Core Strategy - Consultation Draft

Document Section Core Strategy - Consultation Draft Chapter 2: Visions and Objectives Chapter 2: Introduction [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 3399393/CSCD/2
Respondent Deleted User [View all comments by this respondent]
Agent Deleted User
Response Date 19 Feb 2010
Current Status Accepted
Comment
We object to the overall Vision for North Somerset set out in Visions 1-6. Fundamentally the Visions do not reference the need to meet the housing requirements of the District to 2026 based on the requirements and settlement strategy of the PCRSS.

In particular it is noted in Vision 1 that Weston-super-Mare is identified for major employment growth. However no reference is made to the need to deliver new housing in order to achieve this Vision.

Similarly the market towns of the District (Visions 2-5) are identified as meeting the needs of their population and playing less of a dormitory role as a local service centre. However these settlements are clearly market towns - as referred to later in the Core Strategy and also in accordance with Policy B of the PCRSS. On this basis and Policy B of the PCRSS it is appropriate that these towns should be the focus for housing and employment development outside of SSCT's (Weston-super-Mare - within North Somerset). Indeed this is on the very basis the PCRSS proposes at Policy HMA1 that 5,700 dwellings should be
located within the rest of the District outside of Weston-super-Mare. Accordingly the Visions for the market towns (Visions 2-5) are overly restrictive and do not reflect the requirements and spatial strategy of the PCRSS and in particular Policy B.

We also submit that Yatton should be identified as a market town due to its range of services, employment, housing and accessibility by modes of transport other than the private car - particularly by rail. On this basis Yatton should be identified as being a suitable location to assist in meet the housing and employment needs of the rest of the District to 2026.

Finally in respect of the rural villages, the Vision is overly restrictive and sets these smaller villages and towns in "aspic". This Vision will therefore not allow the delivery of sustainable, viable and long term prosperous communities within the rest of the District outside of Weston-super-Mare. Indeed, Policy
HMA1 of the PCRSS, through identifying the delivery of 5,700 dwellings in the rest of the District outside of Weston-super-Mare, recognises that some housing development is appropriate and required in the smaller towns and villages to meet the long term housing needs of the whole District to 2026. With
reference to Vision 6, we object to the inclusion of Yatton within the Service Villages Vision as the town has a range of services, employment, housing and is accessible by modes of travel other than the private car (particularly by rail) and would be appropriate for the provision of additional housing and employment
to assist in meeting the needs of the rest of the District to 2026 as required by the PCRSS.

It is therefore clear that Visions 1-6 fail to meet the requirements of PPS1 at paragraph 32, PPS3 at paragraph 38 and PPS12 paragraph 4 which require the delivery of a Vision which sets out clearly how the District will deliver housing and all other development over the lifetime of the Plan. Additionally it is clear that Visions 1-6 do not meet the requirements of PPS1, PPS3 and Policies A, B and C and HMA1 of the PCRSS. Accordingly Visions 1-6 fail the test of conformity with national and regional planning policy guidance as required by PPS12.

Proposed Changes
Visions 1-6 should be modified to reflect the housing and spatial distribution proposed by the PCRSS.

Yatton should be identified as a Market Town in terms of a Policy B settlement and as a suitable location for additional housing, employment and other development due to its range of services, employment, recreation facilities and accessibility by modes of travel other than the private car - particularly by rail.

If Yatton is not identified as a Market Town it should be identified as a Policy C settlement, however in view of it's accessibility by modes of travel other than the private car, it should be identified as a suitable location for housing and employment purposes. This situation is supported by the recent appeal at
Frampton Cottrell, South Gloucestershire Appeal Ref App/P0119/A/0921052903. This decision identified that whilst Frampton Cottrell is a category C settlement, due to its sustainability and accessibility it was suitable for the development of 220 dwellings.
Attachments