Sharpness: A sustainable development option for Stroud 22nd March 2010 Your District, Your Furture – Consultation Response Core Strategy Consultation – Development at Sharpness This representation is submitted in response to the Proposition Core Strategy consultation opened between the 8 This representation offers an alternative option for February 2010 and 22 March 2010. development which has not been identified within This representation promotes the development of the Council’s options documents. land at Sharpness in preference to the options put The proposed option is the development of 2,000 forward by the Council. new homes to the south of Sharpness Docks in In consideration of the future housing strategy order to provide a planned area for future growth for the District and in particular, the location for for the District for the immediate future, up to an area for future planned growth, consideration 2026 as prescribed by the RSS as well as a logical has been given to the national planning policy growth point for the future (beyond 2026). framework contained in Planning Policy Guidance This document sets out how such a development Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements would: (PPSs) as well as the emerging Regional Spatial 1. be achieved in compliance with the national Strategy and the extant Local Plan (2005). planning policy framework, 2. be a sustainable choice for the future of the Background District; and 3. is an obvious choice for the local population The Council’s Document, “Your District, Your of the District. Future” has been published to stimulate responses to the development of the Core Strategy Comparison is then made with the Council’s but primarily to seek opinions on the way to options to demonstrate that Sharpness would be accommodate 2,000 new homes and to encourage the logical choice for the District’s future. the generation of new jobs in the District. However, listed as being important in the future development of the District is how this future growth can be accommodated sustainably and build the District’s resilience to climate change and minimise our contribution to it. 2 Compliance with National as part of a planned and transparent development Planning Policy strategy for the District. PPS12 entitled Local Spatial Planning sets out the A Core Strategy should also show how the vision background to the creation and development of of growth will be delivered and by whom and Local Development Frameworks. when. The development plan is made up of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which covers the whole Primary Growth Considerations region, and is produced in draft by the Regional The accommodation of 2,000 new homes within Assembly and Development Plan Documents the District will present significant problems (DPD) produced by local planning authorities within a District which is highly constrained by within the local development framework. The Core the physical, historic and natural landscape of the Strategy is the principal DPD. area. The Core strategy is essentially a document The principal towns of the District are Stroud/ produced by the local planning authority (LPA) Stonehouse and Cam/Dursley. Stroud/Stonehouse which sets out the overall vision of how the area is where the main services and employment for and the places within it should be developed. This the District are concentrated and both towns have development vision is informed by an analysis of reasonably good access to the M5 via the A417. the characteristics of the area and its constituent Both Stroud and Stonehouse are however heavily parts and the key issues and challenges which constrained by the AONB landscape to the east face them. where major development would be unacceptable. The vision should be in general conformity with Development to the north of Stonehouse would RSS and should coincide with a sustainable also be undesirable as this would lessen the gap development strategy. between Gloucester and Stonehouse leading to their inevitable coalescence in due course. The Core Strategy should make clear the spatial choices about where developments should go in This area also has a scattering of smaller close broad terms. Development locations are expected knit villages which would be absorbed into the to be consistent with national planning policy and Stroud/Stonehouse conurbation if development in general conformity with regional spatial strategy. was concentrated in this area thereby losing their identity and consequently destroying the character Core Strategies are also expected to be justified of the area. Eastington has been identified as a and founded on a robust and credible evidence potential area of growth. Eastington is a small base as well as being regarded as the most village with relatively few shops and services. The appropriate strategy when considered against concentration of housing on this village would reasonable alternatives. Reasonable alternatives be entirely inappropriate and un-sustainable and should be realistic proposals and not simply would do nothing more than absorb this village invented to support the adoption of a primary into the Stonehouse conurbation and create option. further congestion in this area. Community engagement is considered to be a central theme in the preparation of Core Strategies 3 It is apparent that the infrastructure in this area Additional housing ‘bolt-ons’ to Stroud/ is also at capacity during peak times which Stoundhouse, Eastington or Cam would fail to would only be exacerbated by further growth at have any physical or cultural relationship to the this location. Within Stroud and the surrounding settlements upon which they were attached and hinterland, much of the infrastructure has a equally would be placing development which, historical base which would just not be able to whilst physically joined to the settlement would cope with additional ‘bolt-on’ growth. be distant to the main services that the existing settlements provide. Cam is comparatively smaller that Stroud and Stonehouse with only a limited range of shops These locations are therefore considered to be and services. Cam is equally constrained by the inappropriate options for the future development AONB to the south and south west, with land of Stroud District. rising sharply to the west and east. Strategic development in this location would struggle relate to the established settlement and would fail to provide any sustainable benefits for the District. 4 AONB Considerations With regard to the AONB, the Inspector It is noted that some of the proposed development commented that: options comprise of significant numbers of new “…the designation is an important constraint housing within the Cotswold AONB, especially in to which great weight should be given in the Ruscombe, Randwick and Painswick areas. considering options.” (para 17) The Cotswold AONB is a nationally designated Whist he accepted that the appeal site was on landscape area which is afforded the highest level the urban fringe of Cheltenham he commented of protection by both national and local planning that this did not devalue the landscape character policy. Any strategic development advanced and that in his judgement development of the site within these areas within the Core Strategy would would cause significant harm to the landscape therefore be contrary to national and development quality and character of the AONB. plan policy especially that contained in PPS7, which relates to Sustainable Development in Rural In refusing the appeal he concluded that: Areas. “Nevertheless development plan policy also The emerging RSS for the South West affords the highest level of protection to also recognises that the conservation and designated landscapes including AONBs. enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and I have no doubt that the current proposal cultural heritage of the 14 designated AONBs would result in significant harm to the within the region will be given priority over AONB through the change in character and other considerations in the determination of appearance that would be an inevitable development proposals. This designation therefore consequence of residential development excludes the allocation of new housing within the of the site, however carefully designed and Cotswold AONB especially if alternative options landscaped.” are available. And It is considered that any housing proposals in “I conclude that the shortfall in housing land the AONB would destroy in perpetuity some of supply and the community benefits that the most scenic and beautiful landscape in the would be provided in association with the country and cause great harm to the character of scheme are of insufficient weight to over the remaining landscape character. come the significant harm to the character In a recent appeal decision on land at Glenfall and appearance of the AONB which would Way, Cheltenham (ref: APP/B1605/A/08/2067428), flow from development.” (para 58) the developer proposed the construction of 44 There are currently no proposals in Stroud District dwellings on the edge of Cheltenham on land to review the AONB boundaries and therefore designated as AONB. Whilst it was proven that any allocations proposed for these areas would Cheltenham Borough could not demonstrate conflict with development plan policies and cause a 5 year housing land supply, the Inspector significant harm to the AONB. considered that exceptional circumstances The current spatial strategy for the area were required in order to demonstrate that the indicates that the