existing 3 Gypsy Cro pthorne Orchard View, Evesham Rd, Wychavon Existing 8 - 10 Gypsy Fladbury 8 Evergreen Bank, Main Rd, Wychavon Existing 3 Gypsy Cropthor ne Blossom Hill, Village St, Wychavon Existing 2 Gypsy Aldington Laurel Park, Bredon Wychavon Existing 3 Gypsy Shorthill Caravan Park, Wychavon Existing - 10 Gypsy Crossway Green Temporary 24 Transit
In addition, land at Broomhall Community and Norton Barracks Community (the proposed Worcester South urban extension) and land at Temple Laugherne (the proposed Worcester West urban extension) were also assessed for their suitability for accommodating Traveller sites. To date no land that was suitable, available and deliverable has been identified and off-site contributions towards the provision of new Traveller pitches have been agreed as an alternative for the applications that have been approved so far.
Second Call for Sites:
21 valid site submissions were received in the second call for sites – which are summarised in Table 2 below. The second call for sites included two sites which had previously been submitted in the first call for sites and a site at Baughton that was submitted twice. The second call for sites also included three sites which were either located within the proposed
Page 13 of 35
Page 195
urban extensions or on sites beyond the urban extensions in lieu of sites on the urban extensions.
Table 2 – Additional Sites Considered following the second “Call for Sites (Nov 2016 to Jan 2017)
Site Name and Location District New or Potential For Existing Number Gypsies/Travellers Site of New or or Travelling Additional Showpeople &/or Pitche s Transit Use Halfkey Farm, Halfkey Malvern Hills New 170 Gypsy + Showpeople + Transit Mo untain View , Basto nford Malvern Hills Existing 3/4 Gypsy The Paddocks, Newlands Malvern Hills Existing 7 Gypsy Willows End, Guarlford Malvern Hills Existing 3 Gypsy Abbey College, Malvern Malvern Hills New Not stated Gypsy + Wells Showpeople + Transit Main Road, Kempsey 5 Malvern Hills New 10 Travelling Showpeople Baughton View Malvern Hills Existing 12 Gypsy The Dog Inn, Baughton Malvern Hills Existing 10 Gypsy Broomfield, Newnham Malvern Hills Existing 2 Gypsy Bridge Church Meadows Caravan Wychavon New 10 Gypsy Site, Dormston Lane, Dorms ton Ba dsey Road, Aldington Wychavon New 4 Gypsy Blossom Hill, Village St, Wychavon Existing 2 Gypsy Aldington
Seven Acres, Main Rd, Wychavon Existing 3 Gypsy Cropthorne
Land opposite Newlands, Wychavon New 21 Gypsy Evesham Rd, Norton Walnut Place (formerly The Wychavon Existing 20+ Gypsy Caravan), Radford Rd, Rous Lench Orchard View, Main St, Wychavon New 8 Gypsy + Aldington Showpeople Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Wychavon New 8 Gypsy + Badsey Showpeople Former caravan storage site, Wychavon New up to 10 Gypsy Land off A449, Crossway Green Hatfield Bank – Worcester Wychavon New up to 10 Gypsy
5 The landowner confirmed on 30 Jan 2018 that it is not available for Gypsy and Traveller use but instead want it considered for Travelling Showpeople use.
Page 14 of 35
Page 196
South) A38 south of Carrington Malvern Hills New up to 10 Gypsy + Bridge (Worcester South) Showpeople + Transit Sherriff Street, Worcester Worcester New up to 10 Gypsy + (potentially in lieu of a site Showpeople + on Worcester West) Transit
Third Call for Sites:
10 valid site submissions were received in the third call for sites – which are summarised in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Additional Sites Considered following the third “Call for Sites (Oct/Nov 2020)
Site Name and Location District New or Potential For Existing Number Gypsies/Travellers Site of New or or Travelling Additional Showpeople Pitche s 1 The Hill, Canada bank, Wychavon Existing 3 Gypsies and Charlton* Travellers Duffledown Farm, Wyre Wychavon Existing 16 Gypsies and Piddle Bypass, Upper Moor Travellers Land adj. 2 The Laurels, Wychavon Existing 10 Gypsies and Evesham Rd, Egdon Travellers Land Adj The Caravan, Wychavon Existing 6 - 20 Gypsies and Rous Lench* Travellers Land at the Caravan, Rous Wychavon Existing 10 Gypsies and Lench* Travellers Land at Wood Norton, Wychavon Existing 2 Gypsies and Evesham Travellers Plot 2 The Paddocks, Wychavon Existing 1 Gypsies and Comhampton Lane, Travellers Comhampton * Plot 4 The Paddocks, Wychavon Existing 1 Gypsies and Comhampton Lane, Travellers Comhampton Land next to Trotshill Lane Worcester New Number Gypsies and East, Warndon, Worcester not Travellers; suggested Travelling Showpeople and/or Transit site Land south of Broomhall Malvern Hills New 10 -12 Gypsies and Way (A4440), Worcester Travellers
* The third call for sites included four sites which had previously been submitted in the previous call for sites but which now indicate a revised parcel of land and so have been assessed again.
Page 15 of 35
Page 197
Stage 2: Initial Suitability and Availability Assessment
The second stage involved a desk-based assessment of suitability criteria, together with an initial investigation of likely availability.
This stage sieved out immediately sites which were likely to fail on the grounds of either the site being unavailable for Traveller or Travelling Showpeople purposes or potential sites contravening major constraints such as being within planning designations, areas prone to flooding, on contaminated land etc.
The initial site availability and suitability assessment is summarised in Tables 3a and 3b.
If a site could not satisfy all of the essential suitability and availability criteria (i.e. red on the matrix) it was rejected.
All sites which did not receive a “red” in the Initial Availability and Suitability Assessment were taken forward to be considered at the next stage.
Page 16 of 35
Table 3a - Initial Availability and Suitability Assessment Matrix from the First Call for Sites
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Name / Location Source Availability Within Flood Land International Local Green Belt Known Should the site for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk Recorded on or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Contaminate Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, d Land Gap Habitats 2 or 3 Register If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension Hillbee Farm Call for Up ton Upon Se vern Sites Haylers End Incinerator Call for 1.3 km from Hanley Swan Sites nearest settlement
Lower Howsell Road Call for Significant Gap Page 198 Leigh Sinton Sites Fieldview Call for 1.6km from Gadfield Elm (nr Staunton) Sites nearest settlement. Whole site in Flood Risk zones 2 & 3. Gas pipeline runs through site. Acton Villa, Acton, Call for 2.6 km from Ombersely Sites Ombersl ey Comhampton Lane, Call for 3km+ from Dunhampton, Ombersley Sites Ombersley The Hill, Canada Bank, Call for 1.5 km from Charlton Sites Cropthorne Land known as the Tree Call for Adj. SSSI. Adj. Nursery, adj Westwood Way Sites Listed building and A38 roundabout, (The Boat House). Droitwich Adj. Historic Park and Garden (Westwood House). In a local or regional wildlife site. TPO on surrounding land. Land off Narroway Lane, Call for 1km from
Page 17 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Name / Location Source Availability Within Flood Land International Local Green Belt Known Should the site for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk Recorded on or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Contaminate Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, d Land Gap Habitats 2 or 3 Register If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension Crossway Green 6 Sites Hartlebury Land off Waresley Road, Call for Green Belt. Hartlebury Sites TPOs along boundary with Pleck Orchard. Torton Paddock, Charlton Call for 1.8km to Lane, Torton Sites Hartlebury. Green Belt. The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Call for
Badsey Sites Page 199 Severn Acres, Main Rd, Call for Application Cropthorne Sites pending for 2 additional pitches w/ 20/02133 Orchard View, Evesham Rd, Call for 1.4km to nearest Fladbu ry Sites settlement. 8 Evergreen Bank, Main Rd, Call for Application now Cropthorne Sites approved for 3 pitches 16/00209 – no more room on s ite Blossom Hill, Village St, Call for Access Within 100m Access road Aldington Sites road in of special appears to be in flood wildlife site flood zone 3 but zone 3 not the land itself. Now has planning consent w/15/02023 for 2 pit ches The Laurels , Main Rd, Call for Located in Located in local
6 Crossway Green is categorised as a Category 4 village in the new Village Facilities and Rural (Public) Transport Survey published in Sept 2019 – it was previously a category 3 village.
Page 18 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Name / Location Source Availability Within Flood Land International Local Green Belt Known Should the site for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk Recorded on or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Contaminate Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, d Land Gap Habitats 2 or 3 Register If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension Bredon sites local gap in gap in adopted adopted Bredon Bredon Neighbourhood Neighbourho Plan - allocation od Plan - would be contrary allocation to this policy would be contrary to Page 200 this policy Shorthill Caravan Park, Temporary 1km+ from Crossway Green 7 consent, Hartlebury. without Current appeal personal pending occupancy w/18/02270 restriction – now expired Worcester South Urban SWDP May be situated in Extension a Significant Gap – but the principle of this is accepted by SWDP. Precise location of potential Traveller site not known so difficult to assess suitability criteria further at this stage. Worcester West Urban SWDP Precise location of Extension potent ial Tr aveller
7 Crossway Green is categorised as a Category 4 village in the new Village Facilities and Rural (Public) Transport Survey published in Sept 2019 – it was previously a category 3 village.
Page 19 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Name / Location Source Availability Within Flood Land International Local Green Belt Known Should the site for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk Recorded on or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Contaminate Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, d Land Gap Habitats 2 or 3 Register If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension site not known so difficult to assess suitability criteria further at this stage, but principle of Traveller site development accepted in
SWDP . Page 201
Page 20 of 35
Table 3b - Initial Availability and Suitability Assessment Matrix from the Second Call for Sites
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension Halfkey Farm, Halfkey Second Parts of Significant Significant Gap
call for site Gap Page 202 sites suscepti ble to groundw ater vulnerab ility Mountain View, Bastonford Second call for sites The Paddocks, Newlands Second 1km from Collets call for Green sites Willows End, Guarlford Second Suscepti Site of Local 1.8km from call for ble to Wildlife Malvern sites surface Importance water along flooding entrance – 1 in 200 year Abbey College, Malvern Second AONB Site covered Species AONB. Wells call for by an area records for TPOs on site. sites TPO badger Priority species (Meles and habitats on meles), site. senecio sylvaticus (plant) and paver argemone
Page 21 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension (plant) Main Road, Kempsey 8 Second Poss 1 call for in 200 sites year , less than 0.3m Ground water
vulnerab Page 203 ility Baughton View Second North Ancient Records of 2km from Earls call for west woodland 50m badger Croome. sites corner to north of the (Meles Priority species Flood site meles) and habitats on Zones 2 neighbourin site. or 3. g the site Site subject to ground water vulnerab ility The Dog Inn, Baughton Second North Ancient Records of 2km from Earls call for west woodland 50m badger Croome. sites corner to north of the (Meles Priority species Flood site meles) and habitats on Zones 2 neighbourin site.
8 The landowner confirmed on 30 Jan 2018 that it is not available for Gypsy and Traveller use but instead want it considered for Travelling Showpeople use.
Page 22 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension or 3. g the site Site subject to ground water vulnerab ility Page 204 Broomfield, Newnham Second Flood Record of 3km from Bridge call for Zones 2 Carex Eardiston, 5km sites and 3 at pseudocyper from Clows Top, north of us (plant) 8km from Tenbury site. within the Wells. Site site Priority species subject and habitats on to site. groundw ater vulnerab ility Church Meadows Caravan Second Adj. to SSSI. Adj to SSSI 3.5km to Site, Dormston Lane, call for Close to the (Dormston Inkberrow Dormston (10 pitches) sites Grade I listed Church church Meadow); ecological and protected species surveys Badsey Road, Aldington (4 Second ecological pitches) call for and sites protected species surveys required – ecolo gical
Page 23 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension mitigation and enhanceme nt Blossom Hill, Village St, First and Access Within 100m Possible potential Aldington (2 pitches) second road of special for additional 2 call for appears wildlife site pitches to the 2 sites to be in allowed under flood w/15/02023, on Page 205 zone 3 the land to the rear.
Seven Acres, Main Rd, First and Application Cropthorne (3 pitches) second pending for 2 call for additional pitches sites w/20/02133
Land opposite Newlands, Second ecological 820m from Evesham Rd, Norton (21 call for and Evesham pitches) sites protected species surveys – ecological mitigation and enhanceme nt Walnut Place (formerly The Second Further ecological 3km+ to Church Caravan), Radford Rd, call for investigation and Lench Rous Lench (20+ pitches) sites would be protected required species surveys if on more than just the pony
Page 24 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension pad dock. Orchard View, Main St, Second Further ecological 1.1km from Aldington call for investigation and Badsey sites would be protected required species surveys Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Second Flood High risk of Badsey (8 pitches) call for zone 1, surface water Page 206 sites but high flooding – would risk of need to be surface mitigated against water flooding Former caravan storage Second 970m from site, Land off A449, call for Hartlebury Crossway Green (up to 10 sites pitches) Worces ter Sout h - Hatfield Urban Unknown. Site Possible Signif icant Site availability for Bank Extension not submitted Groundw Gap 9 Traveller use not by landowner. ater established Views of vulnerabi landowner not lity known. A38 south of Carrington Second Unknown. Site Within Site Site 120m Site No protected Site avail abilit y for Bridge call for not submitted proposed adjacent from Listed adjacent to species Traveller use not sites by landowner. urban to Flood Building site of records established Views of extension Zone 2 Regional or within the
9 At the SWDP Examination, the South Worcestershire Councils did not consider Traveller sites within Significant Gaps to be appropriate development unless they are associated with an urban extension. Notwithstanding this, the SWCs considered that a single Traveller site within each of the Worcester South and Worcester West urban extensions in the Significant Gap would be an acceptable exception because the principle of large scale development within the urban extension boundaries had already been accepted.
Page 25 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criteria Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension landowner not and 3 Local site but known. Ground Wildlife records of water Importance bats adjacent vulnerab (River to site ility on Severn). (Nyctalus most of noctula and the site Site 180m Pipistrellus from pipistrelles. Conservatio
n Area Page 207 Sherriff Street, Worcester Urban Site currently Site Needs to be Large Site Site availability for extension for sale. Site entrance checked – Scheduled adjacent to Traveller use not not submitted on dismantlers Monument an established by landowner. Newtow yard 110m from the archaeologic Not confirmed n Road site but seems al sensitive that is potential to be well area. available for ly screened from Traveller use. subject the site to surface Site adjacent water to an flooding archaeological sensitive area.
Page 26 of 35
Table 3c - Initial Availability and Suitability Assessment Matrix from the Third Call for Sites
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criter ia Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension 1 The Hill, Canada Bank, First and 1.5km from Charlton Third Call Cropthorne for Sites - amended
site Page 208 bou ndar y Duffledown Farm, Wyre Third call PIddle Bypass, Upper Moor for S ites Land adj. 2 The Laurels, Third call 4km+ Worcester Egdon for Sites and Drakes Broughton Land adj. The Caravan, Second Further ecological 3km+ to Church Radford Road, Rous Lench and Third investigation and Lench call for would be protected Sites - required species amended surveys if on site more than bou ndar y just the pony Land at The Caravan, Third call Further ecological 3km+ to Church Radford Road, Rous Lench for Sites - investigation and Lench amended would be protected site required species boundary surveys if on more than just the pony Land at Wood Norton, Third call Adj. 2.7km from Lower Evesham for Sites regional/Loc Moor, 3.3km from al Wildlife Evesham Site Plot 2 The Paddocks, First and 3km+ from Comhampton Lane, Third call Ombersley Comhampton, Ombersley for Sites - amended
Page 27 of 35
Site Details Essential Essential Suitability Criteria Conclusion Availability Criter ia Site Ref Source Availability Within Flood Contaminate International Local Green Belt Known Should the site No. for T&TS Use 800m of a Risk d Land or National Designation or Priority be considered town or Designation Significant Species & further? Category 1, Gap Habitats 2 or 3 If no, reason for Settlement, rejecting site or within Urban Extension site bou ndar y Plot 4 The Paddocks, Third call 3km+ from Comhampton Lane, for Sites Ombersley Comhampton, Ombersley Land ad. Trotshill Lane Third call Significant Gpa. East, Warndon, Worcester for Sites Green Space, Conservation Area,
Archaeological Page 209 Sensitive Area Land off Broomhall Way, Third call Part of WRS A4440, Worcester for Sites site on recommend Flood conditions risk requiring a zones 2 contamination & 3 – assessment access prior to works onto commencing A4440 is mainly in Flood Zone 1
Page 28 of 35
Page 210
Stage 3: Detailed Site Assessment
The third stage involved a more detailed on-site assessment of suitability, achievability and sustainability issues. The potential capacity of sites was also considered.
The on-site assessment helped determine the suitability of a site against the following essential criteria:
Whether the land is relatively flat and stable.
Whether the site has (or has potential of) safe and convenient access to the highway network.
Whether there is likely to be any significant adverse visual impact which could not be adequately minimised.
Whether there is likely to be a significant adverse impact on privacy and residential amenity for either site residents or neighbouring properties that could not be mitigated.
Whether the site is likely to be capable of providing adequate on-site services for water supply, mains electricity, waste disposal and foul and surface water drainage.
If a site could not satisfy all of the essential suitability and availability criterion (ie red on the matrix) it was rejected. In addition to the essential criterion, sites were also assessed against the following criteria “desirable” suitability criterion. Whilst a failure to meet the criteria listed below may not, in themselves, preclude the development of Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites, they are important considerations which could assist in assessing the sustainability of sites and prioritising between a choice of potential sites.
Whether local services and facilities such as schools and health facilities are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.
Whether it would be an extension to an existing site or a new site.
Whether the site would be on previously developed land.
The results of the Stage 3 detailed site assessment are summarised in Tables 4a and 4b.
Page 29 of 35
Table 4a - Suitability and Achievement Assessment Matrix from the First Call for Sites
Essential Criteria Desirable Suitability Criteria Conclusion Site Name / Safe Visual Residential Capable Distance Distance Distance Distance Intensificat Previously Green Potential Should Site Location Topogra Access Impact Amenity and On-Site to Shop to to GP to Bus ion / Developed Infrastruct Number be Short- phy on to Neighbourin Services Primary Stop Extension Land ure of New / Listed? Public g Uses School to existing Additiona Highway Site l Pitches Hillbee Farm Highway Dwellings 1870m 1800m 1130m 410m Intensificat Protect 5 Need to Upton Upon authority immediately ion and demonstrate Severn would adjacent site restore suitable require access can further be achieved evidenc e The Orchard, Dwellings 1300m 1800m 1740m 1400m Intensificat Protect 5 Knowle Hill, within 200m ion and Badsey enhance Severn Acres, Highway Dwelling 2500m 1300m 4km 400m Intensificat Protect 2 Need to Main Road, authority within 100m ion and demonstrate
Cropthorne, would of the site restore suitable Page 211 require (on other access can further side of road) be achieved. evidenc Application e pending for 2 additional pitches w/20/02 133 Blossom Hill, Sloping 960m 1330m 2300m 90m Extension Protect 2 Village St, site and Aldington 10 enhance Worcester New site 10 South Urban Extension Worcester West New site 10 Urban Extension
10 Planning permission has subsequently been granted for the two pitches originally proposed at Aldington, so these are no longer being taken forward in the Development Plan Document. However, two further pitches were submitted in the second call for sites on neighbouring land at Aldington – see Table 4b.
Page 30 of 35
Table 4b - Suitability and Achievement Assessment Matrix from the Second Call for Sites
Essential Criteria Desirable Suitability Criteria Conclusio n Site Safe Visual Residential Capable Distanc Distanc Distanc Distanc Intensificatio Previousl Local Potential Should Site Name / Topograph Access on Impact Amenity and On-Site e to e to e to GP e to Bus n / Extension y Green Number be Short- Location y to Public Neighbourin Services Shop Primary Stop to existing Develope Networ of New / Listed? Highway g Uses School Site d Land k Additiona l Pitches Mountain Highway 19/01540 Local Water and 2.2km 1240m 3.7km 320m Temporary 2 Site View, authority refusal on objections to electricity. planning refused, Bastonfor would adverse planning Sewerage permission temporary d require impact on applications ? now expired permission further character granted at evidence and appeal and appearanc site e of area renewal and of refused –
views appeal Page 212 towards pending Malvern 19/01540 Hills AONB
Main Access not 30m from Landowne 1530m 1450m 1450m 270m New 10 Access not Road, suitable for Mear r says suggeste suitable Kempsey large Cottage. utilities d 11 vehicles 50m from and nursery services 6 available, but no details provided Badsey Sloping Access Not adjacent 960m 1330m 2100m 70m New site No Protect 4 Access Road, site problemati to and problemati Aldington c due to residential, enhanc c due to limited opposite e limited visibility existing visibility traveller sites. Blossom Sloping Access Not adjacent 960m 1330m 2300m 90m Extension No Protect 2 Hill, already to and
11 The landowner confirmed on 30 Jan 2018 that it is not available for Gypsy and Traveller use but instead want it considered for Travelling Showpeople use.
Page 31 of 35
Essential Criteria Desirable Suitability Criteria Conclusio n Site Safe Visual Residential Capable Distanc Distanc Distanc Distanc Intensificatio Previousl Local Potential Should Site Name / Topograph Access on Impact Amenity and On-Site e to e to e to GP e to Bus n / Extension y Green Number be Short- Location y to Public Neighbourin Services Shop Primary Stop to existing Develope Networ of New / Listed? Highway g Uses School Site d Land k Additiona l Pitches Village St, approved residential, enhanc Aldington via adjacent to e planning existing application traveller w15/02023 sites
Land Access Potential 2950m 1930m 1400m 375m New site No Protect Access opposite problemati noise from and 6-8 problemati Newlands c due to A46? enhanc c due to , limited e limited Evesham visibility visibility Rd, Nor ton Hughes Highway TBC 1300m 4km 170m Extension Protect 8 pitches Site is
Barn, authority and suggeste considered Page 213 Bretforton would enhanc d by suitable for Rd, require e owner up to 6 Badsey further pitches evid ence 6
Page 32 of 35
Table 4c - Suitability and Achievement Assessment Matrix from the Third Call for Sites
Essential Criteria Desirable Suitability Criteria Conclusio n Site Name Safe Visual Impact Residential Capabl Distanc Distanc Distanc Distanc Intensificatio Previousl Local Potential Should Site / Location Topography Access on Amenity and e On- e to e to e to GP e to Bus n / y Green Number be Short- to Public Neighbourin Site Shop Primary Stop Extension to Develope Networ of New / Listed? Highway g Uses Service School existing Site d Land k Addition s al Pi tches Duffledow Relatively Via Minimal – Traveller 2.7km 2.8km 3.8km 300m Extension No No 16 No – would n Farm, flat existing behind sites, result in a Wyre access existing residential large site PIddle onto Traveller site and open that is Bypass, roundabo countryside likely to be Upper ut difficult to Moor manage effec tively.
Land off relatively No – Likely to be A4440 to 660m 1.8km 820m 580m New No No 10 No – Page 214 Broomhall flat. access highly visible north access. Way, Remade would be from A4440 – (source of Response A4440, land from screen/plantin possible air from WRS Worcester following A4440 g required and noise on noise improveme which is pollution to and air nt to A4440 not site quality acceptabl residents. awaited e to the highway au thority
Page 33 of 35
Conclusions
Based on the assessment of sites submitted during the first “call for sites ” (including an assessment of responses to a Preferred Options consultation in March / April 2016), the following 3 sites appear to meet, or have the potential to meet, the essential suitability criteria for Traveller or Travelling Showpeople sites and should be taken forward for consideration and consultation as part of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document Preferred Options consultation .
Site Name and Location District New or Potential For Traveller or Existing No. New Travelling Site Pitches Showpeople use Hillbee Farm Malvern Hills Existing 3 Traveller Upton Upon Severn The Orchard, Knowle Hill, Wychavon Existing 5 Traveller Badsey Severn Acres, Main Road, Wychavon Existing 2 Traveller
Cropthorne 12 , Page 215 Sou th Worcs Total 8 Traveller
Based on the assessment of sites submitted during the second “call for sites ”, the following 2 sites potentially meet the essential suitability and availability criteria and could be taken forward for consideration and consultation as part of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document Preferred Options consultation.
Site Name and Location District New or Potential For Gypsy, Existing No. New Showman &/or Site Pitches Transit Use Blossom Hill, Village St, Wychavon Existing 2 Traveller Aldin gton Hughes Barn, Bretforton Rd, Wychavon New 6 Traveller Ba dsey South Worcs Total 8 Traveller
12 Site now has planning permission for 2 pitches so is removed form the list
Page 34 of 35
No sites submitted to the third call for sites meet the essential suitability criteria.
Page 216
Page 35 of 35
Page 217 Agenda Item 10
Report to: Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee, 2nd February 2021
Report of: Corporate Director, Place
Subject: CHARTER YEAR CELEBRATIONS
1. Recommendation
That the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee:
1.1 Notes the planned activity to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Charter of James I; and
1.2 Notes that funding will be allocated from the Recovery budget to support the delivery of this activity.
2. Background
2.1 This year marks the 400th anniversary of the Charter of James I incorporating the City and establishing a Mayor. Although many of the rights existed since 1189 (Richard I Charter) this Charter is widely recognised as ‘creating’ the city of Worcester. In 1971 the 350th anniversary was celebrated with a month-long Festival and a souvenir brochure circulated.
2.2 In July 2020, the Place and Economic Development Sub-Committee approved the reallocation of tourism enabling budget to fund recovery projects. In 2021, the Charter 400 celebrations will support recovery efforts and therefore a budget will be allocated from the Recovery funds, in line with delivery outputs, to deliver Charter 400 activities in this year.
3. Information
3.1 The 400th anniversary of the City’s governance provides an opportunity to use the celebrations as a vehicle to promote, encourage, enthuse, revitalise and boost local businesses which have been negatively impacted by the pandemic.
3.2 The anniversary will be used as a focal theme, uniting existing events under the umbrella of the Charter year welcoming residents and visitors alike to cooperate and support each other in recovery.
3.3 Local organisations have been invited to get involved by sharing the logo, strapline, web links and other promotional and social media activity. In addition, event organisers and tourist attractions are invited to use their existing plans to include some element of activity that relates directly to the Charter or commit to participate in the ‘Charter Day’ celebration on Saturday 2 October.
Page 218
3.4 A logo has been created and a webpage set up at www.visitworcester.co.uk/charter- 400 and a working party established consisting of the City Centre Management Team; the Guildhall Facilities team; the Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service and Worcester Cathedral. The working party is expected to expand as the year develops and interested partners are invited to contact the team on [email protected].
3.5 The City Centre Management team will utilise the funding to deliver several Charter 400 themed projects throughout the year, including:
3.5.1.1 Charter Day Celebration event on Saturday 2 October; 3.5.1.2 Commission a Charter Year film; 3.5.1.3 Commission a photographic record of key Charter historic objects and share in a virtual exhibition; 3.5.1.4 Produce a limited-edition range of branded merchandise for sale in the TIC; and 3.5.1.5 Commission an art installation to celebrate Worcester.
Ward(s): All Contact Officer: Michelle Newell – Tel 07917623481 Email: [email protected] Background Papers: None