SWDP 6/1 - South Worcestershire Development Plan

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/1RepresentationNos.Officer considerationSUBJECT No: SWDP6/1 Land south of Lyppard Hill 3 support,’ 2 oppose; 1 comment1 Support allocation4997, 3907 Agree No changeSevern Trent Water fully supportsthe allocation of SWDP6/1 LandSouth of Lyppard Hill forresidential development. It isconsidered that the redevelopmentthis site wouldcontribute to the developmentneeds of the City. A number oftechnical reports have beenpreviously prepared and submittedas part of the development planprocess, the conclusions fromthese reports are provided. In thiscircumstance it is consideredentirely appropriate that the draftSWDP contemplates theallocation of Land South ofLyppard Hill (SWDP6/1).2 We strongly support the Council’sproposed allocation of Land Southof Lyppard Hill for housing. Thesite is in a very sustainable andaccessible location, close toexisting shops, services andfacilities and public transport.Technical studies on2216 Agree No changeRecommended response1 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtRepresentationNos.Officer considerationRecommended responseSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/1transport/access, flood risk andecology demonstrate that theallocation site is deliverable underthe tests of PPS3, with 100 unitsbeing available, suitable andachievable. Development withinthe extent of the allocationboundaries as indicated in thePlan will retain a significant areato the north within the strategicGreen Network and will alsoenable wider biodiversityenhancement measures to beprovided. Should the Councilconsider it necessary, the draftallocation site at South of LyppardHill (SWDP 6/1) has the potentialto make a greater contributionthan the 100 units identified, inaccordance with the widersustainable policies of the Plan.3Inadequate justification 2216 AgreeShould the Council consider itAs stated in policy SWDP 6, the number ofnecessary, the draft allocation sitedwellings is indicative. No changeat South of Lyppard Hill (SWDPnecessary. Details of scale of housing and6/1) has the potential to make asite layout will be determined by thegreater contribution than the 100development management process. It willunits identified, in accordance withbe important for the owners/ developers toNo change2 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtRepresentationNos.Officer considerationRecommended responseSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/1years.habitat may be detrimental to the site’secological status and contribution to widerbiodiversity network. The availability of theremainder of the former golf course sitewould enable mitigation measures to becarried out that would bring about anenhanced biodiversity value in accordancewith Green Network policy. These factorswill need to be addressed as part of themaster plan for the development.This approach is reflected in policy SDWP3and will be strengthened with the proposedintroduction of a new policy on Biodiversity /Geodiversity to come into line withFramework section 11.4 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtRepresentationNos.Officer considerationRecommended responseSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/15 Not consistent with national 5574 ,380,policy / not positively preparedLoss of sporting facilityConcern over a few sites whichhave had allocation against them:In all these cases there is a loss ofsome sports facilities. Unlessthere is robust evidence for theloss, Sport England would expectthe facilities to be replaced. Ifhowever the loss could bejustified, then some compensationshould made towards the sportswhich are affected.Agree in part:The development of the former sportingfacility is justified as this facility has notbeen in use since 2006.Loss of open space, sport and recreationfacility is covered by SWDP 44 and SWDP45. It is agreed that there must be areplacement facility or contributionsregarding the loss of the sporting facility.SWDP Policy 44 protects open spaces fromdevelopment unless exceptionalcircumstances are satisfied including thatthe land is proven surplus to requirementsand adequate alternative provision isprovided. SWDP policy 45 requires newdevelopment to design in or contribute tothe provision of open space, sport andrecreation.This policy approach is in line withparagraph 70 of the Framework.No change.5 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtRepresentationNos.Officer considerationRecommended responseSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/16 Not consistent with national 380, 373 Disagreepolicy/not positively preparedLoss of open space, sport and recreationloss of recreational opportunity;facility is covered by SWDP 44 and SWDPdelete allocation45, therefore loss of walking area would beProvides for a recreational area - itmitigated ‘through ensuring that proposalsis a valued resource for walkers,for new development contribute to openbeing countryside within the cityspace, sport and recreation provisioncommensurate to the need generated bythe proposals (SWDP44)’ and‘ all housingproposals, including mixed use schemes,will be required to design in or contribute tothe provision of open space, sport andrecreation, together with securearrangements for its long term managementand maintenance (SWDP45)As this allocation is for 10 dwellings ormore, the development would require 0.5hectares/1000 persons to be factored in tothe site design. (Assessment of community/recreational use).This approach is supported by Frameworkparagraph 74.7 Not justified380 Disagreeaccess is an issue as traffic/parking already a problemCounty Highways has indicated that a singleaccess could accommodate up to 100dwellings. Parking is a developmentmanagement consideration- transport andparking issues will be dealt with in theNo change to allocationNo change to allocation6 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtRepresentationNos.Officer considerationRecommended responseSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/1planning application process withconsideration paid to policy SWDP4. Thispolicy requires development proposals tooffer genuine sustainable travel choices toreduce the amount of car traffic andassociated issues.8 Not positively prepared373 Agree in part:Drainage issues;Also perhaps drainage problemsshould be improved as there aremany problems with homes at thetop of Aconbury Close9 Not justifiedUnsustainable;Unclear how building 100dwellings on the site would be abenefit to the area. The areashould be conserved for the futureas many people do not haveaccess to nice areas in Worcesteras everywhere is developed on.373There are no identified flood risks, with theexception of surface water, which will needto be managed using sustainable drainagetechniques, and addressed in accordancewith SWDP policies 3 and 47, which requireSustainable Drainage systems to beincorporated to help reduce surface waterrun off.DisagreeSite development is part of the supply ofhousing to meet housing provision inWorcester, including meeting affordablehousing needs, consistent with FrameworkPara 47.Evidence gathered on this site regardingtransport issues, sport and recreation,access, biodiversity and drainage show thatthis site can accommodate 100 dwellingssuccessfully, providing mitigation measuresare implemented.Technical studies on transport/access, floodNo changeTBA7 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012

SOUTH WORCESTERSHIRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS 2011: SCHEDULE OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED RESPONSESRow No.Issues raised & changessoughtRepresentationNos.Officer considerationRecommended responseSWDP 6 – land south of Lyppard Hill SWDP6/1risk and ecology have been provided by thedeveloper to demonstrate that the allocationsite is deliverable under the tests of PPS3,with 100 units being available, suitable andachievable8 COUNCIL MEETINGS 3 RD JULY 2012