Taunton Deane Site Allocations DPD Planning Inspector's Report

Report to Taunton Deane Borough Council

by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date 17 November 2016

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

(as amended)

Section 20

Report on the Examination of the Taunton Deane Borough Council Site Allocations and Development Management Plan

The Plan was submitted for examination on 13 July 2015

The examination hearings were held on 1 & 2 December 2015 and between 30 March and 5 April 2016

File Ref: PINS/D3315/429/6

Abbreviations used in this report

AA Appropriate Assessment DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DtC Duty to Co-operate GTAA Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment HE Historic England HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment LDS Local Development Scheme MM Main Modification NE Natural England NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NP Neighbourhood Plan OAN Objectively Assessed Need PPG Planning Practice Guidance SA Sustainability Appraisal SCI Statement of Community Involvement The Plan The Taunton Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan WMS Written Ministerial Statement

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Non-Technical Summary

This report concludes that the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (the Plan) provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the Borough provided that a number of main modifications [MMs] are made to it.

All the MMs were proposed by the Council, and were subject to public consultation over a six-week period. I have recommended their inclusion in the Plan after considering all the representations made in response to consultation on them.

The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows: • MMs to ensure that the Plan deals properly with the historic environment; • An MM to ensure that impacts on the Hestercombe House SAC are properly mitigated; and • A variety of others to ensure the Plan’s policies are justified and effective.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Introduction 1. This report contains my assessment of the Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The NPPF (paragraph 182) makes it clear that in order to be sound, a Local Plan should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

2. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local planning authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan, submitted in July 2015, is the basis for my examination. It is the same document that was published for consultation in October 2013.

Main Modifications

3. In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Council requested that I should recommend any main modifications [MMs] necessary to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound and thus incapable of being adopted. My report explains why the recommended MMs, many of which relate to matters that were discussed at the examination hearings, are necessary. The MMs are referenced in bold in the report in the form MM1, MM2, MM3 etc, and those I recommend are set out in full in the Appendix.

4. Following the conclusion of the examination hearings, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed MMs and considered whether the MMs would affect the scoring of policies as set out in the SA. The MM schedule and the Sustainability Appraisal Update Statement were subject to public consultation for six weeks. I have taken full account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report.

Policies Map

5. The Council must maintain an adopted policies map which illustrates geographically the application of the policies in the adopted development plan. A number of the MMs to the Plan’s policies require further corresponding changes to be made to the policies map. There are other changes rendered necessary by changes in circumstances too.

6. These further changes to the policies map were published for consultation as MMs [Proposed MM12, MM18, MM20, MM30 (in part), MM31 and MM33]. However, the policies map is not defined in statute as a development plan document and so I do not have the power to recommend main modifications to it. On that basis, I have removed these proposed MMs and part MM from the schedule in the Appendix.

7. That said, when the Plan is adopted, in order to comply with the legislation and give effect to the Plan’s policies, the Council will need to update the adopted policies map to include all the changes proposed in the Plan, including those referred to above that were published as MMs.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 8. Section 20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council complied with any duty imposed on it by section 33A in respect of the Plan’s preparation. On the basis of what is set out in the Council’s Duty to Co- operate Statement, I am satisfied that the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of the Plan, and that the duty to co-operate has therefore been met.

Assessment of Soundness Background

9. The hearings into the Plan were carried out in two stages. The first stage in December 2015 concentrated upon the largest housing allocations in Policy TAU1: Comeytrowe/Trull and Policy TAU2: Staplegrove.

10. Following on from the hearings, in January 2016, I published Preliminary Findings that concluded that with the MMs proposed by the Council, the policies accorded with the tests for soundness in the NPPF and, as a consequence, the rest of the Plan could be examined.

11. The second group of hearings into the Plan took place in March and April 2016 and dealt with the various groups of allocations separately, before going on to consider general matters, and the necessity for and wording of various development management policies.

Main Issues

12. The Council proposed a total of 32 MMs to the Plan (there is no MM28). I have referred above to five MMs that need to be removed [Proposed MM12, MM18, MM20, MM30 (in part), MM31 and MM33]. On top of that, while I can understand why the Council has approached the question of whether a change to the Plan is an MM with caution, two of the proposed MMs set out, and consulted upon, do not materially affect the Plan’s policies and so do not need to be recommended as MMs [Proposed MM19 and MM32]. These the Council can deal with under Section 23 of the Act.

13. Taking account of all the representations, the written evidence, and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings, I have identified eight main issues upon which the soundness of the Plan depends, and addressed the remaining MMs put forward as part of that. There are a number of general matters that I feel it necessary to address too. Under these headings my report deals with the main matters of soundness rather than responding to every point raised by representors.

Issue 1 – Does the Plan have proper regard to the historic environment?

14. Consideration of this issue, in the context of the workings of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF, and the implications of recent developments in the Courts, bears on several allocations in the Plan, as well as the specific wording of a number of development management policies.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

15. As I found in my Preliminary Findings, the Policy TAU1 allocation at Comeytrowe/Trull has the potential to have significant impacts on the historic environment, notably on the Trull Conservation Area, and its setting, and the settings of seven listed buildings in close proximity to the site.

16. The greatest potential for harm, it seems to me, lies within the proposed access to the allocated site which would necessitate a removal of a significant length of boundary wall, and some mature trees. However, if designed carefully, it ought to be possible to arrive at a solution that balances the requirements of traffic management with aesthetics to the point that any harmful impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area could be minimised, and thereby outweighed by the public benefits of bringing forward housing.

17. Similarly, an appropriate, design-led approach to the layout of the housing on the site ought to ensure that any harmful impact on the settings of the listed buildings affected is controlled to the point that it pales against the obvious advantages in providing new housing.

18. In the context of the need for such a careful approach to design, the omission of any reference to the historic environment in Policy TAU1 renders the policy ineffective, and inconsistent with national policy. However, the Council suggested a modification to the policy to remedy this shortfall [MM26] which in simple terms requires the submission for approval of a Heritage Conservation Strategy. This gives the Council the control I believe to be necessary and the modification is sufficient to make the policy sound. HE supports that conclusion.

19. My Preliminary Findings found that the housing allocation in Policy TAU2: Staplegrove had the potential to have significant impacts on the settings of Pyrland Hall and Yarde Farmhouse, both Grade II* listed buildings, Okehills, a Grade II listed building, and the Staplegrove Conservation Area.

20. In discussion, it became clear that careful composition of the housing layout, and in particular the location of open spaces, along with carefully designed natural screening, could serve to minimise the harm that could be caused to the setting and thereby the significance of the listed buildings, and the conservation area.

21. In the light of the need for such an approach, the lack of any provision in Policy TAU2 to secure it is significant, and sufficient to make the policy ineffective and lacking in consistency with national policy. However, the Council suggested a modification to the policy to remedy this shortfall [MM27] which requires the submission for approval of a Heritage Conservation Strategy. This modification gives the Council the necessary control and is sufficient to make the policy sound. Again, HE supports that conclusion.

22. During the second tranche of hearings, I raised concerns about whether policy TAU3: Pyrland Farm needed adjustment to reflect the need to protect, as far as possible, the setting of the listed building (Pyrland Farmhouse) adjacent to the site. It is clear that this would be best achieved by sensibly designed screening along the common boundary. 6

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

23. The policy makes reference to the need for strategic landscaping and planting and this, in my view, is sufficient to make the policy effective and compliant with national policy. In a similar way, I questioned whether Policy WEL1 went far enough to protect the listed buildings at Tonedale Mill. Given the complications of the site, and the longstanding need to secure progress with it, I am content that it does.

24. Policy WEL2: Wellington Sewage Works gave rise to concerns given that it allocates land within the Nynehead House Park and Garden of Special Historic Interest for an extension to those works. It is difficult to see how that could be accommodated in an acceptable way, even with careful landscape treatment. The policy is inconsistent with national policy therefore. The Council acknowledged the difficulty and after discussion with Wessex Water, proposed the deletion of the policy and the allocation [MM29].

25. The Council has also suggested a change to Policy MAJ2 in order to reduce the impact of the allocation, and the additional playing fields in particular, on designated heritage assets at Culverhay Farm [MM30]. That is necessary to bring the policy into line with national policy.

26. The wording of Policy ENV4: Archaeology gave rise to concern in that it went well beyond its scope in referring to the settings of designated heritage assets generally. In response, the Council proposed an amendment [MM11] which is sufficient to alleviate the potential confusion, and make the policy effective.

27. A number of other development management policies omitted mention of the historic environment, or dealt with it in a way that lacked the necessary acknowledgement of its gravitas. Given the importance attached to cultural heritage in national policy, these omissions and inadequacies are significant and render the policies ineffective. As a result, the Council suggested modifications to Policy TC1: Activities within primary retail frontages [MM1], Policy A1: Parking Requirements [MM5], Policy D4: Shopfronts [MM13], Policy D5: Extensions to dwellings [MM14], Policy D7: Design quality [MM15], and Policy D9: A co-ordinated approach to development and highway planning [MM16]. These are all necessary to make the policies sound.

Issue 2 – Does the Plan deal adequately with potential impacts on the Hestercombe House SAC?

28. During the initial hearings, I questioned the feasibility of the approach to compensatory planting required to mitigate the impact of the housing allocation in Policy TAU2: Staplegrove on the Hestercombe House SAC. It became clear that the wording in the policy reflected the 2009 HRA rather than the 2014 HRA and was therefore incorrect. Moreover, in requiring the off-site compensatory habitat to be functional prior to the commencement of development, it had difficult implications for viability and delivery.

29. On that basis, Policy TAU2: Staplegrove is clearly ineffective. However, the Council put forward a change to the policy to reflect the up-to-date position [MM22]. In consultation with the County Ecologist and NE, the Council has agreed that replacement habitat for the affected Lesser Horseshoe Bats should be provided and established not before the commencement of development, 7

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

but on a rolling basis. As existing foraging habitat is lost to development, it will be replaced. With this amendment, the policy, in terms of potential impacts on the Hestercombe House SAC, functions correctly in the context of national policy, and is sound.

30. I brought up similar potential difficulties with Policy TAU3: Pyrland Farm. However, that allocation is much smaller in scale and it seems to me entirely possible that compensatory habitat could be provided alongside the housing. No adjustment to the policy is required, in these terms, therefore.

Issue 3 – Whether the approach to the distribution of housing allocations is an appropriate one?

31. It needs to be made clear at the outset that the Plan examined herein follows on from the Taunton Deane Borough Council Adopted Core Strategy 2011- 2028. As the LDS describes, the Plan is a site-specific allocation document, designed to assist in meeting housing, employment and other targets and requirements specified in the Core Strategy, and containing a suite of detailed development management policies.

32. Core Strategy Policy CP 4 sets out the number of dwellings to be delivered between April 2011 and March 2028 after the deduction of completions to date. Below that, Core Strategy Policy SP 1 sets out a settlement hierarchy for sustainable development with the Taunton urban area as the strategic focus, then Wellington as a secondary focus, followed by Wiveliscombe and Bishops Lydeard as Major Rural Centres and then Cotford St Luke, Creech St Michael, Milverton, North Curry and Churchinford as Minor Rural Centres.

33. These policies make clear that the Council will seek to provide at least 17,000 new homes over the period 2008-2028 with at least 13,000 in the Taunton Urban Area, at least 2,500 in Wellington, at least 200 in the Major Rural Centres, and at least 250 in the Minor Rural Centres. While some might not agree with the efficacy of that strategy, it is not for me to question it. The allocations in the Plan closely follow the approach to strategic sites and broad locations set out in the Core Strategy. In terms of smaller sites, the SA is very clear about how and why the final site-selections have been arrived at. There is nothing unsound about the allocations.

34. Residents of North Curry and other Minor Rural Centres made the point that the 250 figure in the Plan has already been exceeded but Core Strategy Policy CP 4 talks about at least 250. The key is that in the Minor Rural Centres development is controlled to the extent that they maintain their position in the overall hierarchy. Permissions granted in these settlements by the Council, and on appeal, may have taken the numbers above 250 but I do not consider that the hierarchical position has been changed.

35. The allocations in Policy MIN1: East of Dene Barton, Cotford St Luke, Policy MIN2: Hyde Lane, Creech St Michael, Policy MIN3: North of School, Creech St Michael, Policy MIN4: Land off Hyde Lane, Creech St Michael, Policy, Policy MIN5: Land at Butts Way, Milverton, Policy MIN6: Overlands, North Curry, Policy MIN7: Knapp Lane, North Curry, and Policy MIN8: Ford House Farm, Churchinford, are appropriate, in the context of Core Strategy Policy SP 1, and having regard to the SA, and site-selection processes. 8

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

36. I heard much about the allocation in Policy MIN7: Knapp Lane, North Curry but it is important to appreciate that it is not my role to assess it in development management terms. There may be difficulties with the site in terms of surface water drainage, and issues around its highway impacts, but from what I saw, these would not be insurmountable. I note that the Highway Authority has no in principle objection. On top of that, good design could serve to reduce any prominence when viewed from Knapp Lane. There is nothing to suggest that the allocation is unrealistic in that the site could not be developed in a satisfactory way rendering the policy unjustified or ineffective.

37. It was also promulgated that an alternative site at Windmill Hill, North Curry might provide for a better allocation than the site at Knapp Lane. From what I saw, it would have more of an impact on the character and appearance of the area, though that might prove manageable through good design. However, I heard that the Highway Authority has raised objections to it. As borne out by the SA, that makes it a less attractive proposition than the Knapp Lane site.

38. Other alternative sites were canvassed in the Minor Rural Centres, notably one at Olands in Milverton. This site has significant constraints because of the presence of a listed building. In any event, the Plan makes adequate provision for Milverton in Policy MIN5, a site-selection justified through the SA.

39. All in all, I am content that the Plan distributes its housing allocations appropriately, in a manner that accords with that set out in Core Strategy Policy SP 1, and the SA. I find no unsoundness on this issue.

Issue 4 – Whether the plan makes adequate provision for housing in light of the housing requirement set out in the adopted Core Strategy?

40. Representations were made to the effect that the figures in Core Strategy Policies CP 4 and SP 1 that I refer to above are out of date because the OAN and the housing requirement will have changed since the adoption of the Core Strategy. That may be the case but it is not my role in examining the Plan to re-examine the OAN or the housing requirement and I have not attempted to do so. Given the purpose of the Plan as described in the LDS, what I need to assess is whether the Plan allocates sufficient housing to meet the requirements of the Core Strategy. Whether that will be sufficient for the Council to be able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites over the course of the plan period is not a matter for me.

41. On that basis, consideration of this issue centres around whether the trajectory put forward by the Council in Appendix C to the Plan is a reasonable one, in the light of the housing requirement set out in the Core Strategy, and potential question marks about the deliverability of some allocations. It is very clear from the recent grants of outline planning permission and significant developer interest that the main allocations in Taunton, covered by Policy TAU1: Comeytrowe/Trull and Policy TAU2: Staplegrove, will come forward expeditiously, and in accordance with the Council’s trajectory.

42. The issues raised by many representors about infrastructure provision, particularly in terms of highways, public transport, and education, ought not to provide any significant drag on the development programmes for these sites.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

43. I reach that conclusion largely because for the Council to expect these significant developments to do more than mitigate their own impacts on infrastructure provision would, in the context of the tests for obligations in the NPPF, be unreasonable. It is evident that the developers concerned are willing to enter into Agreements under s.106 of the principal Act to properly deal with these matters.

44. There are however, other sites where significant constraints might lead to difficulties. The Policy TAU4: Ford Farm allocation is a good example where a development of 400 dwellings will be required to deliver the completion of flood channel works to the Halse Water; the completion of the Norton Fitzwarren by-pass; and 1 hectare of serviced employment land. On the face of it, that appears quite a burden for a development of that scale to bear. Nevertheless, evidence was produced of keen developer interest in the site and a clear intention to proceed.

45. I raised similar questions about other allocations notably those in Policy TAU7: The Uppers, Policy TAU8: Remainder of the Norton Fitzwater Allocation, and Policy TAU9: Hamilton Road Bus Depot. All were allocated as far back as the previous Taunton Deane Local Plan (that was replaced by the adopted Core Strategy) and no progress appears to have been made with any. However, once again, the Council was able to point to interest in the sites, perhaps as a result of more favourable market conditions, and there is nothing to suggest that they will not come forward in the way the Council envisages.

46. There are many constraints too on the Policy WEL1: Tonedale Mill allocation, which includes 220 dwellings, largely in relation to the historic environment. It is evident though that dealings with HE are well underway and there is a real prospect of good progress being made with the redevelopment of the site.

47. While they are more limited in scale, I also aired concerns about the deliverability of the housing allocations in Policy MIN1: East of Dene Barton, Cotford St Luke, Policy MIN2: Hyde Lane, Creech St Michael, Policy MIN3: North of School, Creech St Michael, Policy MIN4: Land off Hyde Lane, Creech St Michael, Policy, Policy MIN5: Land at Butts Way, Milverton and Policy MIN6: Overlands, North Curry. However, planning permission has been granted for the development of many of these sites already, with strong interest in the others, and several are already being built out.

48. Altogether, the picture that the relevant hearing painted on this question is a positive one. The evidence suggests that there are strong drivers for housing growth in the Borough and in that context, I am satisfied that the trajectory the Council presents in Appendix C to the Plan is likely to be met and as a result, the Council ought to be able to meet the requirements for housing set out in the adopted Core Strategy.

49. Several alternative housing sites were canvassed for inclusion as allocations in the Plan at the hearings, for example the site on Land West of Honiton Road, Taunton, in order to bolster the housing supply situation. Leaving aside that development of this site would have some issues in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area, based on my conclusions above, there is no need to include it, or indeed any of the other sites promulgated, in order to make the Plan sound. 10

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

50. Whether the site West of Honiton Road, and indeed others canvassed, find favour as a result of the Council not being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites is not a matter I need to consider here. It is a matter that ought to be considered as a consequence of a planning application.

Issue 5 – Should the Plan be seeking to make allocations for Gypsy and Traveller Sites?

51. This matter was raised at the hearings because the lack of any allocations for Gypsy and Traveller sites appeared to me to be a significant omission.

52. Against the background of Core Strategy Policy CP 4 which, informed by a GTAA, requires provision to be made for 25 new residential and 5 new transit pitches over the period 2010-2015, and a further 19 permanent pitches over the period 2015-2020, paragraph 3.68 of the Core Strategy envisages that the Site Allocations DPD will make subsequent allocations for such uses.

53. In response to my questions, the Council explained that when it undertook a ‘call for sites’ none came forward and that Core Strategy Policy DM 3 could be used to assess any proposals that arise. However, the Council has a duty to plan to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers in the same way that it has a duty to plan to meet other housing needs. It ought to be actively seeking out and promoting sites rather than relying on others to bring them forward.

54. In response, the Council undertook to consider allocations for gypsy and traveller sites anew through the forthcoming review of the Core Strategy and has committed to amending the LDS to reflect that. On the basis of that commitment, I conclude that the Plan is not unsound as a result of the lack of allocations for Gypsy and Traveller Sites.

Issue 6 – Should the Plan be seeking to make allocations for renewable energy projects?

55. I raised this point at the hearings in the light of the approach of the WMS of 18 June 2015 to wind turbines.

56. Understandably enough, the Council has not looked into the matter in any great detail in preparing the Plan at issue and suggests that it is better dealt with in the forthcoming review of the Core Strategy. In the meantime, they say, the criteria-based policy in the Core Strategy, Policy CP 1, can be used to deal with any applications for renewable energy schemes that come forward, along with the NPPF.

57. I suspect that given the requirements of the relevant WMS that there might be some difficulty with that approach. However, being pragmatic, it seems to me that the Plan should not be held up by the need to search for, and select, suitable sites for allocation; an exercise that could be very time consuming.

58. In that context, the review of the Core Strategy seems to me to be the best vehicle to address this matter. The Plan is not therefore unsound as a result of the lack of any allocations for renewable energy projects.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Issue 7 – Is the approach to car parking standards a reasonable one?

59. As drafted, Policy A1 sets out that new development will normally be required to make provision for car parking in accordance with the standards set out in Appendix F to the Plan. In order to promote sustainable travel and to make efficient use of the development land, the Borough Council will, it is said, consider the need for car parking against its impact on urban design; the accessibility of the development by public transport, walking and cycling, and its proximity to employment and services; and, in the case of housing, the type and mix of the proposed dwellings.

60. In general terms, that approach accords with that set out in paragraphs 29 to 41 of the NPPF. The perceived difficulty, presented to me at the hearings, is that some of the standards set out in Appendix F, and in particular those that relate to residential development, do not accord with those published by Somerset County Council, who are the Highway Authority. This, I was told, is a recipe for confusion that could lead to difficulties for developers.

61. In response to the questions raised by representors on this issue, the Council proposes no change to the Plan other than an addition to the first criterion so that it reads the impact on urban design and historic environment [MM5]. In my view, that is the right approach. The Council is seeking to ensure that in dealing with residential development, and in particular those larger in scale, of which there are a number in the Plan, it has the tools necessary to ensure that the provision of car parking is not the driver of the design, but something that can successfully be integrated into it.

62. Limiting the extent of car parking, in the manner the standards seek to achieve, is a reasonable way to approach that, especially when one considers that the larger allocations are in accessible places with scope for public transport links, and walking and cycling facilities to be integrated into the design. Policy A5 that sets standards for accessibility is also a key influence.

63. In that context, the failure of the standards in Appendix F to the Plan to accord with those published by Somerset County Council does not make Policy A1 ineffective or lacking in justification. Moreover, I am sure that any developer would understand that, in general terms, it is the standards in the development plan that the Council, as local planning authority, will adhere to, whatever the Highway Authority might make of them.

Issue 8 – Is the approach of the Plan to dwelling sizes and wheelchair standards appropriate?

64. Amongst other things, Policy D10: Dwelling Sizes sets out minimum internal floor-space requirements for various dwelling types and sizes, minimum floor areas and room widths for bedrooms, and stipulates areas for in-built storage. These requirements mirror the nationally described space standard published by DCLG in March 2015.

65. The WMS of March 2015 says that the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered in accordance with the NPPF and the PPG. That approach is 12

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

reinforced in the PPG. The Council has not provided any specific evidence on need and neither has it analysed the impact of the policy on viability.

66. However, on my analysis, the minimum internal floor-spaces set out in the policy can hardly be described as generous. It is one of the core principles of the NPPF that we should always seek to secure high-quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Moreover, the NPPF talks of delivering a wide choice of high-quality homes. Ensuring through Policy D10 that houses attain a decent size merely reflects those exhortations in national policy.

67. The point is made by several representors that Policy D10 might affect viability. However, I would observe that the inclusion of the policy in the draft Plan does not appear to have diluted the strong interest in the allocated sites I refer to above. No-one has suggested that Policy D10 will have any impact on the likelihood of housing delivery.

68. Nevertheless, even if it is accepted that there will be an impact on the viability of market and affordable housing if the policy is included in the Plan that is not the end of the matter. I reach that conclusion because Policy D10 needs to be seen in its overall context. That context includes Core Strategy Policy CP 4.

69. This policy sets a target of 25% of new housing to be affordable housing over the plan period. It says that in exceptional circumstances, where scheme viability may be affected, applicants will be expected to provide full development appraisals demonstrating the level of affordable housing that is appropriate. Consequently, if application of the standards in Policy D10 has an undue impact on viability, then there is a mechanism in Core Strategy CP 4 for the level of affordable housing to be adjusted to compensate for that.

70. The question was also raised as to whether the Council had accounted for the minimum floor-space requirements in their assumptions about density and how many dwellings allocated sites would deliver. They appear not to have done so but it appears to me that the application of the standards is unlikely to have any significant impact on the number of dwellings delivered. It is a matter easily addressed through effective design of the housing layouts on different sites, and careful choice of an appropriate housing mix.

71. Policy D10 also requires a minimum of 3% of new dwellings on development of 30 dwellings or more to be built to full wheelchair standards. In other words, it seeks to apply the higher optional requirement of Part M of the Building Regulations [M4(3) – wheelchair user dwellings]. The PPG is very clear that Local Plan policies for wheelchair accessible homes should be applied only to those dwellings where the Council is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live in that dwelling.

72. Again though, Policy D10 needs to be considered in the context of Core Strategy Policy CP 4. As well as setting a target of 25% for affordable housing, it gives the Council a measure of control over what form the affordable housing takes. In that context, it would be quite straightforward for the Council to apply the 3% target to the affordable housing that came forward, where it was able to allocate or nominate the resident(s).

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

73. Bringing all those points together, while there has been something of a failure on the part of the Council to accord with the specific provisions of the WMS of March 2015 and the PPG, for the reasons set out, the inclusion of Policy D10 accords with the approach of national policy overall.

Issue 9 – General Matters

74. I have already referred to Policy TAU2: Staplegrove in dealing with Issues 1 and 2 above. There are a number of other adjustments proposed to the policy to underpin the methodology behind the identification of the SUDS infrastructure [MM21], to define the neighbourhoods proposed as sustainable neighbourhoods [MM23], and to broaden the definition of what might prove acceptable on the employment element of the allocation [MM24]. These adjustments are all necessary to make the policy effective.

75. Western Power Distribution have raised concerns about the diversion or placing underground of the existing 132kV power line that runs across the Policy TAU2 allocation. Notwithstanding those concerns, I can see that such a course (which has been the intention of the Council throughout) would greatly benefit the housing scheme coming forward. It would require the agreement of Western Power Distribution and may well place a burden on the developer. However, there is no evidence that this would prevent the allocation coming forward in line with Policy TAU2. The Council has proposed an adjustment to the policy to properly identify the power line and to underline the need for it to be diverted or placed underground in the supporting justification [MM25]. Again, this is necessary to make the policy effective and compliant with national policy and particularly the emphasis in the NPPF on design and standards of amenity.

76. Linked to that, Policy I1: Powerlines requires a change to remove the reference to the out-of-date Holford Rules, and bring it into line with current guidance [MM6].

77. A number of other adjustments to policy have been proposed by the Council. The addition of land at West Buckland Primary School to Policy C1: Reserved land for educational purposes [MM2] is necessary to make the policy properly effective. The same is true of the adjustments proposed to Policy C3: Protection of recreational open space [MM3] and Policy C4: Protection of community facilities [MM4].

78. There are a number of policies in the Plan that relate to trees and the landscape. The adjustments proposed to Policy ENV1: Protection of trees, woodland, orchards and hedgerows [MM7 and MM8] are needed to make the policy properly workable by seeking to minimise impacts rather than avoid them completely, and to properly protect Ancient Woodland, aged and veteran trees in line with national policy. Policy ENV2: Tree planting in residential areas needs amendment to reflect the fact that it is meant to cover all development proposals, not just residential development [MM9].

79. The way in which Policy ENV3: Special landscape features is proposed seeks to avoid any harm to landscape quality in these areas. This is not reflective of national policy and needs adjustment to ensure that any significant harm is avoided [MM10]. 14

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

80. Policy D13: Public Art drew much comment on account of the reference to it being unnecessary in the PPG. However, I do not read the PPG to mean that there are no circumstances in which public art should be sought. It can be an important element of the design of new development and as such, the policy is justified. However, as proposed it includes a reference to commuted sums. This needs to be removed to make the policy effective [MM17].

81. Representations were made that the Foxmoor Business Park ought to be designated in the Plan as a Strategic Employment Site. The Plan makes ample provision for employment uses and I do not see how such a designation would make any great difference given that the Foxmoor Business Park is operating as an employment site already. The Plan does not need to designate the Foxmoor Business Park as a Strategic Employment Site to be effective.

Assessment of Legal Compliance 82. My examination of the compliance of the Plan with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the Plan meets them all.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Local Development The Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Scheme (LDS) Council’s LDS of 2015. Statement of Community The SCI was adopted in 2014. Consultation on the Involvement (SCI) and Plan and the MMs has complied with its relevant regulations requirements. Sustainability Appraisal SA has been carried out and is adequate. (SA) Habitats Regulations The Habitats Regulations AA Screening Report of Assessment (HRA) August 2014 sets out that the Plan may have some negative impact which requires mitigation. This mitigation is secured through the Plan and NE support this approach. National Policy The Plan complies with national policy except where indicated and MMs are recommended. 2004 Act (as amended) The Plan complies with the Act and the Regulations. and 2012 Regulations.

Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 83. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness for the reasons set out above, which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.

84. The Council has requested that I recommend MMs to make the Plan sound and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix, the Taunton Deane Borough Council Site Allocations and Development Management Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Paul Griffiths

INSPECTOR

This report is accompanied by an Appendix containing the Main Modifications.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Appendix – Main Modifications The modifications below are expressed either in the conventional form of strikethrough for deletions and underlining for additions of text, or by specifying the modification in words in italics.

The page numbers and paragraph numbering below refer to the submission local plan, and do not take account of the deletion or addition of text.

Policy/ Page Main Modification Ref Paragraph MM1 9 TC1/ It allows for the restoration or rehabilitation of a listed Criterion D building which is currently in a poor state of repair and which has been actively marketed for retail use but remained vacant for a significant period of time; while protecting the significance of the asset and where appropriate, supporting it where it has been; and MM2 18 C1/after G. Land at West Buckland Primary School. Criterion F MM3 19 C3/ Proposals involving the loss of recreational open space First facilities - including allotments, children’s play areas, paragraph provision for teenagers, parks and recreation grounds, outdoor sports facilities, cemeteries and churchyards, amenity open space, indoor sport and recreation facilities, woodlands, orchards, and semi-natural open space as shown on the Policies Map will not be permitted unless: MM4 21 C4/ A. Evidence is submitted to demonstrate that there is no Criterion A longer a community need for the facility; and B. Evidence is submitted to demonstrate that The facility is not longer financially viable; and C. It could not be put to another similar, community use; or D. Replacement facilities are provided on site, or within the vicinity to meet the needs of the local population. MM5 24 A1/ A. The impact on urban design and historic environment; Criterion A MM6 30 I1/ Where appropriate, the siting of overhead lines should First follow the Holford Rules latest guidance… paragraph MM7 33 ENV1/ Development which would harm trees, woodlands, First para/ orchards, historic parklands and hedgerows of value to First the area's landscape, character or wildlife will not be sentence permitted. Development should seek to minimise impact on trees, woodlands, orchards, historic parklands and hedgerows of value to the areas landscape, character or wildlife and seek to provide net gain where possible’. MM8 33 ENV1/ Development which would result in the loss of Ancient New Woodland, Aged or Veteran Trees will not be permitted’. Second

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Policy/ Page Main Modification Ref Paragraph paragraph MM9 34 ENV2/ Policy ENV2: Tree planting within residential areas new Policy developments. name/ First The planting of trees within new residential sentence developments shall be sought… MM10 35 ENV3/ Development which would significantly harm the First para/ appearance, character and contribution of landscape… First sentence MM11 36 ENV4/ Development affecting sites or the setting of designated Second archaeological heritage assets, and non-designated paragraph archaeological sites or settings which have been demonstrated to have similar level of importance, will not be permitted unless their archaeological and historic interest, character and setting would be preserved. Designated heritage assets of archaeological importance should be preserved in situ. Proposals which do not provide for this will not be permitted unless: MM13 41 D4/ D. If the property is or would impact upon a listed Criterion D building or conservation area, the colour scheme for any shopfront or signage is of a palette appropriate to that building or surrounding area; Where appropriate, the scheme preserves and enhances the character and setting of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. MM14 42 D5/ D. Where appropriate, the scheme preserves and After enhances the character and setting of Conservation Criterion C Areas and Listed Buildings’. MM15 43 D7/ B. Reflecting the site and its context, including existing Critetion B typography and, landscape features and the historic environment; MM16 46 D9/ G. Where appropriate, preservation and enhancement of After the character of conservation areas, designated assets Criterion F/ and their settings. Paragraph 1.8.17 1.8.17 The Borough Council will expect developers to follow the guidance contained in the DCLG/DfT guidance, ‘Manual for Streets’ (Parts 1 and 2) for all residential streets and appropriate wider applications. The majority of highways have important public realm functions beyond the movement of traffic including heritage importance… MM17 51 D13/ All development in excess of 15 residential units or 2500 First square metres (gross) commercial floorspace will be paragraph required to contribute towards the provision of public art and public realm enhancements through commissioning and integrating public art into the design of the buildings and the public realm., or in exceptional circumstances, by providing a commuted sum. Locational decisions for 18

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Policy/ Page Main Modification Ref Paragraph public art in Taunton town centre will be informed by the Taunton Town Centre Design Code SPD. MM21 60 TAU2/ Detailed flood risk assessment will need to be New bullet undertaken and identify the strategic SUDs point infrastructure required. MM22 60 TAU2/ The off-site habitat should be functional prior to the Bullet point commencement of any development Timelines for 18/ delivery of the offsite woodland are to be agreed Second between the Council, County Ecologist and site paragraph promoters and should be delivered at the earliest opportunity’; MM23 59 TAU2/ Within the area identified on the Proposals Map at First Staplegrove, new sustainable neighbourhoods will be sentence delivered. MM24 59 TAU2/ A minimum of 2 hectares of serviced employment land Fourth comprising Class B1 b and c., Class B2 and Class B8 use bullet point and other appropriate employment generating activities which would generate similar employment densities (excepting main town centre uses such as retail, leisure and offices). MM25 59 TAU2/ Diversion of or placing underground the existing 33kV Bullet point 132kV power lines between the A358 and Rectory Road. 8 The line should therefore be either placed underground or diverted; MM26 55 TAU1/ A Heritage Conservation Strategy. This strategy will New bullet identify heritage assets potentially susceptible to impact, point their significance, settings, and where appropriate, proposed mitigation measures sufficient to avoid or minimise harm.’ MM27 60 TAU2/ A Heritage Conservation Strategy. This strategy will New bullet identify heritage assets potentially susceptible to impact point (including Grade II* listed Yarde Farmhouse, Grade II* listed Pyrland Hall, Grade II listed Okehills and the Staplegrove Conservation Area), their significance, settings, and where appropriate, proposed mitigation measures sufficient to avoid or minimise harm.’ MM29 78 WEL2 Delete Allocation. MM30 81 MAJ2/ Land south of Croft Way, Wiveliscombe, as indicated on Paragraph the Proposals Map is allocated for around 80 dwellings. 2.4.4 & and additional playing fields for Kingsmead School. 2.4.5

2.4.4 Development of the site will create an opportunity to provide additional land for Kingsmead School to extend their playing fields as a result of required expansion on the school site to accommodate growth in student numbers from planned development in Wiveliscombe, Milverton, and its rural hinterland.

Taunton Deane Borough Council Draft Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Inspector’s Report November 2016

Policy/ Page Main Modification Ref Paragraph 2.4.5.4 Due to the open nature of the site, housing development should be located in the northern half of the allocation. with an informal parkland landscaping buffer as a transition zone between the built-up area and the new Kingsmead School outdoor sports playing fields, as well as provide ecological and environmental opportunities. To improve access and preserve existing footpaths a pedestrian and cycle link will link the Recreation Ground and South Street. Principle access into the site should be off Croft Way past the GP Surgery and Children's Centre, with secondary access further west.