summary of main findings 0.1 it is a requirement of the...

Independent examination of the Wembdon Neighbourhood Development Plan _________________________________________________________________________________

Summary of main findings

0.1 It is a requirement of the Localism Act that this report should contain a

summary of its main findings. The reasons for each of the recommendations are

given in the following sections of the report.

0.2 The principal findings in this report are that the draft plan, subject to the

modifications recommended in this report, meets the basic conditions as set out in

the Parish and Country Planning 1990 Act (as amended), does not breach and is

otherwise compatible with EU obligations and is compatible with Convention

Rights.

0.3 It is recommended that the plan, as modified, be submitted to a

referendum and that the referendum area need not be extended beyond that of

the neighbourhood area. 11 recommendations are made for modifications to the

plan policies and text. The main points in summary are:-

That the parking standard included in Policy WB3 should not be applied within

that part of the plan area which is included within the area allocated for

housing development under Policy B2 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan;

That Policy WB8 should be deleted and the matter of affordable housing to

meet local needs identified as a community aspiration;

That the extent of the Locally Important Viewpoints in Policy WB2 be clarified

and the second part of the policy be deleted;

That Policy WB5 should be deleted and replaced by an enhanced statement in

the supporting text indicating community aspirations for local infrastructure

improvements;

That Policy WB6 be replaced by a significantly revised policy dealing with new

retail and community facilities.


Section 1 - Introduction

Appointment

1.01 I have been appointed by the Sedgemoor District Council (SDC), acting as

the Local Planning Authority (LPA), under the provisions of the Parish and Country

Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, to carry out an

independent examination of the Wembdon Neighbourhood Development Plan

(WNDP) as submitted to the LPA in December 2018. The SDC carried out publicity

for the proposed plan allowing a 6 week consultation period which ended on 15th

February 2019 giving details of how representations might be made, in

accordance with Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Plans (General) Regulations

2012 (‘the 2012 Regulations’)1. I was sent the documentation required under

Regulation 17 on 26th February 2019 including copies of all of the representations

received under Regulation 16. The examination commenced formally on that day.

I have taken that documentation and all of the representations into account in

carrying out the examination, along with additional material submitted during the

examination as listed in Appendix B to this report. This includes a formal written

response to the Regulation 16 representations submitted by the WYG Consultancy

on behalf of the Wembdon Parish Council (WPC) in which several possible

modifications to plan policy wording are suggested. I refer to these in section 4 of

this report.

1.02 I am a Chartered Parish Planner (Member of the Royal Parish Planning

Institute) with over 45 years post-qualification professional experience in local and

central government and latterly as a sole practitioner specialising in development

plan policy work. I am independent of the Wembdon Parish Council and of the

Local Planning Authority. I have no land interests in any part of the plan area.

1 All subsequent reference to a Regulation followed by a number is a reference to the 2012 Regulations.


My role as an examiner

1.03 The terms of reference for the independent examination of a

Neighbourhood Development Plan are statutory. They are set out in the Localism

Act 2011 and in the 2012 Regulations. As an examiner I must consider whether

the plan meets what are called ‘the basic conditions’2. In summary, these require

me to consider:-

whether, having regard to national policies and to advice contained in

guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it would be appropriate to make

the plan;

whether the making of the plan would contribute to the achievement of

sustainable development;

whether the making of the plan would be in general conformity with the

strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area;

and to ensure that:-

the making of the plan would not breach, and would otherwise be

compatible with EU obligations3 relating to Strategic Environmental and

Habitats Assessment and that the plan would be compatible with

Convention rights, within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998; and

that ‘prescribed conditions’ would be met and ‘prescribed matters’ would be

complied with in plan preparation and submission.

1.04 Legislation requires that my report on the draft plan should contain one of

the following recommendations:-

a) that the draft plan is submitted to a referendum, or

b) that modifications are made to the draft plan and the modified plan is

submitted to a referendum, or

c) that the proposal for the plan is refused.

I may make recommendations for modifications which I consider need to be made

to ensure that the plan meets the basic conditions or for compatibility with EU

obligations and (Human Rights) Convention Rights. The only other modifications

which I may recommend are those to correct errors.

2 These are set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as introduced in Schedule 10 of the Localism Act 2011)3 At the time of writing the position with regard to the exit of the United Kingdom (‘Brexit’) from the European Union is extremely uncertain. Draft Regulations would see all existing EU obligations brought under UK law. Should ‘Brexit’ have occurred before this report is published, all references to EU obligations should be taken as applying under relevant, post-‘Brexit’, UK legislation.


Section 2 – Statutory compliance and procedural matters

2.01 Upon application by the WPC on 7th November 2017, following a seven-week

consultation period, the Sedgemoor District Council formally designated the parish

of Wembdon as a Neighbourhood Area on 11th January 2018. The submitted plan

relates solely to the designated area and has been submitted by the WPC as the

‘qualifying body’.

2.02 The title of the plan is given on the front sheet as the Wembdon

Neighbourhood Development Plan with a sub-title ‘Regulation 15 Submission Plan’.

It is dated December 2018. A statutory requirement4 is that the plan ‘must specify

the period for which it is to have effect’. This is stated in paragraph 2.1.1 of the

plan as 2018-2032 and so the statutory requirement is met. I note that the WPC

have accepted (MOD6) a suggestion by the SDC that those dates be given on the

front cover but that would be a minor editing change which is not within my remit

to recommend. Other requirements which are satisfied are: a) the plan does not

include provision about development which is ‘excluded development’ and b) a plan

showing the area to which the Neighbourhood Plan relates has been submitted as

required by Regulation 15(1)(a).

2.03 The legislation states that the ‘general rule’ is that the examination of the

issues by the examiner should take the form of the consideration of written

representations. However, an examiner must hold a hearing ‘for the purpose of

receiving oral representations about an issue’ where he or she considers a hearing

‘is necessary to ensure adequate examination of the issue or a person has a fair

chance to put a case’5. Before deciding whether a hearing would be required, on

19th March 2019, I issued a list of written questions seeking clarification and further

information by way of justification for the plan policies. I received responses to my

questions on 4th April 2019 and confirmed by e-mail on 8th April that a hearing

would not be required.

2.04 I visited Wembdon on Tuesday 26th March 2019 in order to gain a full

appreciation of the character of the parish, its setting within the local landscape and

the relationship of the main part of the village to the nearby suburbs of Bridgwater,

parts of which, to the south-east and east of Homberg Way (A39), lie within the

plan area. I also looked at the area to the west of the parish (Cokerhurst Farm)

which is allocated in the Sedgemoor Local Plan for major residential development.

In walking around the village I visited each of the areas proposed under NDP policy

WB7 to be designated as Local Green Space as well as looking at the community

facilities identified under NDP policy WB4.

4 These statutory requirements are to be found in Section 38B of the Parish and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011), 5 Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act (as in reference 1 above)


2.05 The WPC have submitted a Basic Conditions Statement in accordance with

the Regulations6. In section 2 it includes general assessments against each of the

basic conditions. Section 2.2 sets out the regard which has been had to national

policies and guidance, correctly identifying that, as the plan was submitted prior

to 24th January 2019, it falls to be examined in terms of the National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF) as issued in March 2012 rather than the revision issued

in July 2018.7,8 In section 2.4, there is a table assessing individual plan policies in

terms of their contribution to sustainable development. Section 2.5 covers the

general conformity of the NDP with the strategic policies of the development plan

stating that the focus would be on conformity with the then soon to be adopted

Sedgemoor Local Plan (SLP). That proved to be sensible and pragmatic approach

because the SLP was adopted on 20th February 2019, and it now provides the

statutory basis for the examination of the NDP. It has avoided any need to make

pre-examination amendments to the NDP in order to ensure general conformity.

2.06 As the SLP had been submitted before the provisions of the NPPF (2018)

came into full effect there was no requirement9 for strategic policies to be

explicitly identified in that plan. Nevertheless, at my request, the SDC

subsequently published a document for use in neighbourhood planning which

distinguishes between strategic and non-strategic SLP policies taking account of

the guidelines in paragraphs 20 to 23 of the NPPF (2018). The WYG Consultancy

acting on behalf of the WPC have confirmed their agreement with the SDC’s

conclusions on this matter and I have used them in this examination. Finally on

the Basic Conditions Statement, the provisions of the Act10 setting out the Basic

Conditions are set out in full in the box under paragraph 2.1.1 which include

reference to sub-paragraph b) on listed buildings and c) conservation areas.

However, I need to draw attention to the fact that those two basic conditions apply

only in the consideration of Orders which have the effect of granting planning

permission11. That is not the case for this NDP.

Compatibility with the EU Obligations

6 Regulation 15(1)(d)7 In accordance with paragraph 214 and footnotes 22 and 69 in the 2018 revision.8 A further revision of the NPPF was issued in February 2019 but the sections relating to neighbourhood planningremain unaltered. Where relevant, references in this report are to the 2018 version. 9 As in paragraph 21 of the NPPF (2018)10 See paragraph 1.03 above and footnote 2. 11 Paragraphs 8(3) and 8(4) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended)


2.07 The term ‘EU obligations’ applies to those Directions relating to

Environmental Assessment and Habitats given effect through UK Regulations as

well as having regard to the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under

the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect through the Human

Rights Act.

2.08 No representations had been made to suggest that the plan might be

considered to breach any Human Rights provisions. However, there was no

mention of these provisions in the submitted Basic Conditions Statement and,

consequently, I felt it appropriate to draw this to the attention of the Qualifying

Body12. In response13 a statement was submitted to confirm that the

Neighbourhood Plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, the

European Convention of Human Rights and in particular those dealing with Article

1 of the First Protocol (property), privacy (Article 8) and discrimination (Article 14)

and the Human Rights Act (1998). From my own assessment I have no reason to

disagree with the above statement. Consequently, I conclude that the approach

taken in the plan is fully compatible with, and does not breach, Convention Rights.

2.09 A full account is given in section 3 of the Basic Conditions Statement under

the heading of ‘Environmental Report’ of the steps taken to comply with

regulations giving effect to European Directives14 for both Strategic Environmental

Assessment15 (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment16 (HRA).

Strategic Environmental Assessment

2.10 SEA screening has been undertaken by the SDC on behalf of the WPC with

a final report produced in December 2018 taking account of amendments to the

NDP following consultation. A formal Regulation 9(1) determination is included in

Appendix B to the Basic Conditions Statement, with a statement of reasons. The

determination is that the NDP is unlikely to have significant environmental effects

and accordingly does not require an environmental assessment. I accept the

accuracy of the analysis given in the Statement of Reasons for the determination.

Habitats Regulations Assessment

2.11 The parish of Wembdon extends northwards from the village to the River

Parrett. The parish boundary is the centre of the main river course and the south

bank, except for the eastern section, lies within the Severn Estuary Special

12 By email dated 7th March 201913 Email from WYG dated 11th March 201914 2001/42/EC for SEA and 92/43/EEC for Habitats15 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 200416 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017


Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site

[‘Natura 2000’ (‘European’) sites]. Part of the parish also lies within identified

foraging areas for Barbastelle bats roosting within the Exmoor and Quantocks Oak

Woodlands SAC. Consequently, an initial screening was undertaken by Somerset

County Council on behalf of the WPC (as ‘competent authority’) as to the

likelihood that the NDP would, either individually or in combination with other

plans or projects, be likely to result in a significant effect on the sites mentioned

above. A report dated November 2018 was submitted with the NDP (Appendix C

to the Basic Conditions Statement) taking account of the amendments,

particularly to Policy WB3, made as the result of consultation with Natural

England. The conclusion is that the (making of) the plan would be unlikely to

result in any significant effects on the European sites.

2.12 The report refers in paragraph 71 to the ‘in combination’ effect with the

west of Bridgwater development which is proposed in SLP Policy B2. I am

informed that the HRA for the SLP was updated in July 2018 in the light of the

‘People over Wind’ judgment17 and a full Appropriate Assessment undertaken. As

a result I am satisfied that the ‘in combination’ effects have been properly taken

into account.

2.13 The wording of the basic condition prescribed by Regulation 32 of the

Habitats Regulations, as set out under Schedule 2, was amended in 2018

Amendment Regulations.18 It now states:-

The making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach the requirements of Part 6

of Chapter 8 of the Conservation of Habitats of Species Regulations 2017.

Chapter 8 relates to Land Use Plans and includes Regulations 105 to 111 inclusive.

Regulation 106(1) requires a qualifying body to submit with a neighbourhood plan

such information as the ‘competent authority’ (now the SDC) may reasonably

require for the purposes of assessment under Regulation 105 or to enable it to

determine whether such assessment is required. That information is in Appendix

C to the Basic Conditions Statement and the SDC have, subsequently, issued a

formal determination under Regulation 105 that an Appropriate Assessment is not

required. As a result, I am fully satisfied that the making of the plan does not

breach the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

17 People Over Wind and Sweetman v. Coillte Teoranta, European Court of Justice (C-323/17)18 SI 2018 No. 1307


2.14 My overall conclusion is, therefore, that the making of the plan would not

breach and would, otherwise be compatible with EU obligations and the basic

conditions are met in that respect.

Section 3 - Preparation of the plan and the pre-submission consultation

processes

3.01 As required by legislation19, the WPC have submitted a Consultation

Statement. It is a detailed document which very fully sets out the processes

followed through plan preparation to engage the public and to encourage full

participation amongst a variety of interest groups. It is notable that considerable

effort was made to engage with younger people, including through the schools.

That is commendable. The Statement includes a full analysis of survey results

feeding into the identification of issues and options and the development of the

evidence base with consultation at each stage. From this I can see that the public

consultation processes were very thorough and have led to a high degree of

consensus within the community about the contents of the plan.

3.02 A formal consultation20 on the draft plan took place over a six week period

between 20th July and 2nd September 2018 during which there was a bespoke NDP

event and feedback forms made available at a village day with responses invited by

email or post. In accordance with the requirements of Regulation 15, the

Consultation Statement includes a list of those consulted (Appendix A). Responses

by the Parish Council to the representations submitted during the consultation

indicating how they were addressed in preparing the plan for submission to the local

planning authority for examination are tabulated under section 4.3 of the

Consultation Statement. The statutory requirements for the preparation of the

Statement have been met.

19 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, Regulations 15(1)(b) and 15(2)20 In accordance with Regulation 14


Section 4 - The Plan, meeting the basic conditions

4.01 This section of my report sets out my conclusions on the extent to which the submitted plan meets those basic conditions which are set out in the first three bulletpoints in paragraph 1.03 above. If I conclude that the inclusion of a policy in the plan means that, as submitted, it does not meet one or more of the basic conditions,I recommend a modification to the plan policy in order to ensure that the plan, takenas a whole, does meet those conditions. Where such a recommendation is made thisis identified by the use of bold text.

4.02 The representations on the plan submitted during the Regulation 16 consultation period (see paragraph 1.01 above) form a starting point for my examination of the plan but I am not limited by the scope of those representations inconsidering the degree to which the submitted plan meets the basic conditions. Furthermore, although the written responses made to those representations on behalf of the qualifying body have been helpful I am only able to consider them, and the plan modifications suggested as part of that response, in so far as they relate to the basic conditions or indicate errors in the original text. There is no statutory requirement for a qualifying body to respond to Regulation 16 representations.

4.03 After taking the responses into account there remained a number of matters which I considered required clarification or further comment and justification by the WPC. As indicated in paragraph 2.03 above, these were put to the WPC on 19th March 2019. From all of the material submitted I take the view that there are three key issues which arise in my examination of the plan against the basic conditions, in particular those relating to the regard which has been had to national policies and guidance and the general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan. I have no doubt that, taken in the round, the plan will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

4.04 The key issues I have identified are:-

1. The justification for the inclusion in Policy WB3 of higher residential car parking requirements than would apply under the Somerset County Council Parking Strategy in accordance with SLP Policy D14.

2. The inclusion within Policy WB8 of occupancy criteria for affordable housing.

3. The degree to which the plan policies are sufficiently clear and unambiguous for them to be applied consistently and with confidence in the determination of planning applications21 and, linked to that, whether the specific and detailed requirements set out in the policy criteria are supported by appropriate (proportionate, robust) evidence.

21 PPG reference ID: 41-041-20140306


THE KEY PLANNING ISSUES

Key planning issue 1 – Parking Standards

4.05. A detailed parking standard to be applied across the plan area is included in

the final part of NDP Policy WB3. As explained in the supporting text, Wembdon is

located in ‘Zone A’ as identified in Somerset County Council’s Parking Strategy but

the standard included in Policy WB3 equates to that for ‘Zone B’. Detailed

evidence has been submitted, as Technical Note No.1, to justify requiring the

slightly higher level of parking provision appropriate to Zone B than in Zone A,

which includes the Bridgwater urban area. This approach has resulted in a

representation by the Transport section of the County Council stating: ‘the

assignment of parking zones is the responsibility of Somerset County Council and

informs the SCC Parking Strategy. … the Strategy is applied County wide and will

therefore still be applied in Wembdon.’

4.06 That statement is not strictly correct. The parking standards in the County

Strategy are applied in Sedgemoor through SLP Policy D14 (penultimate bullet

point) and it is for the local planning authority to implement the policy through

decisions on planning applications. The strategy itself and the geographical

definition of the parking zones does not form part of the statutory development

plan. Moreover, paragraph 39 of the NPPF (2012) indicates that local planning

authorities may set local parking standards by applying the criteria set out in that

paragraph.

4.07 It follows that I find there to be no reason, in principle, why it should not be

open to a qualifying body, through a NDP, to set local parking standards provided

that the evidence for so doing is proportionate and robust22. Moreover, the SDC

have identified SLP Policy D14 as being a non-strategic policy and, consequently,

any conflict with it does not raise an issue of general conformity with the

development plan.

4.08 Technical Note No. 1, which uses the methodology and criteria developed

for the SCC parking strategy, is sufficiently robust and proportionate evidence to

support the parking standards in Policy WB3 but only in so far as that evidence

represents the existing situation, including the relatively limited public transport

(bus service) currently available within Wembdon village itself.

22 NPPG Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 41-040-20160211


4.09 A significant part of the proposed (SLP Policy B2) west Bridgwater

development lies within this NDP area. It will be a large-scale development to

meet the strategic needs of Bridgwater. One of the principles of sustainable

development, as stated in SLP Policy S4, is to encourage journeys by alternative

modes, including walking, cycling and the use of public transport and those

priorities are developed in a number of places in the plan. It is a factor which has

been taken into account in the approach taken to the location of new

development, as stated in paragraph 4.51 of the SLP text and it is reflected in SLP

strategic policy D13 on sustainable transport and movement. Such an approach is

fully in accordance with national policy, in particular paragraphs 29, 30 and 35.

4.10 SLP Policy B3 requires development proposals to accord with an adopted

development and design principles document (DDP) as well as to be subject to a

Transport Impact Assessment. Paragraph 3.5 in the DDP refers to the facilitation

of public transport and, most significantly, section 7 of the Framework Travel Plan,

submitted very recently as part of a planning application for the first phase

development at Cokerhurst Farm, provides for the introduction of a new tendered

bus service to Bridgwater with a half-hourly frequency Monday to Saturday.

4.11 I regard the response made on behalf of the Qualifying Body to my written

question 5 on this matter as representing an unduly pessimistic view of the

opportunities for an enhancement of sustainable transport modes in accordance

with Local Plan strategy and objectives. Even should there be no proven or direct

relationship between off-street parking provision and car usage in residential

areas, to require higher levels of car parking provision within the Cokerhurst Farm

development than would otherwise occur through the application of the SLP

strategic policy cannot be said to be reflecting those policies nor planning

positively to support them, as required by paragraph 184 of the NPPF.

4.12 Moreover, the wording of Policy WB3 is such that, even though there is

potential flexibility in the references to viability and design considerations the fact

of the matter is that the policy could only be interpreted as a minimum

requirement and with the onus on the developer to provide reasons for departing

from the standard. Such an approach would militate against making the most

effective use of land and maximising housing delivery.

4.13 One of the purposes of neighbourhood plan policy is for its use in the

determination of planning applications. As stated in national policy guidance a

policy needs to be clear and unambiguous such that it can be applied consistently

and with confidence. A particular difficulty arises for this plan in that the


neighbourhood area is not self-contained. The parish abuts the Bridgwater urban

area and there are already instances, such as in the Newtown area to the south-

east of the A39 bypass, where the parish boundary passes arbitrarily through a

residential area with no distinction on the ground. The application recently

submitted for the first phase of the Cokerhurst Farm development shows a layout

which also takes no account of the parish boundary. Should the plan be made

without modification of Policy WB3 development management officers would need

to ascertain on which side of the boundary line a particular property might line in

order to understand which policy applies to it. Furthermore, there is no evidence

to suggest any cogent reason to apply different policies each side of a line which

has clear geographical definition. I am aware that Cavanna Homes, who are the

developers for the whole area north of the A39, have made representation in

support of the policy and, indeed, the current application shows parking provision

in accordance with this NDP policy, including the area to the south. Consequently,

the policy is either superfluous or cannot be implemented as drafted.

4.14 My conclusion on this issue is that, as currently drafted, the inclusion of a

local parking standard in NDP Policy WB3 is not sufficiently supported by the

evidence in so far as it is intended to apply within the proposed Cokerhurst Farm

(west Bridgwater) development area, although it is justified for the remainder of

the NDP area. Furthermore, sufficient regard has not been had to national

policies and guidance on the need for neighbourhood plans to positively plan to

support local plan strategic policy objectives as they apply to sustainable transport

provision within the new development area.

4.15 I recommend, therefore, that the parking standards in NDP Policy NDP

should not apply within the area allocated for residential development under SLP

Policy B2.

Recommendation 1

Modify policy WB3 by the insertion of the following words at the start of

the last paragraph which sets out a local parking standard:

‘Other than on land shown on the adopted proposals map as allocated for

residential development in accordance with Sedgemoor Local Plan Policy

B2’

Key planning issue 2 – Local Occupancy requirements for affordable housing

(Policy WB8)

4.16. Gladman have made representation that Policy WB8 is not a land-use

policy. The written response on behalf of the WPC refers to the fact that similar


policy is included in the neighbourhood plan for Wedmore of which I have obtained

a copy. I understand that a not dissimilar policy is included in the Cheddar NDP.

A suggested modification (MOD1) has been put forward in response to

representations by Barton Willmore and the SDC. I sought clarification of the

intended application of Policy WB8 in my questions 24-26 inc.

4.17 Although MOD1 would move away from applying the policy only to

affordable housing on the Cokerhurst Farm development, there is no evidence to

suggest that ‘major’ residential development is likely anywhere else in Wembdon

parish during the plan period especially in terms of the ‘ranking’ of the village as a

Tier 3 settlement under SLP Policy S2, to which Policy T3a will apply. There is no

doubt in my mind that the policy will ‘bite’ primarily on the strategic development

area.

4.18 Even in the modified form, the primary intention of the policy is ensure that

a ‘first call’ on any affordable housing which is permitted in accordance with SLP

policy (mainly Policy D6 which requires 30% on larger greenfield sites) would be

for local people in need of such housing, as defined within the policy in italics.

However, the qualifications for the occupation of any particular dwelling, whatever

the tenancy, would only be a land-use issue, and thus meet the statutory tests for

a planning obligation, if planning permission for the erection of that dwelling

would otherwise be refused. That is the case on affordable housing ‘exception’

sites and may also apply if there is a failure to provide the element of affordable

housing on mixed sites which is required by local plan policy. In smaller

settlements it is often the case that such sites are identified specifically to ensure

the delivery of affordable housing to meet identified local housing needs. The

failure to meet those needs might well be a reason to refuse permission although,

even then, the matter of who qualifies to occupy the affordable homes would be

primarily for the Local Housing Authorities to determine.

4.19 The situation applying in Wembdon is significantly different. The NDP itself

does not make any allocation of land for housing to meet local needs. The

purpose of the strategic (SLP Policy B2) allocation is to meet the housing needs of

the district as a whole, including for affordable housing, derived from evidence

provided in the SHMA. There is no suggestion that planning permission for any of

the affordable housing units on the Cokerhurst Farm would be refused should the


first occupants be other than those meeting the suggested definition of ‘local

need’. As stated in the Local Housing Needs Assessment, local people would be

able to ‘bid’ for those homes on an equal basis of need against the criteria set by

the Local Housing Authority (‘Homefinder Somerset’).

4.20 I recognise that meeting the identified need for affordable housing is an

important priority for the community. There is absolutely no reason why the issue

should not be covered in the neighbourhood plan but the means to secure a

priority in the occupancy of affordable housing is by negotiation with the Local

Housing Authority who have statutory duties under the Housing Acts. In the

particular circumstances applying in this neighbourhood plan area the solution to

the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs does not raise a land-use

issue. Therefore, having regard to the guidance given in paragraph 41-004 in the

NPPG23 and thus to meet the basic condition in that regard, the matter should be

clearly distinguished from those aspects of the plan which are delivered through

decisions on planning applications. It may be included in a section highlighting

community aspirations. For these reasons, I consider that Policy WB8 and the

accompanying text should be deleted. The precise wording of the section of the

plan setting out the community’s aspirations will then be a matter for further

discussion and agreement, particularly that of the Local Housing Authority.

Recommendation 2.

Delete Policy WB8 and the accompanying text and identify the matter of

affordable housing to meet local needs as a community aspiration.

23 Reference ID: 41-004-20170728


Key planning issue 3 – Whether the policies in the plan are clearly and

unambiguously expressed and/or supported by appropriate evidence.

4.21 The majority of the representations made on the plan may be categorised

as coming within this issue. In general terms the approach taken to policy

formulation and the justification for individual aspects of policy is explained clearly

in the supporting text. However, some detailed aspects of policy wording could be

interpreted in different ways. In this section of the report I will deal with each

policy in turn.

4.22 Policy WB1: Design. I accept that the policy avoids over prescription in

accordance with paragraph 59 in the NPPF (2012) and that the reference to

density in that paragraph relates to neighbouring buildings and the local area

generally. I have questioned the clarity of the use of the term ‘appropriate

densities’ because stipulating density could work against the achievement of good

design. However, I recognise that the term is used within SLP Policy D2 and that

the NDP policy will be interpreted alongside it. There is no conflict. The SDC

suggested amendment would not provide greater clarity. On reflection, I consider

that it is only the reference to ‘rural context’ which might pose some uncertainty

for the decision-maker. The SDA may be rural now but will not be once

development is complete. In section 4.2 of the Development and Design

Principles Document: Development Design Principles 2, the reference is to ‘setting

and context’ which is an unambiguous wording. I recommend it. There is no need

to say whether the context is rural or semi-rural.

4.23 In response to a representation by Persimmon the qualifying body have

accepted that criterion 6 in Policy WB1 may not accord with the Ministerial

Statement of 25 March 2015 that neighbourhood plans should not set

requirements relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new

dwellings. The statement introduced national technical standards. Although the

Wembdon policy is not setting a standard as such it could be interpreted as

setting a requirement for the construction of new buildings. It is also not clear

how that relates to the ‘character’ or ‘atmosphere’ of the village. For these

reasons the criterion should be deleted, as in MOD2.

Recommendation 3.

In the third criterion of Policy WB1, replace the words ‘and rural context;’

by ‘, setting and context;’ and delete the sixth criterion.


4.24 Policy WB2: Locally Important Viewpoints. It is entirely in line with the

Government’s approach to neighbourhood planning that local communities should

shape the future of their areas. Identifying views which are important to the

community is part of that process although it should not involve the imposition of

unreasonable burdens on development or seek to constrain sustainable

development. The background and justification for the approach taken in this

policy is provided by the ‘Locally Important Viewpoint Assessments’ (LIVA)

document submitted with the NDP. With adjustments to remove reference to

private views I consider that the document provides a proportionate and robust

evidence base.

4.25 The policy provides a cross-reference to the more detailed description of

‘objectives’ for each of the three viewpoints listed in the policy. A number of

those objectives are not likely to be directly deliverable through the planning

system. The link to development is also less than clear. For example, hedgerow

management or tree planting where the land in question is not within a

development site. It seems likely that there will be little development which

would directly facilitate the measures (objectives) identified for either viewpoint 1

or 3.

4.26 That is not the case for viewpoint 2, West Wembdon, which appears to

include much of the strategic development area subject to SLP Policy B2. As

Barton Willmore have pointed out, a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal

(LVIA) was being submitted with the application for the Cokerhurst Farm area.

However, the wording of Policy WB2 is sufficiently flexible and that of the

objectives in Appendix E sufficiently generalised for the policy not to result in the

imposition of undue restrictions on the strategic development. It represents a

complementary approach to that in SLP Policy D19.

4.27 However, it is not clear other than by the general descriptions in the policy

to exactly which areas each of the ‘viewpoints’ relates. That for ‘West Wembdon’

is especially vague and the addition of wording to describe that area, as suggested

in MOD4 in response to the representation by Barton Willmore, would assist in

improving the clarity of the plan. Furthermore the LVIA includes OS map extracts

for each of the three viewpoints in Figures 4, 7 and 10 and the inclusion of those

plans within the NDP itself would result in greater certainty for decision-making

and remove any ambiguity. That is recommended to be Appendix F.


4.28 As the SDC pointed out the second part of the policy dealing with protected

and veteran trees appears incomplete. Quite apart from that, it is not clear what

that part of the policy is intended to achieve over and above SLP Policies D19 and

D22. The latter policy does not apply an ‘exceptional circumstances’ test and is

more clearly framed. The WPC (WYG) have also accepted that NPPF paragraph

118 provides clear policy on the loss of veteran trees. The purpose of Tree

Preservation Orders is to ensure the retention of trees which make a positive

contribution to local character. This part of policy WB2 adds nothing to either local

or national policy and would be likely to result in uncertainty in the determination

of planning applications contrary to national practice guidance. It should be

deleted for that reason.

4.29 I do not find that the suggested additional text in paragraph 6.3.3 of the

NDP would be necessary for the plan to meet the basic conditions even though it

may be an helpful explanation of the intentions behind the policy.

Recommendation 4.

At the end of the second line in Policy WB2 insert ‘(as defined in

Appendix F)’ after ‘Locally Important Viewpoints’ and before the colon at

the end of the line;

Insert the following definition for the West Wembdon viewpoint 2:- -

views to the west of Wembdon Village looking west towards the

Quantock Hills and south towards the A39 Quantock Road including the

A39 corridor;

Insert the same definition for viewpoint 2 in Appendix E;

Insert an additional appendix F in the plan (the existing Appendix F, Glossary,

to become Appendix G) to include plans illustrating on an OS base the

extent of the Locally Important Viewpoints identified in Policy WB2, as in

Figures 4, 7 and 10 in the submitted Local Important Viewpoints

Assessments document;

Delete the whole of the second part of Policy WB2. (Protected and veteran

trees ….. Policy D23.)

4.30 Policy WB3 (first part). As the WPC’s response to my question 9 indicates

the first part of this policy is intended to secure new or improved walking and


cycling routes within and from the village. That is undoubtedly an important facet

of fostering sustainable development by encouraging alternative travel modes to

the private car. In reality, such a policy can only apply to larger developments

and I recommend the use of the term ‘Major new development’ as in the second

part of the policy. It is also not clear what the delivery mechanisms are intended

to be, although the term ‘will be supported’ might reasonably be interpreted

signalling an expectation that planning permission will be granted for the listed

schemes. That can often prove problematic when the improvements are off-site

and involve different land ownerships. The statutory tests for planning

obligations24 would also have to be met. The amendments to policy wording

suggested in the WPC (WYG) response would go a long way towards clarifying the

position and I recommend it for the most part25. However, for the reasons

discussed further in paragraphs 4.33-36 in respect of Policy WB5, only reference

to s106 planning obligations can be made in planning policy and the statutory

tests for them must be met. That needs to be explicit.

4.31 If is intended that any of the parish CIL funds should be used to facilitate

the construction of the footpaths or cycle-ways mentioned in Policy WB3 then that

would most appropriately be stated in the supporting text.

Recommendation 5.

In the first line of Policy WB3 delete the first word ‘New’ replace it by:-

Major new development will be expected to incorporate new … (walking)

and delete the words ‘will be supported’;

In line 2, insert the words ‘one or more of’ between ‘between’ and ‘the

following locations’; delete ‘within the Neighbourhood Plan Area’ and add

‘within the development itself and/or by means of planning obligation

where the statutory tests for such obligations are met.’

24 The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, Regulation 122(2). See also NPPF para. 204.25 It is not necessary to say ‘as appropriate’ and the policy can only apply within the plan area


4.32 Policy WB4. Community facilities. In this policy the term ‘will be supported’

clearly means ‘will be approved’. In my question in relation to this policy I have

drawn attention to inconsistencies between the ‘important community facilities’

illustrated by white circles on Plan 1 and the larger scale aerial photographs, with

white line boundaries, in Appendix A. In response, the WPC have agreed that

Appendix A is in error and that, for clarity, a numbered list of named community

facilities should be included at the side of plan 1 and annotated, as for plan 2 in

Policy WB7. I recommend accordingly. I also understand that a new facility is to

be provided at Greenway Garage which, for accuracy and completeness, should be

added to the list and shown in the appendix.

Recommendation 6

Insert a list of named community facilities alongside plan 1 within Policy

WB4 with numbers included within the white circles on the aerial

photograph, as follows:-

1. St. George’s Church grounds and parking area;2. The Parish Centre;3. St. George’s C of E Primary School:4. The Cottage Inn;5. Wembdon Village Hall and Village Green;

6. Village shop and Post Office.

7. Greenway Garage

In Appendix A delete the Cottage Inn green space (yellow dotted line)

and the Wembdon parkland (Green Space); add Greenway Garage.

4.33 Policy WB5 – Infrastructure Delivery. It is correct that CIL funding from

major development might well be used to deliver some of the infrastructure

improvements which are seen as priorities by the local community. However, the

greater part of this will be for strategic improvements which will be decided by the

SDC under the CIL Charging, Regulation 123 list. That is as clearly stated in SLP

Policy S3.

4.34 It is entirely a matter for the Parish Council as to how they spend the 25%

Neighbourhood Fund money which will come to them once the NDP is ‘made’ and


there is no reason why community priorities for spending that fund should not be

set out in the plan, as in Appendix B, but it is not a matter of land-use policy. As

now accepted by WPC (WYG), in response to my question on the subject, this

would be more appropriately identified as a community aspiration and dealt with

by an expansion of the plan text.

4.35 Where there is a need to mitigate a site-specific effect from development it

may be appropriate to require a developer, by means of a s106 obligation, to

make a financial contribution directly to enable the required item of supporting

infrastructure to be provided. One of the CIL Regulation 122 tests for an

obligation is that it must be ‘necessary to make the proposed development

acceptable in planning terms’. It must also be directly related to the

development. It is not clear to what extent the priorities listed in Appendix B are

likely to meet those tests, especially those which appear to be making good an

existing shortfall.

4.36 For these reasons, I consider that WB5 is not capable of direct

implementation as a land-use policy through the making of decisions on planning

applications and hence does not meet the basic conditions. I agree with WYG that

the policy should be deleted with reliance placed on SLP Policy S3. Appendix B

may remain in the plan but referenced in paragraph 6.5.5 of the plan text as

representing the aspirations of the community in influencing any negotiations the

LPA may have with developers on s106 obligations.26

Recommendation 7

Delete Policy WB5 and expand the supporting text to emphasise that

Appendix B represents a list of community aspirations for local

infrastructure improvements to be delivered either by the Parish Council

through the Neighbourhood Fund or by s106 contributions where the

statutory tests are met.

26 The Government has indicated that the current restriction on the pooling of s106 contributions may be relaxed in future.


4.37 Policy WB6: Delivery of the Neighbourhood Centre. This policy was

devised to ensure that the neighbourhood centre to be developed within the

Cokerhurst Farm development, in accordance with SLP Policy B2, should include

those uses identified by the community as being desirable and I understand that

there have been discussions with the developers to that end. However, it now

transpires that the neighbourhood centre is not to be located within Wembdon

parish and so cannot be the subject of a specific policy in this NDP.

4.38 Partially in response to a representation by the SDC it is now suggested

(MOD5) that the focus of the policy be broadened so that it applies to the parish

as a whole. I agree that the heading for the policy would be in error and ought to

be changed but to ‘Delivery of new retail and community facilities’ not

‘employment’ because of the uses listed, three (Restaurant/café, convenience

store and pharmacy) are A class retail uses to which NPPF paragraph 23 applies

with regard to competition with existing uses.

4.39 It is not clear what the position might be should any of the desired facilities

be provided within the proposed neighbourhood centre. There is certainly no

evidence to suggest that a second facility might be justified within the parish. In

practice, the policy could only be effective should there be a proposal for one of

the listed uses. I consider that the suggested amendment to the last part of the

policy in response to my question 16 would properly reflect national policy on

competing retail uses whilst ensuring that any new facility would meet community

needs without compromising existing facilities. With that wording there would be

no requirement to stipulate a ‘specific needs test’. In any event, an identified

existing need would not guarantee long-term viability. In the interests of clarity,

the overlap between the first and second parts of the policy should be eliminated

with avoidance of ‘support’ and ‘resist’ phraseology.

4.40 That leaves the reference to the Community Strategy about which the SDC

have raised some concern. Not only is it the intention, as stated in paragraph

6.5.5 that the Community Strategy should not form part of the NDP but it has still

to be produced. It is a general principle that development plan policy should not

require compliance with the other documents, particular those which have not


been subject to examination. For example, the Courts have held that

development plan polices cannot require compliance with supplementary planning

guidance, which is but a ‘material consideration’. Even though the reference is to

the ‘objectives’ of the Community Strategy I consider that the most which can be

reasonably required is that ‘regard’ be had the objectives of the Community

Strategy when made.

Recommendation 8

Delete Policy WB6 and replace it with the following policy:-

Policy WB6: Delivery of new retail and community facilities

The following additional retail and community uses will be permitted

where they will contribute positively to existing facilities:-

1. Restaurant/café

2. Convenience store

3. Pharmacy

4. Doctor’s surgery

5. Children’s play area

Regard should be had to the objectives of the Community Strategy once

it is adopted.

Where there is potential to undermine the viability of an existing

community facility, to which Policy WB4 applies, planning permission will

be refused unless it is demonstrated that the benefit of the proposed

retail or community facility would outweigh the loss of, or risk to the

viability of, an existing facility.


4.41 Policy WB7: Local Green Spaces. When I visited the area I spent some

time assessing the proposed Local Green Spaces against the criteria in paragraph

77 of the NPPF. That is because there are quite a few of them despite the advice

in the NPPF that the designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or

open space. Be that as it may, with the benefit of the analysis in Appendix C, I

am satisfied that the criteria are met for all 8 proposed areas. Although areas 5

(Village Green) and 6 (Wembdon Parkland) put together do make up a relatively

large extent of land, they are somewhat different in the nature of their uses, with

the former being used for sporting activity and the latter for more passive

recreation. All of the areas are shown correctly in Appendix C.

4.42 The WPC (WYG) have accepted that the second paragraph is not a

statement of policy but one of fact and opinion as to the value of the spaces

identified. That is best relegated to the supporting text.

4.43 Paragraph 78 in the NPPF states that the policy for managing development

with an LGS should be consistent with that for Green Belts. I accept that the final

paragraph of the policy is consistent as far as it relates to development which

would clearly be ‘not appropriate’ and thus has regard to the national policy.

However, the final sentence does not reflect the fact that for designation as LGS

the community value and use must be proven, which may not be the case for any

proposed extension. As Local Green Space can only designated by means of

either a Local Plan or NDP revision that should be made clear. I agree with the

WPC (WYG) that the final sentence should be deleted with a similar provision

included in the supporting text but recognising the role of plan review, not just the

local infrastructure list.

Recommendation 9

Delete the second paragraph and final sentence (paragraph 3) in Policy

WB7. Include a statement in the supporting text that any proposed

improvements to existing Local Green Spaces will be identified by

amendment to the Local Infrastructure list. Any future extension to Local

Green Space areas will be a matter for plan review.


For Policy WB8 see paras. 4.16-20 above and Recommendation 2.

4.44 Policy WB9: Rural Diversification. My question 27 sought clarification of the

intended implementation of this policy. In particular, the policy reads as though

only the uses listed are to be ‘encouraged’ as part of the diversification of rural

businesses. The WPC (WYG) have confirmed that was not the intention and

suggest amended wording which I recommend. Encouragement is given by the

inclusion of a policy which states that the list uses may be approved.

Recommendation 10

In the first line of Policy WB9, delete the word ‘ancillary’ and insert ‘to

provide ancillary uses including but not limited to the following’ and in

the second line delete the words ‘encouraged where the following uses

are proposed’ and delete ‘approved’.

Other matters

4.45 Representations seeking additional or more detailed policy coverage.

Several official bodies have made representation seeking additional policies or

statements reflecting their particular areas of interest. The Qualifying Body rightly

points out that neighbourhood plans are not required to cover every subject area27

and can be selective according to local priorities as identified through community

engagement.

4.46 Several of the representations refer to matters which are adequately cover

by the recently adopted local plan. That applies to those by Sport England,

especially as no site allocations are made in the NDP. Similar considerations apply

to the points raised by various utility bodies. Understandably there is concern

about flooding and drainage issues but I consider that those are dealt with

adequately in SLP Policies S5 and D1. I do not consider that the plan fails the

basic conditions by the non-inclusion of the policy and textual statements sought

in these representations.

27 NPPG Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 41-040-20160211


4.47 The correction of errors. Although not in error at the time the plan was

submitted it would be in error without updating to reflect the latest position with

regard to the adoption of Sedgemoor Local Plan. There are many references

throughout the plan to policy numbers in the draft SLP which have been changed,

so for example, SLP Policy B3 became B2.

4.48 I have drawn attention to the fact that in paragraph 2.1.3 of the plan text it

is not correct to state that, once adopted, the NDP will be a ‘material

consideration’. It will be part of the statutory development plan, along with the

local plan. I recommend the alternative wording suggested by WYG.

Recommendation 11

Update the plan throughout to include references to the adopted

Sedgemoor Local Plan.

Delete all in paragraph 2.1.3 after the first sentence and substitute the

following text:-

(for the area) … and sits alongside the Sedgemoor Local Plan 2011-2032

prepared and adopted by the Local Planning Authority in February 2019.

Decisions on planning applications will be made in accordance with the

Local Plan and the Wembdon NDP, unless material considerations

indicate otherwise.


Section 5 - Formal conclusion and overall recommendations including

consideration of the referendum area

Formal Conclusion

5.01 I conclude that the draft plan, subject to the modifications recommended in

this report, meets the basic conditions as set out in Schedule 4B to the Parish and

Country Act 1990 (as amended), does not breach and is otherwise compatible

with EU obligations and is compatible with Convention Rights.

Overall Recommendation A.

I recommend that the modifications listed in this report be made to the

draft Wembdon Neighbourhood Development Plan and that the draft plan

as modified be submitted to a referendum.

The referendum area

5.02 As I have recommended that the draft plan as modified be submitted to a

referendum I am also required under s10(5)(a) of Schedule 4B to the Parish and

Country Planning Act 1990 to recommend whether the area for the referendum

should extend beyond the neighbourhood area.

5.03 There have been no representations seeking an extension of the referendum

area. However, somewhat unusually in my experience, the boundary of the

neighbourhood area, i.e. the parish, is not easily identifiable where it passes through

the residential estates in the Newtown area to the south-east of the A39 (Homberg

Way). It means that in some cases the occupants of one house will have a vote in

the referendum whereas their immediate neighbours will not. That is iniquitous. On

the other hand, it would appear impossible to devise any alternative boundary which

would be any more logical in terms of representing a community of interest. For

these reasons I consider that the referendum area should not be extended beyond

the designated neighbourhood area.

Overall Recommendation B.

The area for the referendum should not extend beyond the

neighbourhood area to which the plan relates.

Signed:

John R Mattocks

JOHN R MATTOCKS BSc DipTP MRTPI FRGS April 2019


APPENDIX A – ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

‘the 1990 Act’ The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy

EU European Union

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment

LIVA Locally Important Viewpoints Assessment

LPA Local Planning Authority

NDP Neighbourhood Development Plan

NPPF The National Planning Policy Framework

s106 Section 106 of the 1990 Act (Planning Obligations)

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SCC The Somerset County Council

SDC The Sedgemoor District Council

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

‘the 2012 Regulations’ The Neighbourhood Plans (General) Regulations 2012

(any reference to a Regulation number is to these

Regulations)

SLP The Sedgemoor Local Plan

SPA Special Protection Area

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

WPC Wembdon Parish Council

WYG The WYG Consultancy, acting for the WPC


APPENDIX B – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REFERENCED DURING EXAMINATION

‘Local Plan Strategic Policies for the Purposes of Neighbourhood Planning’

Segemoor District Council, March 2019

‘Parking Strategy’ Somerset County Council, September 2013

Sedgemoor Local Plan Habitats Regulation Assessment, July 2018 update,

Somerset Ecology Services for Sedgemoor District Council

Land at West Bridgwater Strategic Development Area, Development and Design

Principles Document, Grainge Architects, March 2018

Planning application ref. 51/19/00003 for residential development at Cokerhurst

Farm, Cavanna and Martin Grant Homes

Framework Travel Plan, Doc. Ref. 21346/02-19/5879 Rev A., M-E-C Mach 2019

summary of main findings 0.1 it is a requirement of the...

Documents