Creech St Michael Neighbourhood Development Plan Summary of representations submitted to independent examiner

Summary Submission (Regulation 16) consultation was carried out between 10 May – 22 June 2018. Regulation 16 stage attracted 17 representations from different people or organisations.

A second period of public consultation was held between 28 February – 11 April 2019 specifically on the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. This resulted in six representations.

All representations were submitted, in their entirety to the independent examiner.

Regulation 16:

Person/Organisation Comment Highways Have no comments to make further to those we made previously. Y Verley Due to narrow roads and weigh of existing traffic no more houses in the parish or close surroundings other than development of vacant houses and large plot in St Nicholas Road and Hyde Lane. 5 houses too many? That will mean at least 7 or 8 cars. K Tutill The proposed allocation of land to the south of Langaller Road was precipitated by a residential planning application by Gladman. However land north of Langaller Road and the subsequent addition of land around Creech Heathfield were not part of any questionnaire and have been included without any apparent consultation. It would seem that the allocation of such a large area of land as Green Wedge is purely to prevent development. The M5 is a natural barrier and can be achieved by planting along its length. Development in the future os this area Is much more sustainable that the potential of “throwing” it out beyond the existing boundaries to the east.

Remove the area north of Langaller Road and around Creech Heathfield from the Green Wedge designation.

1

S Harris In the green wedge proposal, why is the eastern boundary in the northern area not following the road? It looks as though it runs along the road way until it reaches 1 and 2 Heathfield Farmhouse then stops. This could allow development which would be detrimental to 1 and 2 Heathfield Farmhouse but almost sever the green lung between the new Monkton Development and Creech Heathfield.

Creech Heathfield has been plagued by noise and pollution from the for years. With the proposal for the new urban extension surely priority should be now given to adequate screening of the motorway on both sides.

Ecology of area 1, no mention of the wild deer of which at least 4 call this area their home. If underpass is pedestrianized then the deer will have no safe way of crossing the motorway. How do you propose to protect the deer?

The urban extension is a major development; the Neighbourhood plan should be addressing the issues before they become a major issue. Parish 3.4.2 SADMP-DPD: should it be SPD (Supplementary Council Planning Document)?

7.1.7 CSM NP Traffic Management Plan' ... to ensure that traffic impacts from new development are carefully assessed and managed to protect the character of the NOP area and achieve the NDP vision.' CSM NDP clearly states that the parish shares the planned development areas known as Monkton Heathfield 1 (MHl), and Monkton Heathfield 2 (MH2), with the Parish of West Monkton; having 45% of the allocation and West Monkton having the rest. SUGGEST INSERT to para 7.1.7 'and achieve the NDP vision ... without negative impact on neighbouring parishes especially West Monkton Parish.' SUGGEST this is also inserted into Policy CSM2 para 2 The initiatives agreed within the Traffic Management Plan will be coordinated with those initiatives and measures proposed in connection with the Monkton Heathfield urban extension to ensure that strategic and local transport strategies are aligned ...' without negative impact on neighbouring parishes especially West Monkton Parish.'

2

7.2 CSM 4 Housing Second bullet point -'...be limited to two I two-and-a-half storeys': 's Garden Town status (Para 4.2.5 see below) carries with it a required basic housing density, plus a commitment to 50% open space provision. To deliver the housing numbers in the Core Strategy will require houses to be built at more than 2.5 storeys if the 50% Open Space is to be delivered. Quote from Para 4.2.5 ' ...It is therefore strongly recommended that the Parish Council and other organisations base their formal consultation responses and other inputs related to the masterplanning, detailed design proposals and further planning applications for the West Monkton scheme on the objective ofsecuring the delivery of a development that accords with the Garden Town principles and priorities identified in the TDBC Expressions of Interest document. If this element of CSM 4 remains in situ, then taller buildings will have to be located in other areas of the MH2 development, artificially scewing the allocation of different heights and styles of buildings throughout the development. SUGGEST second bullet point is removed from CSM 4 Housing.

7.6.3 CSM Local Green Spaces Map 14 in Appendix E shows an area enclosed by a dotted line described as 'Fields between West Monkton and Creech St Michael village'. The area encloses two fields to the western side of the yellow dotted area which are in fact within the West Monkton Parish Boundary. The boundary is also the boundary of the WM & CF NP area, (the NP is made). SUGGEST If the boundary between the two parishes was to be re-aligned to follow the motorway, then this would not be a problem. However, since the review of Parish Boundaries is unlikely to be before 2019, this error on the map needs to be addressed and the policy re-worded appropriately. V Knight Who, how and why garden/field at Husk Farm (3 acres) has been proposed as green belt (Plan 14) without consultation consent or engagement with owner?

This is not a place or space used by the public. Suggest that land on the opposite side of the canal should be ring fenced for wildlife and public enjoyment for dog walking etc. As much of the land on the opposite side of the canal has been sold for development.

3

Object to the approach and lack of consultation.

Would like to understand the consideration criteria and process.

Suffering from the mass development of green land that has taken place in Creech: property regularly floods from overflow out of the manholes with the excess foul waste - endured for 3 years with no sign of remediation. At no point was impact of foul waste on small housing and landowners was considered prior to mass building of houses. Victim to corporate development pocket lining, whilst foul waste continues to pump out directly into the countryside for cattle and wildlife to feed on at Husk Farm.

Please remove restrictions and boundaries from my property at Husk Farm until we have held open direct dialogue to discuss the above. Natural England CSM NDP appears well-researched and to be a generally positive document that reflects local aspirations for the area; particularly welcome consideration given to landscape character and the objective to protect our valued green spaces and landscapes, waterways and the natural environment generally.

Suggest the NPD reference to Seeking measures to reduce noise and air pollution by supporting and acting on measures to improve the environment would be strengthened if consideration could also be given to reducing light pollution. Canal & River Trust Note that comments submitted as part of the Housing Needs Survey and Green Wedge consultation have been taken into account in final document and pleased many of our recommendations have been included.

Welcome opportunity to comment to ensure the Canal is properly protected and promoted and the multi-functional benefits that the waterway can bring to the area Is properly recognised.

'What your local waterway can do for your community-a planning guide for waterways in Neighbourhood Plans' sets out issues and opportunities to consider when preparing a NDP

4

and considers the contribution the canal brings to life in a local community.The

Bridgwater & Taunton Canal runs for 14 miles through 7 locks and note the community hold it in high regard and enjoy using it regularly. Note improvements such as a slipway and towpath would we welcomed by residents to maximise the wellbeing benefits and sustainable transport options that the canal brings to the area.

We actively promote the towpath for use as a free to use well-being and recreation resource, both on and off the water, as well as active travel route into the heart of the town. Suggestions for a new bridge crossing and slipway should be discussed further with the Trust but could be of benefit in achieving greater access to the waterway and towpath for all. Our permission will be required to cross the canal, as well as possibly construct the bridge landings or links to it on Trust land. The bridge design will need to be agreed to ensure it has no impact on navigational safety, or safety of towpath users, and its long-term ownership and maintenance must be considered too.

Suggested policy CSM1 be amended to specifically mention access to and along the canal towpath and to separate out mention of access from the Larkfleet Estate and access in general along and to the canal towpath. A separate bullet point would better reflect the importance of the canal towpath a cycling and pedestrian route. Historic England I can confirm that there are no comments which we wish to make. Z Nation 7.2.2 CSM3 policy suggests existing single and two person households occupying properties with 3+ bedrooms might wish to move to new 2 bed properties and bungalows. Bungalows do appeal too many however it is unlikely that many residents wish to move to new homes. Older residents may find moving stressful and expensive and may have lived in current properties for many years. Their homes represent financial, physical and emotional investment; hold family memories and provide familiarity, security and comfort. New-build property would not be an attractive alternative. Such properties are often purchased by “young” older couples for their own retirement. Younger

5

couples with families may see renovating a bungalow as off putting. However building mainly 2-bed homes means families may end up in crowded homes. N Davidson Object to para 7.6.1: The Neighbourhood Plan 2016 survey (Appendix B of the submitted Consultation Statement) question 15 (Figure 1) asks “in your opinion which of these areas should be protected for future generations or from development?”

Para 7.6.1 interprets the community response as having identified important existing open green spaces and indicates that some of that existing open green space is used for formal and informal recreation, while some makes a crucial contribution to the rural character of the area and further, the identity of the parish.

Question 15 does not ask which open green spaces make a crucial contribution to the rural character of the area and the identity of the parish. It asks which areas should be protected for future generations or from development. It seeks the opinion of where development should be prohibited. Therefore the question was ambiguous or indeed leading and certainly not that reported in paragraph 7.6.1.

Question 15 lists 8 options, one of which is “fields between the canal and railway”, there were no plans associated with this question (see Figure 1) and responders were not asked which fields in particular should be protected on any comprehensive plan (see Figure 2). I can find no paper trail that indicates that my landholding is what parishioners had in mind when they were answering question 15.

Land between the railway and the canal to the East of Creech St Michael (Plan 13, appendix E) does not provide formal or informal recreation, it is farmland. There are no public footpaths through it, the towpath to the north of the land has been excluded from the designation. I have not granted any express or accidental permissions for casual recreational use of my land. I have been unable to find any landscape visual impact assessment carried out to support the opinions expressed in the document or evidence base that supports the allocation as Local

6

Green Space for formal, informal and rural character purposes.

Wording in CSM 10 appears to make a distinction between the description “fields between the canal and the railway line” (plan 13) and “fields between West Monkton and Creech St Michael village” (plan 14). In the light of the clarification description of the land only within this policy wording, the description “fields between the canal and the railway line” could apply equally to the land to the west of Creech St Michael (fields between West Monkton and Creech St Michael village) and to the East of Creech St Michael (fields between canal and the railway line), together with other land that indicated in Figure 4 bellow.

Object to para 7.6.2: It indicates community engagement generated two aims and objectives in relation to open green spaces namely, the retention and enhancement of existing open green spaces and the promotion of opportunities to extend existing and create new open and green spaces.

Plan 9 of pre-submission draft Neighbourhood Plan (December 2017) indicates that my land is an existing Local Green Space. Figure 3 creates a distinction between “fields protected from development” shown in orange and “existing Local Green Spaces” shown in dotted yellow. The Neighbourhood Plan 2016 survey would therefore appear to relate more to fields protected from development.

7

Plan 9 of pre-submission draft Neighbourhood Plan (December 2017) indicates that my land is an existing Local Green Space. There is no glossary to the document of “existing Local Green Space”. There is a definition of Local Green Space in NPPF. To be such, it needs to have been designated through a local or Neighbourhood Plan. It has not.

Object to Policy CSM10: See previous comments above.

Lands designation is contrary to Para 77 of the NPPF on Local Green Space. I concede that my fields are in reasonable close proximity to the community however: • The land does not serve the community. It is private and not publicly accessed, as opposed to the canal towpath which runs along its northern boundary, and which sits outside the proposed designation. To use this towpath does not require the designation of my land as Local Green Space; • No evidence of what is specifically and particularly important about the land, what is demonstrably special; • No landscape visual impact assessment that indicates that the green area concerned is local in character and is any different to any other land in the vicinity; • No evidence it holds particular local significance.

The Green Wedge Assessment April 2018: WYG only undertook desk top assessment of my land (part of Area 2) and did not form part of the original site visit exercise in December 2017.

Note a reliance on outdated ecological survey which referenced a completely different quadrant of the village (in the NW) to where my land is located (in the SE.

Consultation Statement (Appendix A) does not list myself or previous landowner. We were not consulted as part of the initial survey in 2016, or the Regulation 14 consultation in 2017/18 nor at the further consultation with “interested parties” occurred between 13 March and 3 April 2018. I was not aware that the Parish Council was embarking on

8

a Neighbourhood Plan, nor was I aware of 2017/2018 consultation.

Paragraph: 048 Reference ID: 41-048-20140306 of the NPPG indicates that landowners should be involved in preparing a draft neighbourhood plan and by doing this Parish Council will be better placed to produce plans that provide for sustainable development which benefits the local community whilst avoiding placing unrealistic pressures on the cost and deliverability of that development. LRM Planning CSM11: Green Wedge Object to policy should be omitted from NP, it is: • contrary to national policies and advice contained within the NPPF and PPG; • seeking to create a designation that the strategic plan for the area has not considered to be necessary and is without justification in planning terms; and • supported by evidence that has been prepared on the basis of a flawed and poorly executed methodology.

A NP must be positive activity, managing change not restricting development. CSM11 was not included in the NDP in support of a positive vision for the area: • Panel meeting 20th July 2017: reference to a need to protect the village from further housing development; • Panel meeting 16th November 2017: refer to the need to consider protecting the village boundaries.

Identified green space does not need to be in public ownership. However, the guidance is clear that qualifying body should contact landowners at an early stage about proposals to designate any part of their land in order that are given the opportunity to make representations in respect of proposals in a draft plan. There have been no discussions with the landowners regarding the delivery of the identified objectives for land. Therefore CSM11 is not deliverable. Owners of land were not made aware of the April 2018 consultation. No attempt made to discuss the intention to sterilise their land with them by either the Parish Council, or their appointed consultants WYG. WYG wrote that our reps on “proposed Green Wedge…is not subject to this

9 guidance, we do not propose to undertake specific, additional consultation with your client”.

A NP cannot designate new areas of green belt. TDBC Core Strategy CP8 does not include provision or scope for further areas of green wedge to be designated through the NP process. Therefore no precedent or strategic policy that supports the inclusion of a green wedge policy in the NDP. The introduction of such a strategic policy at the neighbourhood level is not appropriate.

Green wedge could potentially be considered a form of LGS, though this is under Policy CSM10. Consider CSM11 in light of the relevant national policy and guidance relating to a local green space designation.

Primary function of a green wedge is to prevent urban sprawl or the joining up of settlements, impact similarity to a green belt designation. Such a designation is restrictive and significant, and must be underpinned by robust evidence and only used in appropriate circumstances.

CSM11 is not underpinned by evidence: No nationally prescribed methodology for defining green wedges; Green Wedge Assessment (February 2018) does not make reference to NPPF Para’s 76 and 77 (identification and protection of green spaces) or demonstrate that the proposed area is special to the local community and holds a particular local significance; Assessment of the areas ‘landscape and visual value’ is cursory: only considering views from within the area and highlighting that mature trees and hedgerows contribute to the landscape identity of one limited part of it.

NDP intention is to reflect the green wedge approach taken by TDBC and have the same policy objectives. TDBC’s Green Wedge Assessment (June 2015) includes landscape assessment across fourteen separate criteria, and was carried out in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Third Edition 2013). There is no indication that those guidelines or similar were used to inform the NP Green Wedge Assessment by WYG assessment.

10

The land is not currently proposed for development, and there is already an appropriate policy framework and planning process through which any such proposal could be considered (National and Local Planning Authority).

Policy CSM11 should be omitted from the NDP. The main geographical features which connect Parish Council Cheddon Fitzpaine, West Monkton Creech St Michael Parishes are connectivity via road, rail, canal, cycle paths, and footpaths; ie travel and recreation.

Item 4.2.4 requests all interested parties working together on the Monkton Heathfield extension. 'Creech St Michael Parish calls on all interested parties to work collaboratively to deliver a high quality development for Monkton Heathfield that reflects the Garden Town Principles', and Cheddon Fitzpaine Parish Council endorse this point.

CSM 1 & 2 -Travel Plan, Cycle and Canal routes - apply to both WM & CF NP. 7.1.7 CSM NP Traffic Management Plan: It is requested that there be no negative impact on neighbouring country lanes as a result of this policy. Gladman Do not consider the vision for the CSM NP area is appropriate and consistence with the requirement of national policy guidance. Concerned the vision is to remain 'rural, peaceful and green'. Given the growth, and strategic allocations within the plan area (adopted Core Strategy) we consider that this vision is in direct contradiction to the development plan.

Lack of flexibility drafted in to the CSMNP's policies to: • allow further sustainable development to come forward within the Plan period, in addition to that which is already being planned for; and • allow it to respond to rapid change.

CSM 3: Housing to meet local need August 2017 Housing Needs Survey concludes low level of affordable housing need identified, and concludes it is not necessary to provide additional

11 affordable housing at this time. Concerned as there is a recognised chronic need for affordable housing nationally and locally within . Survey does not represent robust evidence base upon which to base policies with the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Summary clearly stated only 24% response; suggest it’s inappropriate to draw any conclusions from the survey, given over 75% of results unavailable.

Unclear how any of the findings from the Housing Needs Survey support policy CSM 3, specifically planning applications for 11 or more dwellings needing to demonstrate delivery of housing meet local identified needs. Suggest either the Survey or supporting text provides a clearer indication of breakdown of housing needed to assist decision makers in applying the policy consistently and wholly.

Suggest more robust Housing Needs Survey needed and once this has been made publically available, revisit and reconsult on policy CSM 3.

CM4: Quality of Design Recognise importance of high quality design; but not overly prescriptive and need to provide flexibility for schemes to respond to site specific circumstances and the character of the local area. No 'one size fits all' solution in relation to design, sites should be considered on a site by site basis with consideration to various design principles.

Suggest more flexibility be written into the wording to ensure high quality and inclusive design is not compromised by aesthetic requirements alone, as to do so could act to impact on the viability of proposed residential developments.

Suggest regard should be had to paragraph 60 of the NPPF.

CSM 6: Community Cohesion Provision of a welcome pack for all new residents. Policies should not include requirements that could create unreasonable financial burden and could potentially act to render an otherwise sustainable development proposal unviable. Suggest policy

12 recognises that such requirements should only be applied if demonstrably viable.

CSM 10: Local Green Space LGS is a significant policy designation and effectively means once designated, protection that is comparable to that for Green Belt land. Parish Council should ensure proposed designations meet NPPF requirements of LGS designation.

Gladman have been unable to identify any evidence to support the designations set out within the NP. Suggest the Parish Council take time to revisit the policy and provide robust and justified evidence to support the inclusion of the proposed designations.

CSM 11: Green Wedge This is a strategic policy, beyond the remit of the NP that would have effect of imposing a blanket restriction on development to the north west of Creech St Michael. A longstanding history of the use of Green Wedges in the Taunton Deane Area, with the East Taunton Local Plan (1991) being the initial source of such policies. Such policies are a matter for strategic planning and not a neighbourhood plan.

Gladman have land interest in the NPA, and have previously submitted a planning application for up to 200 dwellings with public open space. This application was refused by TDBC and Gladman are in the process of preparing a planning appeal. Area 1, as identified in the Green Wedge Assessment covers the land which was subject to the planning application and as such will potentially be subject to the restrictions enforced by draft Policy CSM 11.

CSA environmental produced a critique of the Green Wedge and conclude that policy CSM 11 provides an additional level of development constraint at a local level which is both inappropriate and restricts potential future growth to the north of Creech St. Michael. Green Wedge Assessment undertaken by WYG is a very high level report that lacks detailed analysis of the performance and functions of the areas identified as potential green wedge locations.

It is accepted that development on the northern edge of the settlement would inevitably reduce the

13 physical separation between Creech St. Michael and the Monkton Heathfield SUE; but neither Gladman nor CSA consider that development in this area would result in actual or perceived coalescane between the two.

WYG analysis of Area 1 contribution to a sense of identity and place concluded that the area provides a key rural gateway between the urban extension and Creech St Michael. Gladman suggest that an area's pleasant sense of openness and rural feel cannot simply amount to a landscape which should be protected and providing a rural gateway does not amount to contributing to a unique sense of identity.

The inclusion of CSM 11 would act as unnecessary policy constraint, and inclusion effectively restricts sustainable development opportunities to the north of Creech St. Michael from coming forward.

Site Submission: The 11.4ha application site (app 14/17/0033) could be considered to sit in conformity with CSM 11, as it would provide for a 90m buffer along the northern boundary and the M5 broadly comparable to the existing green wedge which follows the western edge of the highway as proposed as part of the Monkton Heathfield SUE. Beyond this, the development of the land at Langaller Lane would provide public open space, opening up land which is currently in private ownership to the wider community.

Site is a sustainable and viable location for growth, up to 200 dwellings could be delivered over a 6- year period. Therefore request the Parish Council offers support to the proposal. Delivery of the proposed development at land off Langaller Lane, Creech St Michael will bring benefits to the local community, including:

• delivery of market and affordable housing in a sustainable location to meet housing needs;

• provision of new public open space not currently available and a high quality landscape setting, along with informal

14

recreation space and landscaping to meet the needs of existing and future residents;

• creation of a high quality residential development which respects the character of the surrounding area.

Delivery of this scheme will result in significant benefits for local community and surrounding area including the provision of New Homes Bonus payments, increasing economic activity of the area and will contribute towards a number of CSMNP aspirations.

Conclusion Recognises Government's ongoing commitment to neighbourhood planning and role of such Plans as a tool for local people to shape the development of their local community. However, CSMNP must be consistent with national planning policy and the need to take account of up-to-date housing needs evidence and the direction contained in the emerging Local Plan.

Concerned the NP in its current form does not: • comply with basic conditions (a) and (d); • conform with national policy and guidance; and • contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Network Rail Note the comments regarding footbridge over the railway, the bridge is not due for replacement, although when it is there would be an opportunity for the council to work with Network Rail to maybe enhance the structure with an improved footway, although this will be subject to funding.

A separate footbridge would only be possible, providing there is space available and clearance across the railway is granted, this would only be possible with third party funding.

Network Rail are working with County Council and the local transport plan which looks at existing services and suggestions for new stations and this will continue in its development.

Note that a section of Network Rail's land is included within the plan area, any development that

15

has the potential to impact on Network Rail's land, assets and operational railway infrastructure, Creech St Michael Parish Council and potential developers should be aware of and consider Network Rail's standard guidelines and requirements when developing sites located adjacent or in close proximity to Network Rail's land, assets and railway infrastructure. Persimmon Para 7.2, Policy CSM3 Suggestion for bungalow provision, whilst it is appreciated that there is a need for an appropriate mix of residential development to make it viable, requiring bungalows (dependant on number of units within a proposed scheme) can be quite restrictive in policy terms when Persimmon Homes demonstrate that we work alongside current housing demand to make the most sympathetic scheme to put before the LPA. Imposing this type of restriction on development would severely impact demand.

Request that this element of the plan is removed

7.3 CSM4 Some residential areas are key in preserving and enhancing existing character; such as listed building and conservation areas, whereby materials should be respectfully sought. Sourcing materials locally where there may be a shortfall, will delay development and delay taking a scheme forward. Materials can be sourced from elsewhere in the country which would respectfully enhance the character of certain development areas.

In certain areas it may be justifiable that modern materials would enhance the character of the area, as the contrast between street scenes can be adequately enhanced using various methods and construction materials, this would not necessitate the development requiring to source materials locally.

Request that this element of the plan is removed. TDBC General Matter: The draft NDP meets EU Environmental Obligations on habitats and the environment.

The regulations are met in terms of prescribed matters and conditions; namely the NDP:

16

• specifies the period for which it is to have effect; • does not include any provision about excluded development; • policies appear to be solely related to the neighbourhood plan area designated for the Creech St Michael NDP.

As currently drafted 8 policies contain elements that may not meet the legal tests of general conformity with strategic policies in LPA DPD’s and have regard to national policies and advice issued by the Secretary of State.

CSM3: Housing Need Core Strategy Allocation, Monkton Heathfield, is a Strategic Urban Extension (SUE) to meet strategic borough wide need. 43% of it falls within the neighbourhood plan area (NPA), therefore the LPA would expect that the Strategic Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) for the Borough rather than the local HNA would be used to steer the mix of housing there.

CSM4: Quality of Design Second bullet point is prescriptive and there appears to be no clarification or evidence to justify development being limited to two or two and a half storeys. There may be instances where buildings of less or equally more storeys are appropriate, and therefore to respect and where applicable reflect local form and scale may be more appropriate. It can also be argued that something as substantial as an Urban Extension should have a character of its own (in terms of heights of buildings, materials, features) rather than reflect its neighbouring settlements, it may therefore be difficult to apply this policy to the Urban Extension.

CSM5: Employment First bullet point under loss of employment appears to be ambiguous. Is it suggesting that employment land can be lost if any alternative use is shown to be deliverable or that loss is only acceptable if there is not any viable use for the site? Policy must be clear to enable it to be consistently applied, it must also not make development unviable. How would this apply in the case of larger mixed-use allocations?

17

CSM6; Community Cohesion First three policy criteria can be incorporated into planning application Design & Access Statements. The fourth one, requiring applicant to provide a welcome pack, is a community action rather than a land-use based matter. Whilst the supporting text mentions “proportionate to the scale and nature of development”, it could place an unjustified burden on development.

CSM7: Public Realm Improvement Plan Policy must relate to development and land-use; items under bullet point two (signage, street furniture, paving) are community actions rather than land-use planning matters.

CSM8: Sport, Leisure and Recreational Facilities Where the facility is no longer required is it justified and reasonable that development provides recreational or community benefit greater than the long-term value of the facility that would be lost and how is this to be quantified? Development can be required to mitigate its own impact, but not more than is being lost. Policies must be justified, evidenced and not make development unviable.

CSM9: Protection of Community Assets Unclear what is meant by “cannot viably be put into an alternative use”, in the last sentence when read in the context of the whole of the policy. Is it suggesting that employment land can be lost if any alternative use is shown to be deliverable or that loss is only acceptable if there is not any viable use for the site? A policy must be clear to enable it to be consistently applied, it must also not make development unviable.

CSM10: Local Green Space LGS can only be formally designated or amended through the NDP review. A community action could collect information for the review, but not add/remove LGS in-its-self.

Factual Matters: Maps need to have the relevant OS copyright license details and/or source reference. Images should carry source reference and if required permission notification

18

Community Action Plan: Whilst it does not form part of the NDP being examined, it is a useful section to have and its inclusion is a positive thing. It provides a list of projects and priorities which the community have been actively involved in shaping through the development of the NDP. It can then be used to prioritise the Parishes CIL spending and assist with grants and funding applications.

Additional Consultation on HRA and SEA:

Person/Organisation Comment Canal and Rivers Trust Have considered the content of the document and have no comments to make in this case. Gladman It is implied that no effects on the SAC have been identified when the plan is screened alone, which is inconsistent with the preceding section (Table 3) which determined that seven of the eleven proposed policies would have a potential significant effect.

No assessment of proposed policies effects in combination with other plans or projects on the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA/Ramsar site, identified in Chapter 3 as being potentially affected by the Plan (Paragraph 37).

No project parameters provided for two projects “considered to potentially have effects [on the SAC] in combination with the Neighbourhood Plan” in Paragraph 69; therefore cannot be considered a robust in-combination screening assessment.

Discounting other housing developments (incl: Staplegrove East and West, Nerrols and Hartnells Farm) from in-combination screening on account of their already having been subject to HRA, with no likely significant effects on the Hestercombe House SAC having been identified misunderstands in- combination assessment process (impacts of multiple plans or projects, which may themselves be of insufficient severity/magnitude to meet the threshold of a significant effect, may combine to give rise to an effect which is significant).

Hestercombe House SAC ecological zone of influence (Figure 1), extends to multiple Parishes

19 within Taunton Deane and Sedgemoor districts but no screening for in combination effects with other Development Plans is presented.

It is not procedurally necessary for screening to make consideration of in combination effects, as likely significant effects of the plan alone have been identified, hence the assessment must in any case advance to Appropriate Assessment/HRA Stage 2. However, HRA report includes in combination effects, therefore we note the above limitations.

Policy CSM8 states proposals “to enhance, improve and extend sports, leisure and recreational facilities will be supported” applying particularly to 11 specific locations. HRA screening (Pg. 24) states policy is “non-locational.” Whilst screening identifies potential for loss of habitat used for commuting and/or hunting by lesser horseshoe bats, and potential for disturbance associated with lighting; there is no screening of locations specified in policy, despite some (such as aqueduct and former canal; Appendix C Plan 6) may form important habitats for bats associated with the SAC, is presented.

Likely significant effects on the Hestercombe House SAC is highly precautionary.

No potential effects of the proposed policies are identified for Somerset Levels and Moors SPA/Ramsar; however Ruishton aqueduct and former canal (Appendix C Plan 6), lies within the Ecological Zone of Influence of the SPA/Ramsar, as defined in Figure 2 (Pg. 16). Screening has failed to identify the clear potential for an impact pathway between this site and the qualifying bird species of the SPA/Ramsar

Appendix 1 (referenced Pg. 16, Paragraph 49), in respect of records of qualifying bird species outside of the SPA/Ramsar and habitat which potentially supports their ecological requirements is missing.

SPA/Ramsar Site Improvement Plan identifies disturbance from recreation/visitor pressure as key threat to the qualifying bird species; HRA screening fails to identify potential for policies to increase

20

visitor pressure both at the European site, and within supporting habitats outside the designation.

CSM1 states development proposals must enhance the capacity of the existing walking and cycling network, with priority walking and cycle routes shown in Plan 1, Appendix A. Policy CSM8 further supports proposals which “enhance, improve and extend sports, leisure and recreational facilities,” which we note to include the towing path. The south eastern-most route is directly within the EZI (as defined in Figure 2, Pg. 16); the route along Bridgwater and Taunton Canal Towing Path extends east from Creech St Michael Village toward the SPA/Ramsar and at Charlton is separated from the SPA/Ramsar boundary by c.1.4km of public footpath.

Representations made by Natural England (EX07) include a recommendation for the plan to include reference to seeking measures to reduce light pollution. Place Land In respect of proposed Policy CSM11, the HRA concludes that there are ‘no significant effects likely’. We have no reason to disagree with this conclusion and offer no further comments on the document at this stage.

Flawed SEA approach resulted in evidence that fits with the proposed policy, rather than evidence being used to identify the most appropriate strategy. The SEA, and neighbourhood planning process generally, have not considered thoroughly reasonable alternatives or demonstrated that this has been done.

It is stated that the ‘reasonable alternative’ proposed (Option CSM11A) has already been rejected through the plan making process; therefore there is no genuine prospect that the exercise could have resulted in this section of the NDP being changed to reflect the outcome of the process.

The selected strategy (Option CSM11B) will not optimise the environmental performance of the NDP as is intended by the SEA process.

It is unclear when during the NDP process these alternatives were assessed and how they were

21 assessed and what evidence was relied upon to inform the stated conclusions.

Policy CSM11 has been justified on a misinterpretation of TDBC Core Strategy Policy CP8, and wrongly interpreted Figure 4.1 of the Strategic GI Opportunities Plan in the Taunton Deane Green Infrastructure Strategy as justification for the delineation of the proposed Green Wedge.

Evidence is being prepared retrospectively to inform and in support of Policy CSM11.

No technical evidence provided to support conclusion Option 11A scores as a ‘minor negative’ (Pg. B18 of the ER), including that the size, nature and location of the reasonable alternative (e.g. to not designate the green wedge): • would be likely to not quite fit into the existing location; • would be likely to not quite fit with existing receptor qualities. There is no evidence provided to advise firstly what those existing receptors are and, or, secondly what qualities they demonstrate that the reasonable alternative would be likely not to quite fit with; • would be likely to affect undesignated yet recognised local receptors. In particular there is no information provided to confirm what ‘recognised local receptors’ are being referred to for the purpose of the report.

Issue reports support for conclusion in with Paragraph B1.12.2, but in light of bellow this would be incorrect: • There is already a robust and detailed planning policy framework (local and national level) in place to secure the necessary protection of ‘valuable wildlife corridors and habitat if land allocate, or development proposed, in this location and proposals would need to be supported by appropriate evidence and demonstrate compliance with those policies. • The current NPPF should therefore be reflected in the SEA process: planning system achieving sustainable development which is to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment;

22

including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy; Net biodiversity gains through development proposals.

No technical evidence provided to support conclusion Option 11B scores as a ‘minor positive’, including that the size, nature and location of the reasonable alternative (e.g. to designate the green wedge): • would be likely to improve recognised receptor qualities at the local scale; • would be likely to fit with existing receptor qualities; or advise what those are and, or, what qualities they demonstrate that the reasonable alternative would be likely to fit with; • would be likely to enable the restoration of valued characteristic features.

Issue reports support for conclusion in with Paragraph B1.12.3, are incorrect: • the site is currently in agricultural use and as such likely to be of very limited ecological value; • no evidence the Green Wedge will provide proposed benefits, and no delivery plans or discussions with landowner on biodiversity enhancement of the site; • no evidence designation as Green Wedge will help to protect, conserve and enhance biodiversity features. Historic England There are no comments on the Report that we wish to make Natural England Natural England does not consider that significant environmental effects are likely to arise…and supports the conclusion of the Environmental Report. Environment Agency No additional comments to make in respect of this matter

18 July 2019

23