West of England Hearing Statement Matter 7.6: Churchill Joint Spatial Plan on behalf of Garden Village SD Examination Burrington Parish Council Matter 7.6 – Churchill Garden Village SDL (a) Is the Churchill Garden Village soundly based as a broad location for growth? It is clear that most local people do not consider the Churchill Garden Village SDL to be soundly based as a ‘broad location for growth’ to be the basis for a detailed allocation in the Local Plan. That is shown by feedback from the Mendip Spring Garden Village Workshop on 14th November 2018. North Somerset Council officers’ report is attached as an appendix1. The report acknowledges the unprecedented opposition from residents in Churchill and the surrounding villages to the proposals in the JSP and Local Plan 2036 for Churchill/Mendip Spring Garden Village and dissatisfaction with the Council for attempting to discuss the proposal in a Local Plan consultation, in advance of its examination as a JSP proposal. In our representations we commented that the proposed SDLs at Churchill and Banwell are poorly related to major employment centres and public transport services; they would depend on the delivery of a major new road link from the M5 to the A38 for which funding is highly uncertain, as shown by the scheme appraisal in the Strategic Transport Study (especially as North Somerset is not part of the West of England Devolution Deal); they would depend on the assembly of a large number of sites in multiple ownerships for development of the proposed ‘Garden Villages’ and the M5-A38 Link Road, without clear proposals for a development agency with funding to acquire land and undertake the co-ordination of infrastructure and development; and they would have substantial adverse impacts on the local environment and neighbouring settlements. In contrast, Ashton Vale, South West of Bristol is well-related to South Bristol, the City Centre and South Bristol; is potentially served by existing and planned strategic transport infrastructure including the South Bristol Link Road, a Metro Bus route, improved links to the airport and a new railway station; is a large enough area to 1 The report is also available on the Council’s web site at https://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/my-services/planning- building-control/planningpolicy/local-plan/new-local-plan-2036/about-the-new-local-plan-for-2036/ 1 | P a g e West of England Hearing Statement Matter 7.6: Churchill Joint Spatial Plan on behalf of Garden Village SD Examination Burrington Parish Council provide a mix of land uses including employment and local centre facilities; and is already assembled under the control of a developer, which would make the planning and implementation of a large-scale, mixed-use development with associated infrastructure a much more feasible proposition. Development at Ashton Vale should also be considered in the context of the ‘Nailsea Corridor Improvement’ (Clevedon/M5 to Nailsea, A370, A38 and Bristol, with a new rail crossing west of Backwell). This route could also link with development at Ashton Vale, via the south Bristol Link and A38, and on to the Airport; providing improved access to the Airport from the M5 (northbound and southbound) and at much lower cost (£286m) than the proposed M5-A38 Link (£621m), according to scheme appraisals in the Joint Transport Study. The proposed new M5 Junction (21A) and link to the A38 at Churchill are far less suitable for improving access to Bristol Airport than the Nailsea Corridor Improvement from Clevedon/M5 Junction 20, which would also serve a number of other purposes by improving connectivity with Bristol and helping to unlock growth at Nailsea, as described in the Joint Transport Study. (b) Are the criteria set out in Policy 7.6 justified and effective? Are the modifications to the policy proposed by the Councils as set out in the Schedule of Proposed Change (doc WED002), necessary for the plan to be sound? The criteria in Policy 7.6 are definitely not ‘justified and effective’. They are vague and general, lacking in specific local content, and wholly inadequate as principles for planning a new settlement. There should be some reference to the principles of Garden Villages in the Government’s Garden Communities Prospectus of August 20182 and publications on Garden Cities and Villages by the Town & Country Planning Association.3 2https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734145/Gard en_Communities_Prospectus.pdf 3https://www.tcpa.org.uk/understanding-garden-villages https://www.tcpa.org.uk/guidance-for-delivering-new-garden-cities 2 | P a g e West of England Hearing Statement Matter 7.6: Churchill Joint Spatial Plan on behalf of Garden Village SD Examination Burrington Parish Council Modifications proposed by the Councils (WED 002) are neither necessary nor sufficient for the plan to be found sound: • What is the difference between an ‘area of search’ and a ‘broad location’? • The deletion of the new M5 junction 21A (PC12) is confusing. It remains a proposal in the JTS. • The phasing assumption of 2675 dwellings before 2036, and 125 after 2036, is spuriously precise. It reveals a facile approach to development programming. (c) Is there evidence that the development of the SDL is viable and developable, including in respect of necessary infrastructure provision during the JSP plan period? This is really a question for the local authorities to answer. We have not found evidence in the JSP documentation that the Churchill SDL is viable or deliverable. No information is currently available on how the Council expects the site of the SDL to be assembled, the funding of infrastructure, the mechanisms for obtaining planning permissions and disposing of sites for development, or the arrangements for securing long-term ownership and management of open space and other community assets. In November 2017, when consultations began on the JSP Publication and ‘Generating Ideas’ for the Local Plan, North Somerset Council made attempts, through agents Cushman & Wakefield, to acquire development options from landowners within the area of the proposed Churchill SDL. It is not known whether the intention was to vest these options in a Council-owned development company or a Council-led development corporation, or to form a joint venture with developers, or even whether the Council was successful in acquiring options. It would be helpful if the Council could explain their approach at the examination hearings, to inform discussion about the viability and deliverability of the proposed SDL. 3 | P a g e West of England Hearing Statement Matter 7.6: Churchill Joint Spatial Plan on behalf of Garden Village SD Examination Burrington Parish Council APPENDIX Local Plan 2036 Issues and Options Consultation Mendip Spring Garden Village Workshop – 14 November 2018 Feedback from discussion sessions The Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) 2018, now submitted for examination, contains proposals for four new communities at Banwell, Churchill, Nailsea and Backwell (known as strategic development locations - SDLs). Last year North Somerset carried out some early consultation aimed at ‘generating ideas’ for these new villages and communities. Work has now commenced on the new Local Plan which will provide more detailed policies. The Local Plan Issues and Options consultation runs from 3 September - 10 December 2018. As part of this consultation process workshops are being held with representatives from the local communities where the strategic development locations are proposed. The workshops are focusing on the key principles and place- making elements for these areas which can then be further considered and refined through the Local Plan. This report sets out the feedback from the discussion at the Mendip Spring Garden Village workshop. The meeting began with an acknowledgement from officers that North Somerset Council is aware of the unprecedented opposition from residents in Churchill and the surrounding villages to the proposals in the JSP and Local Plan 2036 for Churchill/Mendip Spring garden village. There was a strong feeling among participants that discussion of the Local Plan is premature given that the JSP has not been through the examination process. Session 1: Hopes and Fears Hopes: • Create a sense of community - developers tasked to create community. • Better public transport • Significant proportion of affordable housing, including social housing for local young people who have a connection to the villages. • Housing should not just be standard volume house builders’ types • Better, high quality design • Need infrastructure and drainage. Drainage is a real issue. Would like existing problems properly resolved before any more houses can even be considered. • A detailed landscape assessment will be undertaken to inform the development • Want infrastructure to work and enable getting to Bristol easily • That it isn’t developed by volume house builders 4 | P a g e West of England Hearing Statement Matter 7.6: Churchill Joint Spatial Plan on behalf of Garden Village SD Examination Burrington Parish Council • That the scheme is not built, or it’s delivered at ‘The Vale’ instead. Houses should be built close to centres of employment i.e. Bristol • That there would be opportunities to take just 2% of the Green Belt around Bristol and relocate it to Mendip Hills. • There is more emphasis on existing built up area where there is existing transport infrastructure • That there is a review regarding relocating the Green Belt. • A Green Belt assessment should be carried out in North Somerset. A very small proportion of Green Belt that is strangling Bristol could be reallocated to beside the Mendip Hills AONB • Smaller piecemeal development which does not flood the area with housing • That there’s a better understanding of what is actually deliverable not just what is hoped for. Fears: • Impacts on local road network especially Congresbury and Stock Lane - could cause chaos at local junctions • Deliverability of the infrastructure - it is too expensive to be delivered, what if HIF or other funding does not happen? Proposal not achievable given high costs.