Report is a Massive Help to Prevent Unwanted Development in Wincanton

Dear Nick
My attention has been drawn to your piece on the South Somerset Local Plan - the content of which both interested and bemused me. Bemused because some of the content didn’t quite accord with the record or recollection that I and other SSDC colleagues had of the process. However, I am pleasantly surprised that you now appear to be supporting the Local Plan – there was obviously some doubt on that score as, at the recent meeting of SSDC Full Council to adopt the Local Plan on the 5th March, you, Cllr Marcus Fysh and a couple of the Tory Group chose not to vote in support of the Plan.
The good news is obviously, as you point out, the Local Plan has now been adopted so linked with the fact that SSDC can also demonstrate that it has a 5 year Housing Land supply, the existence of these two elements mean that South Somerset now has the best defence against inappropriate and speculative developments such as we have seen in Wincanton at Dancing Lane, Wincanton Community Hospital and Windmill Farm.
In terms of progress of the Local Plan, we at SSDC have always been candid about the initial setback that the plan suffered in 2013. To correct those deficiencies, it meant incorporating 12 changes or modifications to the plan. Most Local Plans do have to go through a process of change during their journey to adoption. Locally, the SSDC Local Plan compares favourably with other planning authorities in the area – East Devon required 53 modifications to satisfy their Inspector while Mendip DC needed to make 117 changes to Part 1 of their Local Plan to get it adopted.
I certainly concede the point that you made a considerable amount of representations during the process mostly critical of aspects of the Plan which the Inspector had not found wanting or requiring correction like the housing numbers. The most fundamental objection that you submitted at the enquiry related to the whole issue of distribution of housing growth in the various settlements (including Wincanton) across the District. I think at the time you described the Council’s approach as being devoid of imagination and creativity. Your alternative was to suggest that all the District’s total housing growth should be located in a new town on the A303 at Sparkford. It may be useful to reproduce the written representation that you submitted in 2014 for the enquiry which is still available on the SSDC Website;
In order to make the plan sound I believe the council should have carried out a detailed examination of the A303 corridor to identify a suitable site for a "New Town" which could have met Central Governments demands for housing numbers without building on the best quality agricultural land and causing great discomfort to many of our local towns including Yeovil by attempting to force housing numbers on those towns that the population object to and feel upset by. A "New Town" would have given the opportunity for a well planned sustainable town with balanced infrastructure thereby creating the housing numbers required in South Somerset without forcing the existing population to feel that their existing towns are being expanded unnaturally quickly which has fuelled much local resentment. Along the A303 corridor there are not only good road links but also in places the opportunity for rail connections using existing infrastructure.
Fortunately for Sparkford and the many acres of green fields around it, the Inspector didn’t embrace your preferred option and endorsed the SSDC proposed levels of growth and distribution for the various settlements in South Somerset. I do note that you still adhere to this concept as evidenced last week at Area East Committee as you were the only councillor to vote to approve an additional sizeable housing estate in Sparkford.
People may struggle then to understand that if this is your preference why you are now claiming some ownership and credit for the Wincanton policy which envisages the possibility of some housing in the future in town when clearly your preference was to locate all housing growth in this one location (Sparkford).
At the time of the resumed examination in 2014, SSDC was already advocating a housing review in Wincanton in the wording of the modification that was submitted to this hearing so I am somewhat amazed that you are now claiming that it was due to your efforts that this was included in the final policy.
As you are well aware, the wording of these modifications and all the Local Plan policies originated in the SSDC Project Management Board – a multi-party group that oversaw the process - then went through the various Committee structures such as Scrutiny, District Executive(Cabinet) and finally Full Council for approval to go out to formal consultation before being approved for formal submission to the Planning Inspectorate. From the minutes of all these meetings, I cannot find any formal amendment from yourself concerning the wording in the Wincanton policy.
As far as Wincanton is concerned, we at SSDC have been mindful from the outset of the unique situation in the town as far as development is concerned. Because of the current commitments/planning consents principally on New Barns and Deansley Way, only 5 additional dwellings for Wincanton were allocated in the original Local Plan submission covering the period 2006-2028. Due to representations made at the original enquiry (mostly by the development industry), the Inspector took the view in 2013 that there may be a case for considering some development in the town towards the end of the plan period (2028). The modification we put forward as a response in 2014 was to suggest that a formal housing and employment review – the Inspector accepted this point but required more specific timing and duration of this hence the latest wording which requires the review to be completed within a 3 year window – an undertaking that mirrors the wording in other Local Plans that we researched.
As for Wincanton and the future – with the Local Plan now in place, we are better placed to fend off speculative housing applications and one of the main objections to any application outside the development limit now must be that of prematurity ahead of the Housing and Employment review. This review will be very comprehensive and it is necessary to produce a range of Wincanton-focussed strategies ranging from transport, landscape appraisals through to infrastructure assessment cumulating in a Sustainability Assessment of any preferred sites should there be an identified requirement for additional growth towards the end of the plan period. A reference to the work already carried out in other places in the District such as Ilminster and Yeovil will give an indication of the complexity of the exercise.
As this is a statutory review, there will be ample opportunity for everybody to comment during the various consultation stages. The objective here is simply to identify the most appropriate location for growth (if it is needed) rather than having growth locations dictated by developers’ planning applications.
The Local Plan process is the most extensive (and expensive) statutory strategy that any Local Authority produces simply because of the amount of evidence required and the processes involved. I am pleased that South Somerset now has a complete up to date version fully compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework and other legal requirements – a situation that not many of our neighbouring authorities enjoy.
Tim Carroll