Draft Local Plan - Supplementary Consultation

Nurton Developments considers it important that the local community identifies the priorities in terms of infrastructure requirements at Hockley Heath. As such, Nurton Developments undertook a community consultation exercise in September 2017 in order to seek the views of the local community regarding proposals for development of Site 25, Land south of School Road, Hockley Heath. For the purposes of the consultation, to give the site a recognisable local identity, the site was named 'Sadlers Covey'. Around 80 people attended the consultation event and feedback was also submitted via the consultation website - www.sadlers-covey.co.uk. A summary of the consultation feedback is attached and sets out Nurton Developments' commitments to address issues raised by the local community.

The consultation feedback summary identifies that school-related parking, highway safety and volume of traffic on School Road were the main issues raised. As such Nurton Developments would agree that there is an infrastructure requirement to improve safety on School Lane, taking into account the cumulative volume of traffic generated, with particular regard to issues with parking at school pick-up and drop-off times. Nurton Developments has already commissioned transport consultants to undertake investigations of these issues. A parking demand survey has been undertaken and this has identified options for parking provision and road safety enhancements on School Lane that could be provided in conjunction with the residential development. This survey work is part of the ongoing transport assessment and masterplanning process and will be reported to the Council in due course. However at this time Nurton Developments can say that solutions will be put forward to address this infrastructure requirement.

Capacity at the local primary school was also raised as an issue in the community consultation. Nurton Developments has investigated this further in liaison with the Hockley Heath Academy and intends to invest in the infrastructure required to accommodate the additional pupils generated by the development of Site 25, either through s106 or Community Infrastructure Levy 'contribution in kind'. Options for expansion on, and potential improvements to the layout of, the school site are being explored and consideration is also being given to school-related development on Site 25.

No doubt the local community will raise a number of infrastructure requirements in response to this Local Plan consultation. We would refer you to the attached consultation feedback summary where many requirements have been noted and are to be dealt with. We would be happy to consider the further infrastructure requirements raised through this consultation.

Yes. Nurton Developments, as site promoter, supports the allocation of Site 25. Nurton Developments has previously submitted a Vision Document (Local Plan Consultation, February 2017) to demonstrate that the site is developable and free of major constraints. The site would deliver c100 dwellings in a location adjacent and well related to the built up area of Hockley Heath, within convenient walking distance of a range of village facilities. In particular, being located opposite the village primary school, the site would offer opportunities for walking to school and thus would minimise car travel.

Hockley Heath is a sustainable location for growth and this development would support the existing range of village facilities (e.g. pubs, restaurants, a café, take-away establishments, a convenience shop, butchers, post office, dentist, a physiotherapy clinic, hairdressers, various other retail shops and a community hall).

The site is very well contained by existing built development and the Stratford upon Avon Canal, which has a substantial visual buffer of mature trees along it. As such one of the site's main strengths is that the Green Belt could be re-drawn to a robust and defensible boundary, using readily recognisable features that are likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

As described in response to Question 19, the site offers an opportunity to resolve issues with on-street parking for the primary school and potentially provide a location for off street parking as well as expansion of the primary school.

Due to the scale of the site it will play an important contribution in meeting the housing needs shortfall, particularly in the short- and medium-term. A development of c100 dwellings is likely to deliver 50 dwellings per annum with development being commenced within 2 years of the adoption of the Local Plan. As such it can make a more immediate contribution to meeting housing needs than some of the much larger allocations, which take longer to come forward and require substantial infrastructure improvement up-front.

The draft concept masterplan for the site is that put forward by Nurton Developments to the Local Plan consultation in February 2017. Since then, the community consultation undertaken in September 2017 put forward 3 different masterplan options for consultation. The masterplanning process is ongoing and is being informed by responses to consultation and by various environmental studies, so it will be subject to change. However Nurton Developments supports the general principles set out alongside the draft concept masterplan and site analysis in the consultation documents.

Nurton Developments considers that the correct site (Site 25) has been chosen for allocation at Hockley Heath and none of the red sites at Hockley Heath should be included for allocation. A summary is provided below of the reasons why each of these red sites should not be viewed favourably for allocation.

Site 13/121 - The development of this site would result in an incursion of built form into open countryside where no permanent physical features are present to establish a strong and defensible Green Belt boundary. The trees along the site boundary do not provide a readily recognisable feature that is likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The site also has some constraints including Tree Preservation Orders and habitats of wildlife interest.

Site 14 - Given the presence of further low-density development to the south, it would be difficult to establish a defensible boundary to the Green Belt in this location. The site is affected by Tree Preservation Orders and a locally-listed building and is also within the setting of a listed building.

Site 38 - Development of this site would extend Hockley Heath into open countryside to the north and east where it would be very difficult to establish a logical and defensible Green Belt boundary. Only field boundaries separate this site from the wider countryside and they do not provide a readily recognisable feature that is likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site 57 - This small site could only accommodate 4 dwellings and would require release from the Green Belt. It does not offer any defensible boundaries to which Green Belt boundaries could be re-drawn.

Site 120 - This site is detached from the main part of the settlement and does not relate well to the form of the settlement. Even if it were considered in conjunction with adjacent land for allocation, which would result in a very large and disproportionate urban extension to Hockley Heath, it would still lack a defensible Green Belt boundary. It would also reduce the gap between the village and
Blythe Valley Park/Cheswick Green, therefore conflicting with one of the main purposes of the Green Belt.

Site 145 - This site is remote from the built-up-area of Hockley Heath and would result in an isolated incursion into the countryside. It would not be possible to re-draw the Green Belt boundary to a logical and defensible boundary in this location.

Site 180 - The site extends out from Hockley Heath and does not relate well to the built-up-area of the settlement. The development would appear as an intrusion into the countryside and the site and lacks any defensible boundaries to which to re-draw the Green Belt.

Site 208 - This site is remote from the built-up-area of Hockley Heath and would result in an isolated incursion into the countryside. It would not be possible to re-draw the Green Belt boundary to a logical and defensible boundary in this location.

Site 416 - This site is poorly related to the form of the settlement, being located at the end of a ribbon of development, which it would continue into the countryside.

Site 417 - This site is detached from the main part of the settlement and does not relate well to the form of the settlement. It comprises an extensive area of countryside, development of which would be disproportionate to the village, appearing as urban sprawl. It lacks a defensible Green Belt boundary. Only field boundaries separate this site from the wider countryside and they do not provide a readily recognisable feature that is likely to be permanent, as required by paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It would also reduce the gap between the village and Blythe Valley Park/Cheswick Green, therefore conflicting with one of the main purposes of the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, and since Site 25 is free of constraints, well related to the form of the village, would represent a proportionate expansion of the village and is well-contained by strong and defensible boundaries, Site 25 is a justified choice for allocation over these other red sites.