EXAM/103 Appendix Ai - Wiltshire Council

403 Pages·2014·1.91 MB·English

Appendix Ai – Representations
received on chapter 1-4

(Introduction - Spatial Portrait - Spatial Vision
- Spatial Strategy) (TPL1 – TPL13)
with officer comments

June 2014

Consultee Agent Is the Change
Lucy Cliffe legally
Comment 1 GPSS Fisher German LLP compliant?
ID:
Is the Change
Person ID: 390747 Person ID: 812424
sound?
Identified proposed Reasons for
General
change unsound
Please give details of
Thank you for your email to GPSS, Government Pipelines and Storage Systems dated 14 April 2014 regarding the above. Please find
why you support or
attached a plan of our clients apparatus. We would ask that you contact us if any works are in the vicinity of the GPSS pipeline or
do not support the
alternatively go to www.linesearchbeforeudig.co.uk our free online enquiry service.
consultation material.
Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your
I did not submit any comments on the
objection through the proposed changes
previous stage

Attached files (Please
390747 - 1 GPSS Pipeline Map.pdf
see Objective)
Officer Response Comments noted
Consultee Agent Is the Change
Mr Francis Morland legally
Comment 32 Heywood Parish Council compliant?
ID:
Is the Change
Person ID: 836317 Person ID:
sound?
Identified proposed Reasons for
General
change unsound
Those comments reflected the longstanding policy of Heywood Parish Council that none of the settlements in the Heywood Village
ward should be regarded as villages for the purposes of the Development Plan.
The Settlement Strategy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy is set out in Core Policy 1, and its application to the Westbury Community Area
Please give details of is set out in Core Policy 32, which identifies the categories into which each of its specified settlements falls (including Small Villages:
why you support or Edington and Tinhead). None of the settlements in the Heywood Village ward are identified in Core Policy 32 as being within the
do not support the settlement hierarchy of Core Policy 1, and hence in accordance with the introductory paragraph to Appendix F: List of settlement
consultation material. boundaries removed (and not being identified as "Small Villages" in List 1 and List 3), they are all to be regarded as "settlements
outside the settlement hierarchy" set in and part of the open countryside.
At the meeting held on 14 April 2014, it was agreed to respond to the current scope and content consultation that there should be no
changes at all to that position.
Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your
objection through the proposed changes

Attached files (Please
836317 32 Heywood PC CP1
see Objective)
Officer Response Comment noted. However, they do not appear to relate to the proposed modifications that are being consulted on.
Consultee Agent Is the Change
Major William Naesmyth legally
Comment 33 compliant?
ID:
Is the Change
Person ID: 550018 Person ID:
sound?
Identified proposed Reasons for
General
change unsound
I see no plan to save agricultural land that will be needed to help feed the increasing population and residents of the houses that you
want to build. I have pointed this out to my MP and Ministers again and again. When a crisis comes it will be too late to avoid it, as it
was with the recent floods.
Please give details of
why you support or I do not know if your many and various plans deal adequately with the need for improved infrastructure to match housing growth in the
do not support the form of roads, public transport, parking etc, retail outlets, medical and education facilities, besides the lesser known local government
consultation material. facilities and employment opportunities. We fear that the town centre will be swamped and the houses and employment sites will be
too far away. The plans for after 2020 look worse and worse. I expect that many other towns will fear the same.
Also I see no plan to ensure that all brown field sites are used first, before devouring the likes of Coate Bridge and Lay Wood sites.
Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your
objection through the proposed changes

Attached files (Please

see Objective)
Comments noted. The essence of the Core Strategy is to steer development to the most sustainable locations and to ensure that
housing development occurs in a controlled manner with appropriate infrastructure, and the loss of agricultural land minimised. Core
Officer Response
Policy 2 supports development within existing urban areas and sets a target for 35% of development across the county to be on
previously developed or brownfield land.
Consultee Agent Is the Change
Ms Andrea Witcombe legally
Comment 76 compliant?
ID:
Is the Change
Person ID: 839604 Person ID:
sound?
Identified proposed Reasons for
GENERAL
change unsound
Wiltshire Core Strategy

Core Policy 3: Infrastructure Requirements

With regard to section 4.40 onwards, the nature of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be of great concern for the agricultural
community depending on the specification of its use. Given the importance of agriculture to the rural economy of Wiltshire, it is clear
that there should be an exemption for all agriculture, agriculturally tied buildings and any barn conversions in order that the sector may
become more sustainable in the future. We would be grateful to see Wiltshire Councils specification for this in due course.
Schedule of Proposed Modifications – August 2013

Core Policy 34: Additional employment land

In general, we are pleased that Core Policy 34 recognises agriculture and land-based industries play a role in the move towards a
higher-value economy. The Policy states that applications for employment developments in identified settlements and towns and
Please give details of
service centres for example will be supported, however it is concerning that developments in other areas must be identified by lower
why you support or
level plans – such as Neighbourhood Plans etc - before they can be considered. Despite our consultation responses to Neighbourhood
do not support the
Plans etc, these Plans may also overlook the positive impact of agriculture on the local economy.
consultation material.

We also note that our request for clarification from the Council in section 6.12 has not been considered in the revised document. Our
comments as of October 2012 and 2013 were as follows and we still recommend the following change:

The “Core Policy 34 aims to support the rural way of life through the promotion of modern agricultural practices, appropriate
diversification of the rural economy and provision of broadband”. This statement requires extra substance and clarity for Agriculture
and the Rural Economy - we suggest the addition of the following:

The Council recognises the importance and changing role of agriculture and the need for new employment in the rural areas. In
particular initiatives aimed at ‘adding value’ to food and goods produced on farms through processing and packaging initiatives are
encouraged. It will however, be essential to carefully consider the appropriateness of new uses, their impact upon the surrounding
area and implications of public access, and their relationship to continuing agricultural operations.
Warminster Area Strategy- page 143 bullet point 9
This area strategy notes in the ‘issues and considerations’ section that concentrations of phosphates in the River Wyle system are
high. It is therefore essential that the Core Strategy recognises the needs for agricultural businesses to be able to develop in order to
comply with regulations (such as the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone regulations) and any future requirements of the Water framework
Directive for example. This need should also be reflected in other parts of this document.

Core Policy 42: Standalone renewable energy installations

We are pleased to see that in principal the Core Strategy is supportive of standalone renewable energy developments where they are
appropriately situated. Agriculture is well situated to contribute to county and national targets for renewable energy developments, and
diversification into renewables can proved constant income streams for farm businesses – which can be essential during times of
market volatility for example.
Core Policy 48: Supporting Rural Life – page 189

With regard to ‘Dwellings required to meet the employment needs of rural areas’, we are pleased to see that some further clarity has
been included as to what is required when applications are being made.

In addition, this Core Policy states under ‘New Shops’ that farm shops will be supported where they utilise existing buildings, are small
and cause no unacceptable impact on nearby village shops or the character of the area. We have suggested that the word ‘small’ is
removed and it has not been as yet; the size of the farm shop is irrelevant and it is the impact on other local amenities which should be
considered in the main.

Core Policy 67: Flood Risk

It is essential that any developments do not increase the flood risk to productive agricultural land. Protection of Wiltshire productive
agricultural land from such risks will be essential as our farmers rise to the challenge of contributing to the rising global demand for
food.
Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your
objection through the proposed changes

Attached files (Please

see Objective)
Officer Response Comments noted. However, these comments do not relate to proposed changes that are currently being consulted upon.
Consultee Agent Is the Change
Mr Peter Bell legally
Comment 78 compliant?
ID:
Is the Change
Person ID: 700470 Person ID:
sound?
Identified proposed Reasons for
GENERAL
change unsound
There is rising concern over the Government's highly controversial planning policies. There is reportedly sufficient "brownfield" land
available for 1.5 million houses, but all over the country, villages are now under siege by developers.
In Market Lavington, where we live, we face an avalanche of housing, way beyond the capacity of the village, and which is likely to
completely change its nature. Having scrapped all the Planning laws, developers can now effectively build wherever they choose,
flouting local concerns. Our narrow, and already very congested, High Street would become totally gridlocked and quite unable to
copewith the additional traffic likely to be generated thereby, both during and after its construction. Large container lorries and farm
tractors already often have to mount the pavement in order to negotiate the street, which has parked vehicles all along one side. And
school children are already obliged to cycle on the pavement in order to avoid the heavy traffic.
At the eastern end of the High Street the road narrows into a kind of chicane between two brick walls just before the mini-roundabout.
Please give details of This is quite unsuitable to cater for the increased traffic likely to be generated by another 150 houses at Fiddington Clay in addition to
why you support or the large new housing development on the site of the former Jam Factory at Easterton - not to mention all the other proposed new
do not support the housing. And the roundabout by the surgery is constantly used by primary school children and their parents who have to cross the
consultation material. road when making their way to and from St Barnabas School. Moreover, there is an exceptionally dangerous blind exit from Stobberts
Road at the eastern end of the High Street.
There is another problem with regard to the additional traffic on the village High Street concerning quite a number of residents, like
ourselves, who have garages exiting onto the High Street. We are obliged to back out of our garages into the traffic flow with little or no
visibility due to all the parked cars, and this is becoming increasingly hazardous, indeed sometimes nearly impossible, and could result
in a fatal accident.
In short, we would say that the proposed development (if it is to go ahead) should be greatly reduced in scale, and the Government's
housing targets are really quite unrealistic. The High Street is in danger of becoming like India, only without the sacred cows! Where
are the occupants of all the new houses going to come from, and where will they work? Nobody should build another new house in the
village until the traffic problem has been sorted out, otherwise it will become impassible.
Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your
objection through the proposed changes

Attached files (Please

see Objective)
Officer Response Comments noted. The policies within the Core Strategy as a whole seek to ensure that development is managed and does not
adversely impact on an area.
Consultee Agent Is the Change
Mrs Gill Smith legally
Comment 91 Dorset County Council compliant?
ID:
Is the Change
Person ID: 634998 Person ID:
sound?
Identified proposed Reasons for
GENERAL COMMENT
change unsound
Please give details of
why you support or Thank you for consulting Dorset County Council on the Proposed Modifications to the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Dorset County Council
do not support the does not wish to raise any comments on these Modifications.
consultation material.
Does your representation relate to a previous one you submitted. If so, has the Council satisfied your
objection through the proposed changes

Attached files (Please

see Objective)
Officer Response Comments noted.