SITE ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (SADMP) TOPIC PAPER SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES Introduction Core Strategy policy SP1 identifies a hierarchy of sustainable development locations ranging from Taunton, down to small rural centres such as North Curry and Churchinford. Within this hierarchy the Core Strategy allocated strategic development sites such as Monkton Heathfield for an urban extension and the emerging Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) will make smaller scale allocations to meet the Core Strategy requirements for housing, employment and other land uses. At the bottom of the settlement hierarchy lie a number of villages where allocations will not be made although opportunities for ‘infilling’ may be acceptable subject to other planning policies. The physical ‘limit’ to each of these settlements are defined by a settlement boundary. Beyond this boundary, the ‘in-principle’ acceptance of development is more restricted, development being regarded as lying in open countryside, where policy DM2 of the Core Strategy applies. Background Settlement boundaries (referred to as settlement limits in the Taunton Deane Local Plan, 2004) were last reviewed as part of the evidence base assessment for the Taunton Deane Local Plan (2004). It is unlikely that the topographical context of the landscape has changed since this period. However, the preparation of the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (SADMP) provided an opportunity to review settlement boundaries where development has occurred since adoption of the 2004 Local Plan and to seek the views of local communities as to where logical amendments to current settlement boundaries may have been overlooked in 2004. It should be emphasised that the aim of the boundary review was not to provide an opportunity to encourage development in unsuitable or otherwise unsustainable locations by extending boundaries into the countryside. There is no ‘need’ in terms of the exercise being undertaken to increase housing supply in the rural area. The Plan already meets rural housing targets and, if required, exception sites can accommodate future unmet affordable need. Any amendments which did not already have planning permission or were built would need to be of a small scale, unlikely to accommodate more than four dwellings. Consequently, such sites would not be included within any housing trajectories as they (are either built or) would not constitute a small windfall opportunity. Larger sites would form allocations in line with the hierarchy outlined in Core Strategy SP1 and would have been informed through other processes such as the annual Strategy Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The Issues and Options consultation to the SADMP was undertaken between January – March 2013. This resulted in a number of additional sites being suggested. These were subject to further consultation between June – August 2013. A final round of consultation was undertaken through the ‘Preferred Option’ stage between October – December 2013 in advance of Plan publication in autumn 2014 when formal representations could be made. The consultation stressed that changes would need to be logical and justified, being physically, functionally and visually related to the settlement. It was also stressed that inclusion of land within a settlement boundary would not necessarily confer that planning permission would be granted for any future development. Proposals would still need to meet other development management criteria. However, such a process will clearly raise development ‘hope value’ and thus if assessment indicated that inclusion may lead to proposals that could undermine plan policies and objectives a precautionary approach has been adopted and the particular site retained beyond the settlement boundary. Justification for settlement boundaries. Settlement boundaries are identified on the Proposals Maps and relate to Core Strategy policy SP1 and SADMP policy SB1. Generally, they reflect the built form of the settlement. The settlement boundary is used as a policy tool reflecting the area where a set of planning policies are applied. Any land or buildings outside of this boundary are usually considered to be countryside, where development is restricted under Core Strategy policy DM2. Settlement boundaries are defined to protect the integrity of the countryside. This in itself can serve a number of related but separate purposes including: • A Plan led approach. The NPPF reaffirms a plan led and controlled approach to growth rather than adhoc and potentially inconsistent decision making; • Providing certainty. A black line on a Proposals Map makes it easy to identify the ‘settlement’ from ‘open countryside’, providing a consistent approach and firm basis for decision making; • Compact form. The establishment of an edge to the settlement encourages and enables consolidation; • Visual impact. The countryside is a finite resource. A boundary protects the countryside from unnecessary development and prevents sprawl, which can impact on the natural enjoyment of the locality; • Character and identity. It can help separate adjacent communities and assist in retaining their individual identities. Protection of the environment and countryside is reflected in a number of plan policies. In particular: Core Strategy policy CP1 (Climate Change) which seeks to reduce the need to travel through locational decisions; Core Strategy policy CP8 (Environment) which states that ‘the natural environment will be conserved and enhanced and development strictly controlled in order to conserve the environmental assets and open character of the area’; Core Strategy policy DM1d (General Requirements) requiring that proposals do not unacceptably harm the appearance and character of any affected landscape, settlement or building; and SADMP policy SB1 (Settlement Boundaries) which states that the quality of the rural environment will be conserved and a sustainable approach to development proposals adopted by assessing development proposals beyond settlement boundaries against Core Strategy DM2 (Development in the Countrsyide). In addition, there may be other ‘sound’ planning reasons why protection of the countryside as an environmental asset may be important; avoiding development in areas of high flood-risk being an obvious example. Resonding to proposals For the Issues and Options, stage initial assessments were largely undertaken by local knowledge, desk-top exercises, including computer ‘street views’ and assessment of planning histories. The process was iterative. As issues were raised during the progression of the Plan, site visits were undertaken and where relevant, more detailed discussions held with specialists (eg landscape and heritage officers). Assessments were generally made against three objectives: • Physical constraints: Based on Site Selection Criteria of tables C1-8 Appendix C of the SADMP Issues and Options document; • Locational constraints: For example, does the proposal physically adjoin an existing, defined settlement?; • Impact: For example, would inclusion have an adverse visual or other impact on the settlement (or part of) or its setting if the land were included within the settlement boundary? SUGGESTED CHANGES TO SETTLEMENT LIMITS Site: Ashbrittle. South east of village around Court Place Physical constraints: Site lies within a conservation area and area of high archaeological potential. Court Place is listed. Grade 2 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: The site adjoins the currently defined settlement boundary. Impact: The proposed boundary encompasses existing buildings, some of which are already in residential use. Proposal supported by Parish Council Action: Amend settlement boundary. Site: Bishops Lydeard. Land at Delta Rise. Physical constraints: Site lies part within and part adjoining conservation area and area of high archaeological potential. Site lies just within 2km of AONB. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins existing settlement boundary to three sides Impact: English Heritage have expressed concerns about development in this area. However, site is sandwiched between existing settlement limit and western (fourth) boundary follows existing alignment of settlement boundary. The Councils Heritage section have raised no issues with the principle of inclusion within the settlement boundary. Action: Amend settlement boundary. Inclusion forms a natural rounding off of Bishops Lydeard. Site: Bishops Lydeard. Land west of Bishops Lydeard station Physical constraints: None relevant. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Adjoins the Bishops Lydeard ‘annex’ settlement boundary. Impact: Not relevant. The site has planning permission and is partly developed. Action: Amend settlement boundary. The site has planning permission and includes the ‘saved’ Local Plan allocation EC22 (SADMP policy MAJ5). Site: Bishopswood. Land adjacent to the Old Vicarage Physical constraints: The site adjoins a listed building and lies within the Blackdown Hills AONB. Grade 3 agricultural land classification. Locational constraints: Site adjoins existing settlement boundary to the north east. Impact: The land contains modern equestrian buildings and not considered as previously developed land as per NPPF Annex2. No indication provided that the current use is not viable and if proven, alternative uses can be considered under Core Strategy DM2. The use would only have been granted permission