Local Plan 2036: Issues and Options Stage

Document Section 1. North Somerset Local Plan 2036: Issues and Options Document North Somerset Issues Q3. Do you agree with these or are there other challenges or issues which we have not included and how might the Local Plan address these? [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID 21484065//2
Respondent Simon Ible [View all comments by this respondent]
Response Date 10 Dec 2018

The document identifies a number of key issues in respect of Nailsea and sets out how the local plan may be able to address these. Comments in respect of each of these is provided below:

“Identifying the policies and allocations to guide the masterplanning and delivery of the strategic development locations, including new road corridors and public transport, housing, services, facilities and other infrastructure and phasing”

The new local plan needs to provide site allocations, but its anticipated that the detail of masterplanning can be undertaken through an SPD and Gleeson are keen to input into this process.

“Consider the opportunity for local Green Belt amendments”

Gleeson does not consider it is justified for the Local Plan to make fundamental amendments to the Green Belt boundary and the exceptional circumstances required to amend the Green Belt are not demonstrated. Whilst it’s understood Nailsea Town Council would support development to the north of Nailsea on land currently designated as Green Belt, the NPPF (2018) is clear in paragraph 136 that “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the

preparation or updating of plans”. Paragraph 137 goes on to state “Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate

that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development”. Clearly, land to the south and west of Nailsea is available to meet the identified need. This land is sustainably located, adjacent to the town and close to the railway station. It is available for development. There are no technical obstacles that would preclude development to the south of the town.

No overriding harm would result in terms of, for example, landscape, heritage and ecology. There are no NPPF policies applicable to this land that protect the area and/or provide a strong reason to restrict development in this location. In conclusion, at this time, there is no justification for reviewing the Green Belt boundary to accommodate growth at Nailsea, including growth to meet the objectively assessed housing need.

“Identify opportunities for public transport improvements, particularly the role of the station as a transport hub”

Gleeson support the intension to identify opportunities for public transport improvements at Nailsea, particularly in respect of the opportunity for the station to form a transport hub. Gleeson control land directly adjoining the station car park and this land offers the potential to facilitate the ambitions of creating a transport hub. Alongside this it’s imperative that development is well located to the station, to facilitate walking and cycling connections to the station.

“Reassess the policy approach to addressing local housing needs at Nailsea, and identify potential allocations”

Clearly an approach to meet the local housing needs at Nailsea is required. However, whilst we note a potential to review the settlement hierarchy, Nailsea is clearly an important town where sustainable growth can be accommodated to help meet the wider needs of the district. This is reflected in the JSP. In this context, it is essential the plan doesn’t over-emphasise a strategy approach which seeks to meet local ‘Nailsea’ needs alone at the town.

“Identify policies and allocations to support local economic growth, including new development areas and potential redevelopment opportunities”

Gleeson support the local plan identifying policies and allocations to support local economic growth.


New local plan needs to provide site allocations, but its anticipated that the detail of masterplanning can be undertaken through an SPD and Gleeson are keen to input into this process.