WEST BERKSHIRE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN
Summary of all objections received to Proposed Modifications November 2000 / January 2001 and Council’s Response to Objections
INTRODUCTION
In November 2000 and January 2001 the Council placed on deposit modifications to the West Berkshire (formally Newbury) District Local Plan. Over 1100 representations were received in respect of those modifications.
The representations received were carefully considered by the Council. On 16 October 2001 a meeting of the Council agreed its response to the representations received. Those responses are set out in this report.
The document includes a list who made a representation in respect of a particular modification. It includes a summary of the representations received and then sets out the Council’s response.
41
REPRESENTATIONS AND RESPONSES
POLICY/
PARAGRAPH / DESCRIPTION / SITE (IF RELEVANT) / PAGE NUMBERCHAPTER 1 – OVERALL STRATEGY
OVS.2
/ Core Policy / 45CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENT
ENV.2
2.12.2 / Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty / 45ENV.4
/ Gaps between Settlements / Land between Thatcham and Cold Ash / Upper Bucklebury / 46CHAPTER 3 - HOUSING
3.1.3
/ 463.3-3.4
/ Sandleford Park / 473.3.1
/ 473.4.2
/ 473.4.3
/ 48HSG.1
/ Identification of Settlements / The Old Rectory, The Croft, Kintbury / 49HSG.1 and
ENV.4 / Identification of SettlementsGaps between Settlements / Andover Road, Enborne / 49
HSG.1 (I)
/ Identification of Settlements / 50HSG.1 (iii)
/ 50HSG.1 (iv)
/ 51HSG.4a
/ Development within Urban areas and on Brownfield Land / Valentine Wood / 51HSG.5
/ Allocation of New Housing Sites / 52HSG.5
/ Fisherman’s Lane, Aldermaston / 52HSG.5
/ South Aldermaston / 55HSG.5
/ Upper Bucklebury / 55HSG.5
/ Chievely / 56HSG.5
/ Newbury Racecourse / 57HSG.5
/ Pinchington lane/Deadman’s Lane, Newbury / 62HSG.5
/ Cementation Site, Hermitage / 65HSG.5
/ Bath Road, Eddington, Hungerford / 67HSG.5
/ Salisbury Road, Hungerford / 68HSG.5
/ Lynch Lane, Lambourn / 69HSG.5
/ Mortimer Hill, Mortimer / 71HSG.5
/ Enborne Road, Newbury / 73HSG.5
/ Manor Park, Newbury / 75HSG.5
/ Park House School, Newbury / 78HSG.5
/ Basingstoke Road/Mill Lane, Aldermaston Wharf / 81HSG.5
/ Long Lane, Purley / 94HSG.5
/ Stockcross / 102HSG.5
/ Moor Lane Depot, Speen / 104HSG.5
/ Land Adjacent to Benham’s Farm, Burghfield Common / 105HSG.5
/ North West Thatcham / 108HSG.5
/ Colthrop Manor/ Siege Cross Farm, Thatcham / 11071
3.6.4 & 3.6.5
/ Thatcham MOD Depot / 112HSG.5
/ Wickham / 113HSG.6
/ Sandleford Park, Greenham / 113HSG.9
3.10.1& 3.10.3 / Affordable Housing / 115HSG.10
/ Affordable Housing / 116Appendix 10
/ 117CHAPTER 4 – THE ECONOMY
ECON.6 (d)
/ New Greenham Park / 117CHAPTER 6 - TRANSPORTATION
TRANS.1 A
6.2.3 / Road Improvement Lines / B3421 Kings Road, Newbury / 118TRANS.1
6.5.1 / Parking Provision / 120TRANS.1
6.5.3 / 120TRANS.1
6.5.4 / 120TRANS.1
/ 121TRANS.2
/ Parking Provision / 121TRANS.3
/ Parking in Newbury Town Centre / 121Appendix 5
/ Car Parking Standards / 122Appendix 5
/ Cementation Site / 122CHAPTER 7 – RECREATION AND LEISURE
7.1.6 A
/ 123REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED IN SUPPORT OF THE MODIFICATIONS / 124
71
CHAPTER: OVERALL STRATEGY
POLICY/ OVS.2
PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
SITE ADDRESS:
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1380 / 9501 / Chieveley Parish Council /
Comments: Suggested wording is that the requirement of development to preserve and enhance should be
restricted to Conservation Areas and AONB and not applied districtwide.
Council’s response: The Inspector agreed with the objector and therefore the wording was changed from 'conserve and enhance' to 'appropriate to the nature of the development...'.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: ENVIRONMENT
POLICY/ ENV.2
PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 2.12.2
SITE ADDRESS:
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1155 / 8178 / Mr Barry C Dickens /
1644 / 8724 / Mr J R Monk /
1659 / 8739 / Simon & Zena Muth /
1917 / 9055 / E R Woodhead /
SUPPORT:
Respondent No. / Response No / Name1127 / 8149 / Mrs C M Brooke
1228 / 8262 / Mr H V Roberts
1229 / 8263 / Mrs C A Roberts
1318 / 8361 / Basildon Parish Council
1402 / 8460 / The Countryside Agency
1899 / 9018 / M A James
1950 / 9516 / Marley Properties Ltd
Comments: Object to removal of word 'normally' from policy and wish to see the continued preservation of
the AONB. The Council is failing to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB as required by policy ENV.2.
Delete public interest clause and adhere without reservation to the directive stance that AONB should be given same protection as national parks. This objection is regarding the proposed housing development in Upper Bucklebury.
Supports the deletion of the word ‘normally’.
Council’s response: The deletion of the word 'normally' was recommended by the Inspector. Policy wording tends to reflect a particular format and this is consistent with the general style. The deletion of this word actually strengthens the policy .
This modification was necessary and suggested by the Inspector further to the change made to ENV.2. The Government has clarified that the AONB has the same status as National Parks. The public reference is factual and relates to PPG7 advice. Full justification and explanation is on page 34 of the Proposed Modifications Report.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: ENVIRONMENT
POLICY/ ENV.4
PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
SITE ADDRESS: LAND BETWEEN THATCHAM AND COLD ASH /
UPPER BUCKLEBURY
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1808 / 9522 / Thatcham Town Council /
Comments: The extension of the gap between Thatcham and Upper Bucklebury (PC29) should be retained.
Council’s response: The Inspector considered the issue against the criteria identified under Policy ENV.4 and concluded that all the land within the proposed gap could not be considered to be at risk or essential to maintain a clear physical and visual separation between Thatcham and Upper Bucklebury. As there is no risk of coalescence or loss of community identity, the Inspector considered there was insufficient need or justification for the gap designation to be applied to this large tract of land. The Council has accepted this recommendation.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING
POLICY/
PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.1.3
SITE ADDRESS:
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1796 / 8898 / Sir Richard Sutton's Settled Estates /
Comments: The additional proposed housing sites do not represent an appropriate response to housing
provision having regard to the policies on sustainable development in particular. More sustainable locations are available within the District, notably to the west of Newbury.
Council’s response: These sites were fully debated at the local plan inquiry and were then put forward by the Inspector as appropriate alternatives to the Sandleford Park allocation. The west of Newbury as a general potential housing area was also noted by the Inspector (although there was not a specific site put forward) and his comment was that this area would need to be fully debated during the next local plan process.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING
POLICY/
PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.3 – 3.4
SITE ADDRESS: SANDLEFORD PARK
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1891 / 9007 / David Wilson Homes /
Comments: The housing strategy is flawed in so much as the Inspector has placed emphasis on expanding
the existing villages of, for example, Aldermaston and Burghfield Common. This strategy fundamentally alters the approach to the identification of housing land and therefore Sandleford Park should be reconsidered as it is well placed for Vodafone World HQ to the north of Newbury and Greenham Common, unlike the sites put forward now by the District Council.
Council’s response: These sites were fully debated at the Local Plan Inquiry and were then put forward by the
Inspector as appropriate alternatives to the Sandleford Park allocation.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING
POLICY/
PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.3.1
SITE ADDRESS:
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1796 / 8894 / Sir Richard Sutton's Settled Estates /
Comments: The additional proposed housing sites do not represent an appropriate response to housing
provision having regard to the policies on sustainable development in particular. More sustainable locations are available within the District, notably to the west of Newbury.
Council’s Response: These sites were fully debated at the local plan inquiry and were then put forward by the Inspector as appropriate alternatives to the Sandleford Park allocation. The west of Newbury as a general potential housing area was also noted by the Inspector (although there was not a specific site put forward) and his comment was that this area would need to be fully debated during the next local plan process.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING
POLICY/
PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.4.2
SITE ADDRESS:
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1522 / 8598 / Hicks of Woodley
1796 / 8895 / Sir Richard Sutton's Settled Estates
1807 / 8912 / Thames Water Property Ltd
1859 / 8967 / Welford Estate
1891 / 9006 / David Wilson Homes
1247 / 9523 / Jenny Stafford
SUPPORT:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1023 / 8034 / T De Vere Cole
1102 / 8123 / Mrs Phyllis Warren
1103 / 8124 / R E Warren
1219 / 8253 / Michael Thomas Preston
Comments: Expresses concern over increasing densities and consequent reduction in amenity in established
residential areas, as a result of both infill and house extensions. Would like the overall aim of preserving amenity included in definition of 'small unidentified sites'. (Note: the respondent also made other comments on density restrictions and reduction of housing allocation for small unidentified sites. These comments do not relate to the proposed modifications).
The proposed approach to housing allocations is too precisely related to current Structure Plan requirements and does not take sufficient account of non-implementation. Additional flexibility should be introduced to ensure that the control levels are met.
A further 550 dwellings should be allocated to make up the shortfall in the overall level of housing provision which is assessed at about 500 dwellings within the remainder of the plan period
Council’s response: Government policy requires that local authorities ensure that ineffiicent use of land should be avoided. The Local Plan allows for the development of housing within existing built up areas. It also contains policies to ensure that the amenities of areas are safeguarded; such policies include ENV.30 and 31.
Sufficient land has been allocated, calculations were based on March 2000 figures and since then there has also been additional sites which have been granted planning permission. This ensures that there is adequate flexibility.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING
POLICY/
PARAGRAPH NUMBER: 3.4.3
SITE ADDRESS:
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1796 / 8893 / Sir Richard Sutton's Settled Estates /
Comments: Brownfield sites - the allowance for unidentified brownfield sites in inappropriate. Unless
such sites are small and thus included in the unidentified small site category, they should be specifically identified in the plan. The identification of brownfield sites and the reference to capacity of such sites should be clarified and the results of any urban capacity study made known.
Council’s response: The estimate of 40 dwellings per year has proved accurate through the annual monitoring of housing completions. A detailed urban capacity study will be undertaken and will form the basis of the next Structure and Local Plans.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING
POLICY/ HSG.1
PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
SITE ADDRESS: THE OLD RECTORY, THE CROFT, KINTBURY
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1120 / 8142 / Mr Jeff Barrett
1217 / 8251 / Chapman Pincher
1235 / 8269 / Margaret E Shaw
1654 / 8734 / Jeffrey & Rosemary Martyn
1724 / 8811 / Mr & Mrs D J Pym
1914 / 9051 / Cllr Heather Turner
Comments: The Inspector's proposed extension to the settlement boundary of Kintbury to include the
entire garden of the Old Rectory will encourage further applications for development which should be resisted.
Settlement boundary should remain as originally proposed. If extended, it will allow for further development in part of the village which cannot cope.
There should be no change to the settlement boundary of Kintbury, if extended this will allow for development which will totally destroy the view from our property.
There should be no development on the Old Vicarage, The Croft, Kintbury and the settlement boundary should not be extended.
We object to Inspector's proposed extension to the settlement boundary as the site is very exposed and widely visible in the AONB.
Council’s response: The planning application (reference 00/00090/OUT) for a dwelling was withdrawn in the light of the uncertainty of the local plan. Settlement boundaries are not drawn with reference to future development, they are drawn in the light of existing development in line with criteria set out in appendix 12 of the Local Plan. The Inspector in his report (see page 3-72) commented that 'The division of this curtilage by the current settlement boundary is unconvincing and weak and should be revised.' On the question of future development, the Inspector said this was a matter for detailed discussion with development control. The Council therefore accepts this recommendation.
—————————————————————————————————————
CHAPTER: HOUSING & ENVIRONMENT
POLICY/ HSG.1 & ENV.4
PARAGRAPH NUMBER:
SITE ADDRESS: ANDOVER ROAD, ENBORNE
OBJECTIONS:
Respondent No. / Response No. / Name /1084 / 8104 / Rolfe Estates /
Comments: Can see no justification for deleting this site from the development plan (HSG.1), the
original author of the plan must have included this area to square up the settlement boundary. It is bounded on three sides by either proposed or existing development. As an existing builders yard it is brownfield and would meet central government demands for new housing without further encroachment into agricultural land.
Council’s response: Settlement boundaries are drawn with the intention of reflecting existing development patterns in line with criteria in Appendix 12. There is not the ability for settlement boundaries to deliberately include development sites or 'square off' settlements because of adjoining development. This site was never within the settlement boundary, but had a committed development tone applied to it. This is factually incorrect and the planning permission on adjoining land does not cover this site. The amendment is therefore a correction to the proposals map (Inset Map 1) and therefore no further action is required. (The reference to brownfield site has not been verified and is not relevant to this objection).