PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN 2006-2028 - Aug 12
View Comment
Comment ID | 1163 |
---|---|
Document Section | Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Market Towns - Vision and Proposals Local Market Towns - Langport/Huish Episcopi What will the Local Plan Deliver? Langport/Huish Episcopi - What will the Local Plan Deliver? Policy LMT2 View all on this section |
Respondent | Perrin Construction Ltd View all by this respondent |
Agent | Bell Cornwell (J Terry) |
Response Date | 10 Aug 2012 |
Do you consider the DPD is Legally Compliant? | No |
Do you consider the DPD is Sound? | No |
If you have responded that the DPD is unsound, Do you consider the DPD is unsound because it is: |
|
Comment | The Direction of Strategic Growth has not been adequately or appropriately identified. Please see text below and the attached in support of this statement, the supporting documentation:
Land to the North West of Langport/Huish Episcopi: There is a strong case for extending the Proposed Direction for Growth to the northwest of Langport to take in land to the west of Newtown Road. This is due to the Site’s high level of sustainability being close to the town centre and ease of access to a full range of facilities; and as a result of understanding the landscape context, the ability, through a tailored landscape strategy, to bring forward a sympathetic development of minimal impact despite its proximity to the moors. The attached Landscape and Visual Baseline Report, undertaken using the recognised guidance of the LI and IEMA adds an additional level of detail to the Council’s own Peripheral Landscape Study for Langport / Huish Episcopi, rather than contradicting it: The former was able to look more fully into the specific impacts of the site in question whereas the Peripheral Study covered the full extent of the combined settlements. The Baseline Study looks at the landscape characteristics of the surrounding area including landform and built development that make up the particular landscape character of the Site. It considers the sensitivity of landscape receptors and the sensitivity of visual receptors. The SSDC Peripheral Study included the Site within an area of highly sensitive area because it remains an intact field lying between the urban edge and the moor. While this position is accepted in general (albeit the site itself was not assessed as part of those areas – see Figure 2 of the Landscape Sensitivity for Langport, Peripheral Study) the more detailed Floyd Matcham assessment carried out for the site identifies an approach that responds to the sensitivity of location by recognising its constraints and designing accordingly. Advised by the Landscape and Visual Baseline Report, we consider it is important to note the following aspects:
i) presence of the woodland plantation and double hedgerow along most of the western boundary which provides a wide physical and visual buffer between the moor and grassland on the site; ii) the Site is bounded on two sides by existing development so that it has a direct landscape and visual relationship with the urban edge;
In designing a suitable landscape strategy for the Site the following points are recognised:
In following a landscape strategy arising from these elements, it is possible to minimise impact on the landscape and present a suitable development within the landscape context. With the above in mind, the Direction for Growth as currently proposed should be widened to bring land to the west of Newtown Road, into consideration. Direction of Growth to the North of Langport/Huish Episcopi: Conversely, the Peripheral Landscape Study (PLS) recognises the importance of the separation of Wearne from Langport, and the relatively high sensitivity of site (iv) development of which, it says ‘ is not advocated from a landscape standpoint’ (para 7.6). Analysis by Floyd Matcham concurs that sites (iii) and (iv) (identified at Figure 5 Landscape Capacity Langport, PLS do raise some landscape issues in relation to the separation between the town and Wearne hamlet and the impact of development on the open nature of this area to the north of Langport. Accordingly we assert that this proposed Direction for Growth requires reconsideration: The Floyd Matcham analysis of these two sites is set out below:
By comparison, development of the Newtown Road site would have no effect on the gap between Newtown and Combe or Wearne. Sustainability Appraisal: In addition to the landscape justification above, land to the west of Newtown Road also scores better than the Options appraised through the Sustainability Appraisal. Option 1 appraised land to the north and east of Kelways. Option 2 appraised a combination of 3 areas including land to the south of Old Kelways / adjacent to the railway line / south of the Church. No clear distinction was identified between these two options with a difference of scoring between - and -/?. However, not all the options were assessed. Paragraph 4.85 of the draft Local Plan states that the distribution of growth has been refined from the broad approach using a range of evidence including factors affecting each individual settlement such as land availability and market deliverability. Paragraph 4.88 states that the SHLAA has been used as a mechanism to establish potential housing sites. It should be noted that the SHLAA is not a comprehensive exercise and that in the meantime other sites have come forward which are equally suitable, available and achievable. Land to the west of Newtown Road has become available since the SHLAA was undertaken and should now be considered against the preferred options as it provides a more sustainable location than either Option 1 or Option 2. Please see Sustainability Comparison attached. |
What changes do you suggest to make the DPD legally compliant or sound? | Policy LMT2 should be amended to read ‘The direction of strategic growth will be to the north, north west, east and south east of the settlement ….’ Inset Map 8: The Direction of Growth should be amended to bring into consideration land to the west of Newtown Road, remove development from within the settlement and reduce the extent of development to the north. See proposed Inset Map 8 attached. |
If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination? | Yes |
If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary: | In order that the Direction of Growth for Langport/Huish Episcopi can be adequately considered. |
Attachments |