Update on Housing
Development
as part of the
South Worcester Development Plan (SWDP)
17th July 2012
Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council
South Worcester Development Plan
- Background
The 3 local authorities, Malvern Hills District
Council, Worcester City Council and Wychavon District
Council, combined forces and established the South
Worcester Development Plan as a follow on from the
previous South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy
(SWJCS).
•
• NJK Parish Council has engaged positively with both
the previous SWJCS team and the SWDP team to put
forward the wishes of the majority of the parishioners ,
as evidenced by the petition in 2009 and the NJK
Parish Council response to the Preferred Options
Document (POD).
South Worcester Development Plan
- Process
• Following widespread public consultation by
Wychavon Council (the Parish opportunity having been
the event at St Peters Garden Centre, at which we had
the highest turnout of any Parish in the Wychavon
area), the public response was incorporated into the
POD.
• The acceptance of ‘major changes’ to the POD (of
which there were none for NJK Parish) was voted on
and agreed by the three individual Councils on 3 July
2012. ‘Minor or textual changes’, in which category
our changes fall, were effectively endorsed at the
same time with the creation of a revised POD.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Current Status
• Until 3 July 2012, the SWDP POD has had little
‘status’ but this is the first step to it becoming legally
binding in Q3 2013 (more later).
• But it is at this point that the Developers have to
begin taking notice of a document they have
previously dismissed.
•
So what have we achieved....?
What has been achieved with the POD? (1)
•
The Southern part of the original
consultation area, south of the garden
centre, is now part of the significant
gap, with the exception of playing fields
(more later).
What has been achieved with the POD? (2)
•
There will be a ‘significant gap’ of
at least 100m to the west of the Norton
road (more later).
What has been achieved with the POD? (3)
•
There will be a ‘significant gap’ of
at least 100m to the north of the
Norton Sports Club (more later).
South Worcester Development Plan
- Contact with Developers
• In parallel with our dealings with Wychavon Council
regarding the SWDP POD, we have also been in
discussion with the major developer, Welbeck.
• Initial discussions did not go well, their ‘master
plan’ containing (among others);
o building up to the Norton Road,
o industrial development from north of Norton
Sports Club to the Southern Link road,
o a further 250 houses to the south of the Garden
Centre (there are 500 in Brockhill).
•
Subsequent meetings have been more productive...
What has been achieved with the Developers (1)
•
It is proposed that the area south
of the Garden Centre be used for
publicly owned and controlled sports
pitches and a Sports Centre (shower &
changing facilities, possible squash
courts, gym, etc....).
What has been achieved with the Developers (2)
•
It is proposed that the ‘significant
gap’ will be approximately 120m,
following the field boundaries where
possible, the gap being grassed and
laid to orchard, controlled by the Parish
Council for public use.
What has been achieved with the Developers (3)
•
It is proposed that there will be a
‘significant gap’ of approximately 100m
to the north of the Norton Sports Club
which will rise 2-3 metres over its width
and will be laid to woodland. The
industry between it and the Southern
Link Road will be office based (e.g. IT
developer) and will be landscaped.
What has been achieved with the Developers (4)
•
It is proposed that the St Peters
roundabout be modified, such that Norton
Road be given ‘Country Lane status’, coming
off the arterial road through the new
development, rather than the arterial road
coming of it, e.g.
South Worcester Development Plan
- Contact with Developers
• There is a long way to go, but with an endorsed
SWDP POD there is now a basis for further negotiation.
• Welbeck is not the only developer. St Modwen own
a significant strip of land to the south of the Southern
Link road prior to the Ketch Roundabout and
agreement (or lack of it) between Welbeck and St
Modwen will have a significant effect on the overall
plan. There are also private land owners that are
independantly ‘holding out’ for a better deal.
• Wychavon Council are most appreciative of the
work the PC are doing with the Developers to move
the SWDP POD and Developers ‘Master Plan’ closer
together, though ultimately our aim is to get the best
deal we can, given the circumstances, for the Parish.
South Worcester Development Plan
Dispelling myths...
• The Garden Centre development is not part of
SWDP, but is in response to an NJK Parish Council
initiated Housing Needs Survey for the Parish, which
determined the number and type of housing required
to fulfil the Parish’s needs.
• The Norton Sports Club (Cricket) is trying to move
out of Norton, financed by the sale of their land; this is
not part of the SWDP.
• We have been approached by a German company
to build a new manufacturing unit next to Envirosort
at the junction of Wadborough and Pershore Road;
again not part of the SWDP.
South Worcester Development Plan
- What happens next?
• ‘Focussed consultations on Schedule of Changes
and Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ – Happening now, but
we have no ‘Major Changes’ for consultation.
• ‘Publication of Pre-Submission Draft Development
Plan’ – November 2012; before submitting it as a
Development Plan, does it ‘do what it says on the tin’.
• ‘Submission of Development Plan Document’ February 2013; submission to Secretary of State prior
to independent hearing and Planning Inspectors
report.
• Councils consider 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 are making progress.
• We will keep everyone informed through The Parish
Magazine, fliers and events like this.
•
....or should we adopt an alternative approach?
Discussion / Questions