Chapter GREEN SPACE Summary of Response There were 10 comments on this chapter. Council’s Response Background Where an area is used for a formal surface water attenuation pond or a dry pond would these count as areas that need protection? Many attenuation ponds are within public open spaces but occasionally these are outside of those areas and therefore could be vulnerable to development. The council’s updated Background on Local Green Space, paragraph 3.1, states that “lakes, ponds and water features may be found within LGS sites”. The suitability of a site for LGS designation largely depends on whether the designation criteria in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are met. The above Background Paper paragraph 2.19 states that “as they are green spaces of particular local significance the council would normally expect LGS to be at least 0.2 ha in size, but this does not rule out smaller spaces where they are clearly shown to have particularly strong justification, normally requiring them to be out of the ordinary”. The plan should make it clear that the test for the designation of land for Local Green Spaces is that it should be exceptional. The supporting text to policy SA7 appropriately refers to the NPPF paragraph 77 which states that the LGS designation “will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space”. The supporting text also refers to the designation criteria set out in that paragraph. Policy SA7 The HBF would query whether circa 1,500 acres of green spaces in North Somerset are demonstrably special to a local community and of particular local significance to warrant designation. The NPPF paragraph 77 indicates that the green areas for LGS designation should hold a particular local significance for example because of their beauty, historical significance, recreational value, tranquillity or richness of wildlife. The sites considered have been appropriately assessed against these criteria.
communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances”. Policy SA7 rewording. NPPG 37-005 says Local Green Space is a way to provide special protection against development. Therefore reference in the policy should be to ‘development’ not to ‘planning permission’. We therefore suggest the following revisions to the policy: ‘Development that would harm the openness or special character of a Local Green Space or its significance in value to a local community will be permitted where there are very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Local Green Space.’ The suggested change is not necessary and inappropriate. Policy SA7 already refers to “development”. The policy appropriately refers to the characteristics underpinning LGS designation such as beauty, historic importance, recreational value, tranquillity or richness of wildlife, consistent with the criteria set out in the NPPF. Schedule 4 Proposed Sites for Local Green Space There were 30 comments for this schedule. Backwell Lake Designation of Backwell Lake supported Farleigh Fields Support for the designation of the two fields forming a “T” shape as shown on the plan. Two main reasons are given for such designation. BRA considers these are inadequate and should also include “recreational value.” Noted. The fundamental aspect underpinning the proposed designation of this site relates to the Beauty criterion in paragraph 77of the NPPF. While there are public footpaths across the site, paragraph 2.11 of the council’s updated Background Paper on LGS states that “the existence of a right of way across farmland would not in itself be likely to merit designation on grounds of recreational value”.
fields, providing extensive views over Wrington Vale to the south and south-west. This is well used as a picnic area, for general recreational purposes and as a stop-off for people walking up and down Wrington Hill. required for such sites (see paragraph 2.19 of the council’s updated Background Paper on LGS). Land to the west of Garstons Orchard, Wrington Suggest that this site be designated for LGS. It is a grassed area immediately to the west of the open stream where it flows out from the village. Within the Conservation Area but outside the settlement boundary. Fits with the character of the village and has public amenity value. Significant ecological value related to the stream, the trees and hedging both along its banks and elsewhere on the field boundary. Surveys have demonstrated that the field and trees are used by foraging bats. 1.74Ha. No. Agricultural land not considered to warrant LGS designation. (see paragraph 3.4 of the council’s updated Background on LGS). Land at the junction of Alburys with West Hay Road, Wrington Suggest that this site be designated for LGS. It is a small plot planted with trees and crossed by a public footpath. The land is within the Conservation Area and provides an open but valued green approach to the settlement. 0.25ha. Yes, attractive area of grass with trees. Moor Rd Site in particular the Orchard should not be allocated for development but should be given a Local Green Space designation. Land at Moor Road, Yatton is proposed for housing development in the SAP. The council’s updated Background on LGS, (paragraph 3.8) indicates that land allocated for development in emerging or adopted local plans will not normally be appropriate for LGS designation. Paragraph 007 of the relevant section of national Planning Practice Guidance on LGS, states that
Loss of that land to development would mean that the perceived gap between development at Yatton and development on both sides of Smallway (perceived to be part of Congresbury) would be greatly reduced. Land between Weston-super-Mare and Uphill Support for the strategic gap boundary as proposed between Weston-super-Mare and Uphill. Noted. Chapter COMMUNITY USE ALLOCATIONS Summary of Responses There were 4 comments on this chapter. Council’s Response Policy SA10 It is unfortunate that policy relating to provision of community use is divided between two separate plans. NPPF 153 advises that ‘each Local Planning Authority should produce a Local Plan for its area’. Recognising that has not been possible in North Somerset, it would have be helpful to include the text of policy DM68 at the very least as an appendix to the Sites Allocation Plan or as part of the background text It is the intention of the Council to produce one Plan and work is already underway on this .Until then the practice of referencing policies in other documents rather than quoting them will continue. The policy should ensure that should there be proposals for alternative use of sites there should be no net loss of facilities for the local community Agree This is covered in Policy DM68 of the Sites and Policies Part 1 Development Management Policies
assessment would have to accompany a planning application and any mitigation/protection required should be designed accordingly with measures set out in Conditions/S106 to guide their implementation. Chapter SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL Summary of Responses There were 14 comments made on the sustainability appraisal which are summarised below: Council’s Response SA alternatives of keeping the existing Plan allocations or not having any allocations are not considered to be genuine suitable alternatives. All reasonable alternatives have not been assessed. Objective to ‘Promote development that contributes to a suitable mix of high quality housing types etc’ should not have been removed. Object to some statements in para 3.9 e.g. NPPF just encourages brownfield (no priority to it). 1) As stated in para 4.6 of the SA, the reasonable alternative assessed for residential sites are to allocate the ‘call for sites’ proposals outside of the green belt and flood zone 3b. This alternative is fully assessed through the comprehensive residential site assessment, which allows identification of preferred sites. 2) The reason why the sub-objective relating to promoting development contributing to suitable mix of high quality homes and tenures was removed was that this could not be assessed through the SA process. This is an objective specific to planning applications.
(x) development is beyond natural boundaries and will have an adverse impact on the landscape and setting (xi) Development involves loss of greenfield (xii) town centre has inadequate car parking to accommodate an increase in population In addition to the above there were 2 comments suggesting that Nailsea was a very sustainable location for development and could accommodate additional development to that proposed in the SAP Queens Road/Station Road. Surrounding country lanes Brockley Coombe Traffic Lights The Causeway edge Batch B3130/ Pound Lane junction Clevedon roundabouts (v) this will be assessed as part of the transport assessments; (vi)Although the sites in the vicinity of Engine Lane are some distance from town centre facilities, the town has a wide range of facilities and Policy CS31 of the Core Strategy supports a scale of development above that for Service Villages. The choice of development sites to the west of Nailsea is a consequence of green belt and flooding constraints to the north east and south of the town; (vii) The majority of the land surrounding Nailsea has a high probability of being the best and most versatile. Lower grade agricultural land is either in the Green Belt or is very prominent in the landscape; (viii) Only the playing fields at Way are affected by development and these will be replaced as part of the development proposals;