Consultation Statement

Home , Blagdon, Bleadon, Winscombe, Wrington

Housing in Defined Villages (Policy H/7 v)) Supplementary Planning Document

Consultation Draft - February 2010 ______

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Local planning authorities are required, when consulting on a draft supplementary planning document (SPD), to provide a statement setting out how they have complied with the requirements of regulation 17(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This is known as the ‘consultation statement’.

1.2 Regulation 17(1)(b) requires that a statement is prepared that sets out the names of any persons whom the authority consulted in connection with the preparation of the SPD, how those persons were consulted, a summary of the main issues raised in those consultations and how those issues have been addressed in the SPD.

1.3 The Housing in Defined Villages SPD is at the formal consultation stage and therefore this Consultation Statement sets out how the requirements of regulation 17(1)(b) have been complied with in the preparation of the SPD.

2. THE DRAFT GUIDANCE NOTE

2.1 The draft SPD is a development from an informal Guidance Note produced in response to developers’ requests for greater clarity on the application of Policy H/7 v) of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (adopted 2007). The draft and final versions of the Guidance Note – which differ from the SPD only in detail – are not reproduced here but are available on request.

2.2 The draft Guidance Note was considered by the Executive Member for Strategic Planning, Highways and Economic Development on 21 July 2008. It was approved for consultation and to be applied as interim guidance (Decision No. 08/09 DE 89, 19 August 2008). A copy of the covering report is attached as Appendix 1.

2.3 Consultation took place between 1 September and 15 October 2008. Notification of the consultation was sent by letter or email to all North Somerset councillors, all parish and town councils in North Somerset and to a

1 list of developers and agents considered to include all those with whom the council has regular contact. The consultees are listed at Appendix 2. In addition, the draft Guidance Note was made available on the council’s website, with the option of responding to it online, an option that was taken up by some consultees and also by other respondents who had not been specifically consulted. Additional respondents, either online or by letter/email, were:

• Leonie Allday • Blue Cedar Homes • Home Builders Federation • Kingerlee Homes • Persimmon Homes (Wessex) • Ms D Powell • ‘rd'

3. THE FINAL GUIDANCE NOTE

3.1 A total of 19 written responses was received. These were reported to the Executive Member for Strategic Planning, Highways and Economic Development on 2 March 2009. The covering report and list of recommended changes are attached as Appendix 3. An accompanying schedule summarising each comment, with a recommended response, is attached as Appendix 4. Appendix 5 provides a summary of the main issues and how they have been addressed in the SPD. The Guidance Note, incorporating recommended changes, was approved on 12 May 2009 (Decision No. 08/09 DE 368).

4. THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

4.1 The council’s Executive resolved on 9 June 2009 to commence the process of upgrading the Guidance Note to an SPD. Public participation on the draft SPD runs from 3 March to 13 April 2010.

Further information is available from:

David Robins Principal Planning Policy Officer Development and Environment Somerset House Oxford Street Weston-super-Mare BS23 1TG

Tel: 01934 426 682 Fax: 01934 426 678 Web: www.n-somerset.gov.uk Email: [email protected]

2 APPENDIX 1: Report to the Executive Member for Strategic Planning, Highways and Economic Development, 21 July 2008

North Somerset Council

REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING, HIGHWAYS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Date of Meeting: 21 July 2008

Subject of Report: Housing in Defined Villages Guidance Note

Town or parish: Abbots Leigh, Backwell, Banwell, Blagdon, Bleadon, Burrington, Churchill, Clapton-in-Gordano, Cleeve, Congresbury, Dundry, Easton-in-Gordano, Flax Bourton, Hutton, Kenn, Kewstoke, Kingston Seymour, Locking, Long Ashton, Portbury, Tickenham, Weston-in-Gordano, Weston-super-Mare (Uphill), Winford, Winscombe and Sandford, Wraxall and Failand, Wrington, Yatton

Officer/Member presenting: Planning Policy Manager

Key Decision: No

RECOMMENDATIONS

(i) That the draft Housing in Defined Villages (Policy H/7 v)) Guidance Note be approved as an interim statement of policy to assist in the determination of planning applications for housing in villages with defined settlement boundaries; (ii) That the Director of Development and Environment be requested to carry out public consultation on the draft and report back.

1. Summary of Report

The report outlines a proposed Guidance Note on Housing in Defined Villages, advising on the application of Local Plan Policy H/7 v). It recommends that the draft note be approved for consultation and applied as interim guidance pending consideration of the outcome of that consultation.

2. Policy

2.1 Policy H/7 v) of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007) requires that new housing within settlement boundaries does not “lead to urban housing needs being met in locations

3 outside the four main towns where employment opportunities are more limited and which would add to or contribute to creating a dormitory settlement with high levels of out-commuting”.

2.2 Appeal decisions have clarified that unconstrained general market housing – including conversion and sub-division – does not meet this criterion. The housing must be conditioned in some way to minimise the probability of out-commuting. Live/work units and age-restricted housing, among others, have been accepted as possible ways to achieve the aim of the policy. Further possibilities may also emerge.

2.3 Live/work units in particular have been embraced by developers as a way to continue to deliver family market housing in villages. However, they raise many practical questions about the balance of floorspace and degree of functional separation between the residential and employment elements. Officers are aware of the criticism that poorly regulated live/work units could evolve into purely residential properties, occupied exclusively by commuters, thereby defeating the intention of the policy.

2.4 It is to the advantage of all parties that guidance is produced elaborating on the Council’s expectations for housing in villages with defined settlement boundaries. Consistent advice can then be given to applicants and their agents, while concerned third parties can be reassured that suitable measures are in place to ensure that live/work units function as intended. This guidance can also address issues that have arisen in relation to other forms of residential development that are considered to be H/7 v) compliant, such as age-restricted housing.

2.5 A draft Guidance Note is appended [not reproduced in this Consultation Statement] . It is recommended that this be approved as an interim statement of policy to assist in the determination of planning applications for housing in defined villages and that it be published for consultation. The questions which the note seeks to answer are practical questions which development control officers need answered in order to advise applicants and agents. For this reason, it is considered better to have interim answers that can be applied at once than to await the outcome of consultation. If consultation identifies beneficial changes, these can be incorporated into a revised version.

3. Consultation

The draft has emerged from discussions between development control and planning policy officers. There has not yet been any external consultation.

4 4. Financial Implications

Consultation costs can be absorbed within existing budgets.

5. Equality Implications

Publication of the guidance and consultation on it do not themselves raise any new equality issues. The developments on which the note provides advice will have implications for the elderly, in relation to age- restricted housing, and for other vulnerable client groups for whom specialist housing may be provided. Concerns have also been raised that the additional costs of a work element within live/work developments may worsen the affordability of new housing. However, village affordable housing as such is not dealt with under Policy H/7 because it has its own policy, H/5, that over-rides H/7 requirements.

6. Corporate Implications

None

7. Options considered

Ideally, guidance would take the form of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). These are produced according to a formal process and on adoption form part of the Local Development Framework. However, they can only be produced if identified in the Local Development Scheme (LDS) approved by the Government Office for the South West. It is recommended that the guidance be produced as an informal note for two reasons:

(i) Waiting until the LDS can be revised would leave unresolved the pivotal practical issues on which the development industry urgently seeks consistent advice;

(ii) While informal guidance carries less weight as a material consideration, the issues are ones that must inescapably be resolved in order to design a scheme and any guidance is therefore preferable to no guidance.

The option remains of upgrading the status of the guidance to an SPD at a later date.

Author

David Robins, Principal Planning Policy Officer (01934 426 682) [email protected]

Background Papers

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007)

5 Appeal decisions: 06/P/2695/F: 3 Willow Close, Long Ashton (31 May 2007) 06/P/2811/F: 52 Rectory Way, Yatton (11 July 2007) 06/P/2582/F: 5 Alison Gardens, Backwell (16 August 2007) 06/P/2147/F: 44 Wemberham Crescent, Yatton (3 September 2007) 06/P/3018/F: 44 Wemberham Crescent, Yatton (3 September 2007) 06/P/1645/O: 3&5 Farleigh Road, Backwell (10 September 2007) 06/P/1983/F: Brook House, Silver Street, Wrington (14 September 2007) 07/P/0391/F: First Floor, 24a Woodborough Road, Winscombe (23 October 2007) 07/P/0308/F: 45 Clevedon Road, Failand (5 November 2007) 06/P/2534/F: 13A Warren Lane, Long Ashton (20 November 2007) 07/P/0932/F: The Flat, Coronation House, Upper Myrtle Hill, Pill (22 November 2007) 07/P/2011/F: Land adjacent to 55 Brookside, Easton-in-Gordano (1 April 2008)

6 APPENDIX 2: List of Consultees

In the table below, the first column contains the names of North Somerset councillors, followed by a list of parish and town councils. The second and third columns contain the names of developers and agents specifically consulted on the draft Guidance Note; the third column continues from the far end of the second.

North Somerset Developers and Agents Councillors Elfan ap Rees 4D Design & Build Mr A Guscott Nigel Ashton A G Building Design & Mr A Pittman Surveying Ltd Felicity Baker A J Brown Mr C Tume Jan Barber A J Burden Mr D G Emery Karen Barclay A R Reed Surveying Mr D Hardwick Services Bob Bateman A1 Associates Mr E F Redman Chris Blades A1 Planning Services Mr E H Potter Ericka Blades Acanthus Ferguson Mann Mr E J Mcmanus Jeremy Blatchford Accord Architecture Ltd Mr E P Candow Mary Blatchford ACT Design Mr Finch Peter Bryant Adams Holmes Mr G Rich Associates Robert Cleland Adrian Marshman Mr Gray Andy Cole AGM Services Mr I S Ford Will Collins Alder King Mr J F Barattini Tom Collinson Alison Turner Architects Mr J J Hall Bob Cook Andrew Pittman Architect Mr J Page Sue Creasey Andrew Wilson Mr J Raven Partnership Steve Edwards Anglian Home Mr K A Fowler Improvements Carl Francis-Pester Angus Meek Partnership Mr K Baker Ltd Bob Garner APG Architects Mr Kcl Lewis Hugh Gregor Architecton Mr L Dellacassa Anne-Marie Gregory Architecture Plus Mr L J Durston Colin Hall Arcon Architecture & Mr L Sensicle Conservation Ann Harley Aspect360 Ltd Mr M Bell Gully Hayer Aztech Architecture Ltd Mr M J Harding Andrew Horler B H Associates Mr M J Powney Chris Howell B R H Planning Mr M Padfield Consultants Jill Iles Back To The Drawing Mr M Tait Board

7 David Jolley Baker Associates Mr Michael Marsh Phil Judd Barton Willmore Mr N Tottle Partnership Edward Keating Batterham Matthews Mr P Bath Design Ltd Dr Mike Kellaway- BBA Architects& Mr P J Bedingfield Marriott Planners Anne Kemp Bentley Design Mr P J Orchard Consultants Ltd Chris Kimitri Beresford-Smith & Mr R L Key Partners Nan Kirsen Brian Iredale Designs Mr R Miller Reyna Knight Bristol Design & Mr R S Godfrey Architecture Ltd Tony Lake Bristol House Extensions Mr R S Westmacott Tom Leimdorfer Brookes Powell Mr R W Sage Tim Marter Burges Salmon Mr R Woolley Alan McMurray CAD Design and Mr T Hill Draughting Keith Morris Cadplan Mr T Moody Tony Moulin Cadsquare Midlands Mr W Burton Limited John Norton-Sealey Cedars Mr W Falconer Ian Parker CFM Mr W T Painter Dawn Parry CFM Consultants Ltd Mr Woodman David Pasley Clifton Design & Draw Mrs C Hockedy Ami Patel Colliers CRE Multi Tek Designs Dawn Payne Complete Facilities Nathaniel Lichfield & Management Partners Marcia Pepperall Complete Technical Needham Haddrell Services Ltd Lisa Pilgrim Conservatory Basics Ltd NFU Office Ian Porter Cooke Architecture & Nigel Gittins Chartered Design Ltd Architect Ltd Terry Porter CSJ Planning NOMA Consultants Howard Roberts Custom Conservatories Norman Associates David Shopland Cyrilian Design Norman Read Design Services Debbie Stone D.L.W. Planning North Somerset Care & Repair Arthur Terry Darnton Elgee Architects North Somerset Housing Stanley Vyce Data Design & Oxford Architects Administration Ltd Clive Webb David Cahill Design Pegasus Planning Consultant Group Liz Wells David James & Partners Peter Jones & Associates

8 Roz Willis Davidson Surveyors Ltd Phil Reddish Design Limited Deborah Yamanaka Davis Blackburn Plan Drawing Services Parish & Town Davis Roofing Ltd Planning Councils Communications Abbots Leigh Parish Design & Construction PPDL Council Management Backwell Parish Design ID Quality Designs (UK) Council Ltd Banwell Parish Council Design Management Quattro Design Partnership Architects Barrow Gurney Parish Dexter Building Design Quay Design Ltd Council Ltd Blagdon Parish Council DFCAD Services R E Willis Bleadon Parish Council DSP Collier Reading RCC Limited Brockley Parish Council Dunraven Windows Reed-Holland Associates Ltd Burrington Parish DW Design Residential Planning Council Services Ltd Butcombe Parish EG Design Ltd RGP Council Churchill Parish Council Endpoint Richard Pedlar Architects Clapton-in-Gordano Farrell & Co Richard Powell Design Parish Council Cleeve Parish Council Fisher & Dean Robinson & Brice Clevedon Town Council Flinders Design Rosewall Design Congresbury Parish G Bevan RPS Planning Council Dundry Parish Council Gerald Wayman RPS Planning (Cardiff) Easton-in-Gordano Ghaidan Architects Salmon Planning Parish Council Company Flax Bourton Parish GJS Architects Sign Specialists Ltd Council Hutton Parish Council Graham Moir Associates Simon Cartlidge Architect Kenn Parish Council GVA Grimley Singleton Architects Kewstoke Parish HBS Architecture Site Solutions Council Kingston Seymour Hicks Associates Steve Pierce Architects Parish Council Locking Parish Council Hightech Windows Ltd Stone & Partners Long Ashton Parish Hoddell Associates StrideTreglowan Ltd Council Loxton Parish Council Home Surveying (Bristol) Stuart Davidson Ltd Surveyors Nailsea Town Council Ian Ford Planning Limited Studio Architecture Portbury Parish Council Innes Wilkin Associates Sutherland PLS Portishead & North Inscape Architects T E J Killen

9 Weston Town Council Puxton Parish Council Ivor Day Partnership T Haines St Georges Parish J F Poling & Associates T M Ventham Practice Council Tickenham Parish JAB South West Limited Tetlow King Ltd Council Walton-in-Gordano James Blair The Art of Building Ltd Parish Council Weston-in-Gordano Jane Clarke Architectural The Day Partnership Parish Council Services Weston-super-Mare Jarvis Jefferies Architects The Harris Partnership Town Council Wick St Lawrence Jeremy Drewe Design The Hookway Parish Council Consultant Partnership Ltd Winford Parish Council JM Design The National Trust Winscombe & Sandford John Lambe Associates The Oil & Pipelines Parish Council Agency Wraxall & Failand Joseph A Palmer The Planning Bureau Parish Council Ltd Wrington Parish Kendall Kingscott Ltd Thomas Building Plans Council Yatton Parish Council Kennedy James Griffiths Thursby Associates Kevin Turner Surveys Tony White Associates KHA Turley Associates King Building Design Turner Associates King Sturge and Co Turner Holden Knight Frank Vic Love Architects Ltd Land Development & Virtual Solutions Planning Consultants Lewis Foster Lewis Wards Solicitors Logic CPS Ltd Welham and Hanna Lovejoy Wells Surveying Services LPC (Trull) Ltd Wellsfield Associates M S Younie Limited White Young Green Planning MJ Design Wilf Burton MJM Architectural Design Winsor and Leaman Architects Moon Design and Build Woodward Architectural Practice MP Design Consultants Woodward Hambly Webb Mr A C Saul

10 APPENDIX 3: Report to the Executive Member for Strategic Planning, Highways and Economic Development, 2 March 2009

North Somerset Council

REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING, HIGHWAYS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Date of Meeting: 2 March 2009

Subject of Report: Housing in Defined Villages Guidance Note

Officer/Member presenting: Planning Policy Manager

Key Decision: No

RECOMMENDATION

That, subject to the changes identified in Annex 3, the Housing in Defined Villages (Policy H/7 v)) Guidance Note be confirmed as an interim statement of policy to assist in the determination of planning applications for housing in villages with defined settlement boundaries.

1. Summary of Report

The report outlines responses to the Council’s draft Guidance Note on Housing in Defined Villages, which advises on the application of Local Plan Policy H/7 v). It recommends that the draft note, with minor changes, be confirmed and applied as interim guidance pending its upgrading to the status of a Supplementary Planning Document.

2. Policy

Policy H/7 v) of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007) requires that new housing within settlement boundaries does not “lead to urban housing needs being met in locations outside the four main towns where employment opportunities are more limited and which would add to or contribute to creating a dormitory settlement with high levels of out-commuting”.

11 3. Background

The development industry has been keen to obtain guidance on how the Council considers that the policy test can be met. A report to the Executive Member on 21 July 2008 included a draft Guidance Note, which was approved (08/09 DE 89, 19 August 2008) as an interim statement of policy pending consideration of responses to public consultation.

4. Consultation

4.1 The draft Guidance Note was issued for consultation between 1 September and 15 October 2008. Notification was sent by letter or email to all Members, to parish and town councils in North Somerset and to agents and developers with whom the Council has regular contact. The consultation was also made available on the Council’s website.

4.2 In total, 19 contributions were received, by letter, by email or through completing a response form on the website. These have been analysed into 29 distinct comments. In addition, verbal comments were received from one North Somerset councillor. Views were polarised between parishes, who welcomed the clarity the Guidance Note provided, and larger developers, who sought to re-open debate on the scope of Policy H/7 and questioned the propriety of an informal Guidance Note outside the Local Development Framework. A third group was composed mainly of agents who offered constructive criticism.

4.3 A schedule summarising all the comments received and the officer response to each is attached as Annex 1 [Appendix 4 to this Consultation Statement] . A revised text of the Guidance Note is attached as Annex 2 [not reproduced in this Consultation Statement] . This shows recommended additions in bold underlined text and recommended deletions as struck-though text. Annex 3 identifies all the changes recommended and gives reasons for each.

4.4 The recommendation to retain model condition 4 for live/work units is finely balanced. Of all the conditions, it is the one that is most onerous and carries with it the possibility of occupiers being prevented from living in their home if the link with work is broken. It raises issues in terms of detecting the breach and where there is a breach ‘evicting’ people from their home. That said, conditions ‘with teeth’ are what ensure that the policy is not circumvented. There are examples of tied accommodation (e.g. agricultural houses) where these issues already exist. Where a breach does occur, it would be up to the decision-maker to

12 decide on the individual merits of the case whether enforcement action was expedient.

4.5 It is recommended that the revised Guidance Note be confirmed as an interim statement of policy. Steps will be taken to replace it as soon as practical with a formal Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) covering the same subject matter. An SPD on Housing in Defined Villages is included in the draft Local Development Scheme which the Executive Member approved for consultation with the Government Office for the South West on 25 November 2008 (08/09 DE 195).

5. Financial Implications

It is not proposed to print the Guidance Note at this stage. Copies can be provided from computer on request and the text made available on the Council’s website. More elaborate printing requirements will arise once the Note is upgraded to an SPD.

6. Equality Implications

None not previously reported.

7. Corporate Implications

None

8. Options considered

It has already been decided to seek approval to produce a formal SPD dealing with this subject. The alternative to confirming the Guidance Note would be to have no guidance until such time as the SPD is produced. This option is not favoured, because:

(i) Waiting until the SPD is produced would leave unresolved the pivotal practical issues on which the development industry seeks consistent advice;

(ii) While informal guidance carries less weight as a material planning consideration, the issues are ones that must inescapably be resolved in order to design a scheme and any guidance is therefore preferable to no guidance.

Author

David Robins, Principal Planning Policy Officer (01934 426 682) [email protected]

13 Background Papers

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007) Planning Policy file of responses to consultation on draft Guidance Note (2008)

Annex 3 – Reasons for Recommended Changes

Paragraph Change Reason 1.5 Replace “retirement” with “age-restricted” For consistency 2.1 Re-word clause i as “to all settlements with a For better defined settlement boundary, other than the clarity four towns” 2.3 Delete ‘only’ Avoidance of contradiction 2.3 iii Replace parentheses within parentheses Typographical with hyphens correction 2.7 New paragraph: Clarification of “This Note provides guidance on compliance approach to with Policy H/7 v). Except in relation to exceptions Policy H/5, it does not specify circumstances in which material considerations might over- ride the policy’s requirements. It is considered preferable to set out general expectations and then to assess on merits any argument for a specific exception than to anticipate every eventuality. If no viable means of complying with H/7 v) can be found for a specific site, then, in the first instance, alternatives to residential development should be considered. Failing this, the aspiration to develop may need to be abandoned unless an over-riding material consideration is identified.” 3.3 After ‘dwellings collectively’, insert: “The Clarification distinction depends upon whether the workspace has a legal connection to one dwelling only or to all.” 3.3 Add footnote reference to evidence on large- Clarification of scale Live/Work schemes: “Dwelly (2005) evidence (see Appendix 2 below)” 3.6 Replace “addressed” with “specifically Clarification addressed” 3.8 Replace “credible solution” with “credible, Clarification of enforceable solution” enforceability 3.11 Replace “to offer permeability from the public For better realm” with “to be visible from the road or clarity

14 public open space” 3.11 Add “This will assist in enforcement.” Clarification of enforceability 3.13 Replace “approximately 20 sqm” with “a Avoidance of minimum of 20 sqm” ambiguity 3.15 After ‘meeting space’, insert: “However, each To ensure that specific workspace must be large enough to flexibility over form a credible base for a separate unit size does business.” not undermine the policy 3.17 Replace “will be required” with “may be Clarification of required” applicability 3.25 Replace “will take enforcement action” with Clarification of “will consider taking enforcement action” discretionary character of enforcement 5.1 Replace last sentence with “These are For better referred to as ‘exception sites’ and as such clarity do not need to comply with H/7 v).” Appendix 1 Replace heading “Retirement housing” with For consistency (model “Age-restricted housing” conditions)

15 APPENDIX 4: Comments Received and Officers’ Recommended Response

In electronic format, this appendix comprises the separate pdf file, ‘H7 responses schedule (Appendix 4)’.

16 APPENDIX 5: Summary of Main Issues Raised in Consultation and How Addressed in the SPD

Main Issue How Addressed General support, alternatively It is not intended to re-open issues of disagreement with the principle of principle concerning the interpretation producing any guidance of H/7 v). It is clear from appeal decisions how the policy is meant to operate. What is now required is detailed guidance to assist in its application. Alleged conflict with national and There is no conflict with national and regional policy regional policy, which supports only limited housing development in villages, of a kind appropriate in these locations. Concern that the minimum floorspace 20 sqm is considered appropriate, requirement for workspace could be particularly where more than one too high person in the household works from home. It is important to the sustainability of Live/Work units that the workspace is not so small that it restricts future options. Concerns that the model conditions Disagree that conditions are are unrealistic or unreasonable and unrealistic or unreasonable. that viability/practicality needs to be It is considered preferable to set out taken into account general expectations and then to assess on merits any argument for a specific exception than to anticipate every eventuality. Concerns over enforceability, Disagree that conditions are including whether the model insufficiently robust. conditions proposed are sufficiently robust