ISSUE 12PERRIN CONSTRUCTION H001

LAND AT NETWOWN ROAD, LANGPORT

SOUTH SOMERSET LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

HEARING SESSION 21ST MAY 2013

THE PERIPHERAL STUDY AND DIRECTION OF GROWTH

BRIEFING NOTE ON LANDSCAPE ISSUES

Key Argument

SSDC has opted to direct the future growth of Langport in two broad directions. The selection of these directions appears to have been strongly influenced by theDistrict Council’s 2008 Peripheral Landscape Study (PLS). We note that:

  • this study has not been subject (to our knowledge) to public consultation and neither has it been the subject of a Public Examination (i.e. it is not a Supplementary Planning Document);
  • the study has some usefulness in providing broadassistance to the District Council in deciding where future development needs should be accommodated at Langport, but only limited reliance can be placed on its findings; and
  • in our view, identification and selection of sites to meet future development needs in a small town such as Langport is best served by a more traditional ‘sieve analysis’ approach which examines all constraints and opportunities, including consideration of the likely effects of built development on landscape character, as described in published landscape character assessments.

The Peripheral Landscape Study

  • The Peripheral Landscape Study is a relatively involved landscape study which takes in a substantial area of land surrounding Langport. Plainly, given the future likely development requirements at Langport, much of the study area would never need to be allocated for any form of development.
  • An explanation of why the study area has been drawn so widely at Langport is given at paragraph 1.3 of the PLS.This describes a methodology for defining a hypothetical study area for any settlement where a Peripheral Landscape Study is to be undertaken. We consider that this methodology is unnecessarily complicated and it has led to the identification of a study area at Langport that bears limited useful relationship to the purpose of the PLS, namely “to assess the capacity of the settlement fringe to accommodate new development” (our underlining). (See paragraph.1.3 of the PLS).
  • In our view, because the PLS has considered very extensive areas of countryside around Langport, it has not been structured with sufficient clarity to discern and differentiate between the differing landscape characters of small parcels of land adjoining the urban fringe. As a result, substantial areas of land are broadly grouped into one of five ‘landscape capacity’ categories. At Langport, substantial areas of countryside surrounding Langport are identified as having ‘low’ or ‘moderate to low’ capacity and this appears to have strongly influenced the LPA’s decision to promote its preferred directions of growth.
  • On the north-west side of Langport a substantial area of countryside, including land immediately adjoining the urban edge (the objection site?), is uniformly identified as having low capacity to accommodate built development. When examined in more detail, it can be seen that much of this area of land takes in the ‘Western Moors’ Local Landscape Character Area (see Fig.2 Landscape Sensitivityin the PLS) where development would never be contemplated, not least because it lies within a Flood Zone (see Fig. 4, Value and Constraints in the PLS).
  • However, land immediately adjoining the urban fringe at Newtown Road falls within the ‘Settled Low Hills’ Local landscape Character Area where the landscape character is notably different from the low-lying moors landscape to the west. In our view, the PLS is incorrect in stating that the objection site has high landscape sensitivity (Fig.2 landscape Sensitivity in the PLS).
  • Accordingly, the objection site should be assessed as a landscape having moderate capacity to accommodate built development.

The Directions of Growth

  • SSDC’s decision that the direction of growth should be to the north and south-east of the town is too inflexible.
  • Exclusion of a direction of growth to the north-west of the town appears to be based on the identification of a single large tract of land, to the west of Newtown Road, as having low capacity to accommodate built development (see above). This assessment fails to identify important local variations in landscape character which indicate that some of this large tract of land has higher capacity to accommodate built development.
  • Because the objection site is not significantly constrained, contrary to the findings of the PLS, consideration should be given to extending the direction of growth to the north-west of Langport.