Update on Housing
Development
as part of the
South Worcester Development Plan (SWDP)
4th Mar 2013
Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council
South Worcester Development Plan
- Background (1)
The three local authorities, Malvern Hills District
Council (MHDC), Worcester City Council (WCC) and
Wychavon District Council (WDC), established the South
Worcester Development Plan (SWDP) as a follow on from
the previous South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy
(SWJCS).
•
• NJK Parish Council (NJKPC) has engaged positively
with both bodies, representing the interests of the
majority of the parishioners, as evidenced by the petition
in 2009 and the NJKPC response to the Preferred Options
Document (POD).
• Following public consultation, and subsequent
amendment, the POD was endorsed by the three
individual Councils in July 2012, creating a revised POD.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Background (2)
• The revised POD then led to the production of a PreSubmission Draft Development Plan, which was presented
to the three individual Councils in November 2012. It was
at this point that MHDC voted to ‘go it alone’, only to
realise their mistake shortly afterwards and consequently
vote to return to the SWDP fold.
• On the basis of the three Councils endorsement, the
Pre-Submission Draft was then turned into the
Development Plan Document (DPD) which was published
for ‘technical’ consultation (legality and soundness) until
22 February 2013.
• NJKPC has again formally commented on behalf of the
Parish.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Current Status
• The DPD is currently being prepared for submission to
the Secretary of State next month, prior to an independent
hearing and Planning Inspectors report.
• ‘Minor’ changes can still be incorporated prior to
submission.
• Councils will consider the Planning Inspectors final
report in September/November 2013, agree changes (if
required), and then adopt the plan.
•
So what has been achieved with the DPD....
What has been achieved with the DPD? (1)
•
There will be a ‘significant gap’ to
the west of the Norton Road.
What has been achieved with the DPD? (2)
•
The area south of the garden
centre has been designated ‘Significant
Gap’, but….(more later).
What has been achieved with the DPD? (3)
•
The road layout has been modified
to restrict access to the Norton Road
What has been achieved with the DPD? (4)
•
The view of the Malvern Hills from
Crookbarrow Road has been maintained
and a pedestrian and cycle access to
the new ‘centre’ established.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Contact with Developers
• In parallel with our dealings with WDC we have
continued to engage with the major developer, Welbeck
(St Modwen and independent landowners have not been
engaged – more later).
• Initial discussions did not go well, but subsequent
meetings have been more productive, bringing together
the developers ‘master plan’ with the ‘official’ SWDP plan,
whilst incorporating the best solution we could achieve for
the Parish.
• The Welbeck top level plan now looks remarkably
similar to the DPD, but the more detailed plan shows the
incorporation of several other features we have been
arguing for...
What has been achieved with the Developers? (1)
The mixed use area to the north of the
Sports Club has been set back from the
existing properties more than has been
shown on the policy plan.
What has been achieved with the Developers? (2)
The area to the south of Broomhall
Cottages will not be directly adjacent to
the road.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Contact with Developers
•
However, there are things we have agreed with
Wychavon and the developers which are not yet reflected
in their plan...
What has been achieved with the Developers? (3)
The area to the north Broomhall Cottages
will not come all the way to the road
(supported by policy)
What has been achieved with the Developers? (4)
The configuration of the houses in the
‘Significant Gap’ is not policy compliant –
(more later)
South Worcester Development Plan
- Remaining issues (1)
• The thick red line on the DPD denotes the development
boundary within which the mix of amenities required by the
policy needs to reside.
• However, it only shows allocation of amenities on land
owned by Welbeck or St Modwen, and land outside their
control has been left blank. No involvement has been
sought from other landowners within the boundary who
might wish to sell their land for development, but not to
either Welbeck or St Modwen. This removes several sites
within the development boundary from consideration,
unnecessarily restricting an already cramped plan further.
Remaining Issues (2)
•
Development Boundary.
• Independent Landowners with land available
for development as identified within the SHLAA.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Remaining issues (3)
• The location of two ‘Traveller Accommodation’ sites are
‘to be determined through the master planning exercise’.
• Given the current allocation of land within the
development boundary, and the constraints imposed by land
ownership factors (as previously discussed), it is difficult to
see where these sizeable features might reside.
• The path of least resistance may be to use a site
controlled by one of the ‘big two’ developers which is not
currently allocated for residential or industrial development,
e.g. the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre.
South Worcester Development Plan
Potential solutions (1)
• Assuming that only land controlled by the ‘big two’
continues to be considered, items allowed within the
‘Significant Gap’ south of the Garden Centre should be
‘limited to’, rather than ‘including’, otherwise it will become
the ‘dumping ground’ for those items that will restrict profit
for the two developers.
• Maintaining the ‘openness’ of the ‘Significant Gap’ to the
south of the Garden Centre is ambiguous and needs
clarification; there is debate as to the whether a traveller site
maintains ‘openness’ or not.
• Wychavon Councillors are opposed to any new traveller
site being within WDC, since it has met its obligations until
2020. This should be explicit within the plan by identifying
the sites within MHDC or WCC.
Potential solutions (2)
•
‘Limited to’, rather than ‘including’.
•
Definition of ‘openness’?
South Worcester Development Plan
- Remaining issues (again) (1)
• The 40 houses within the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of
the Garden Centre are to be placed ‘along the line of the
existing dwellings’.
• We are in discussion with Welbeck to find a solution that
will provide the necessary security for the sports facilities,
without impacting too much on the existing dwellings, whilst
also maintaining the openness of the ‘Significant Gap’.
• We are also trying to re-instate allotments in the plan,
which seem to have disappeared as various revisions have
been incorporated.
•
The solution may be something like this...
Remaining Issues (again) (2)
•
New houses ‘alongside the
northern boundary of the Significant
Gap’.
•
Possible allotments.
South Worcester Development Plan
- What happens next?
• NJKPC continue to lobby for answers and solutions to
the remaining issues, however time is running out; there are
no further opportunities for public consultation unless the
Planning Inspector directs ‘major’ amendments to the plan.
• Despite the lack of further public consultation events,
you still have the right to write to your Councillor (Rob
Adams), the Chair of WDC (Paul Middleborough - who lives
in the village), or your MP (Peter Luff).
• Councils will consider the Planning Inspectors final
report, agree changes (if required) and adopt – September
to November 2013.
South Worcester Development Plan
Summary
• Parish Council approach (under mandate from the
parishioners) remains one of engagement rather than
confrontation, with both Wychavon Council and Developers.
• We will continue to negotiate to achieve the best possible
physical and visual separation of Norton from the new
development, “such that the physical and visual separation of
the distinct individual settlements within the Parish is
maintained” [extract from our 2009 petition wording]. We
believe we have achieved a lot, but we are running out of
time.
• We will keep everyone informed through The Parish
Magazine, fliers and events like this.
Discussion / Questions