1. as part of the South Worcester Development Plan (SWDP) 4 th Mar 2013 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council Update on Housing Development

2. South Worcester Development Plan - Background (1) The three local authorities, Malvern Hills District Council (MHDC), Worcester City Council (WCC) and Wychavon District Council (WDC), established the South Worcester Development Plan (SWDP) as a follow on from the previous South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy (SWJCS). The three local authorities, Malvern Hills District Council (MHDC), Worcester City Council (WCC) and Wychavon District Council (WDC), established the South Worcester Development Plan (SWDP) as a follow on from the previous South Worcestershire Joint Core Strategy (SWJCS). NJK Parish Council (NJKPC) has engaged positively with both bodies, representing the interests of the majority of the parishioners, as evidenced by the petition in 2009 and the NJKPC response to the Preferred Options Document (POD). NJK Parish Council (NJKPC) has engaged positively with both bodies, representing the interests of the majority of the parishioners, as evidenced by the petition in 2009 and the NJKPC response to the Preferred Options Document (POD). Following public consultation, and subsequent amendment, the POD was endorsed by the three individual Councils in July 2012, creating a revised POD. Following public consultation, and subsequent amendment, the POD was endorsed by the three individual Councils in July 2012, creating a revised POD.

3. South Worcester Development Plan - Background (2) The revised POD then led to the production of a Pre- Submission Draft Development Plan, which was presented to the three individual Councils in November 2012. It was at this point that MHDC voted to ‘go it alone’, only to realise their mistake shortly afterwards and consequently vote to return to the SWDP fold. The revised POD then led to the production of a Pre- Submission Draft Development Plan, which was presented to the three individual Councils in November 2012. It was at this point that MHDC voted to ‘go it alone’, only to realise their mistake shortly afterwards and consequently vote to return to the SWDP fold. On the basis of the three Councils endorsement, the Pre-Submission Draft was then turned into the Development Plan Document (DPD) which was published for ‘technical’ consultation (legality and soundness) until 22 February 2013. On the basis of the three Councils endorsement, the Pre-Submission Draft was then turned into the Development Plan Document (DPD) which was published for ‘technical’ consultation (legality and soundness) until 22 February 2013. NJKPC has again formally commented on behalf of the Parish. NJKPC has again formally commented on behalf of the Parish.

4. South Worcester Development Plan - Current Status - Current Status The DPD is currently being prepared for submission to the Secretary of State next month, prior to an independent hearing and Planning Inspectors report. The DPD is currently being prepared for submission to the Secretary of State next month, prior to an independent hearing and Planning Inspectors report. ‘Minor’ changes can still be incorporated prior to submission. ‘Minor’ changes can still be incorporated prior to submission. Councils will consider the Planning Inspectors final report in September/November 2013, agree changes (if required), and then adopt the plan. Councils will consider the Planning Inspectors final report in September/November 2013, agree changes (if required), and then adopt the plan. So what has been achieved with the DPD.... So what has been achieved with the DPD....

5. What has been achieved with the DPD? (1) There will be a ‘significant gap’ to the west of the Norton Road. There will be a ‘significant gap’ to the west of the Norton Road.

6. What has been achieved with the DPD? (2) The area south of the garden centre has been designated ‘Significant Gap’, but….(more later). The area south of the garden centre has been designated ‘Significant Gap’, but….(more later).

7. What has been achieved with the DPD? (3) The road layout has been modified to restrict access to the Norton Road The road layout has been modified to restrict access to the Norton Road

8. What has been achieved with the DPD? (4) The view of the Malvern Hills from Crookbarrow Road has been maintained and a pedestrian and cycle access to the new ‘centre’ established. The view of the Malvern Hills from Crookbarrow Road has been maintained and a pedestrian and cycle access to the new ‘centre’ established.

9. South Worcester Development Plan - Contact with Developers - Contact with Developers In parallel with our dealings with WDC we have continued to engage with the major developer, Welbeck (St Modwen and independent landowners have not been engaged – more later). In parallel with our dealings with WDC we have continued to engage with the major developer, Welbeck (St Modwen and independent landowners have not been engaged – more later). Initial discussions did not go well, but subsequent meetings have been more productive, bringing together the developers ‘master plan’ with the ‘official’ SWDP plan, whilst incorporating the best solution we could achieve for the Parish. Initial discussions did not go well, but subsequent meetings have been more productive, bringing together the developers ‘master plan’ with the ‘official’ SWDP plan, whilst incorporating the best solution we could achieve for the Parish. The Welbeck top level plan now looks remarkably similar to the DPD, but the more detailed plan shows the incorporation of several other features we have been arguing for... The Welbeck top level plan now looks remarkably similar to the DPD, but the more detailed plan shows the incorporation of several other features we have been arguing for...

10. What has been achieved with the Developers? (1) The mixed use area to the north of the Sports Club has been set back from the existing properties more than has been shown on the policy plan.

11. What has been achieved with the Developers? (2) The area to the south of Broomhall Cottages will not be directly adjacent to the road.

12. South Worcester Development Plan - Contact with Developers - Contact with Developers However, there are things we have agreed with Wychavon and the developers which are not yet reflected in their plan... However, there are things we have agreed with Wychavon and the developers which are not yet reflected in their plan...

13. What has been achieved with the Developers? (3) The area to the north Broomhall Cottages will not come all the way to the road (supported by policy)

14. What has been achieved with the Developers? (4) The configuration of the houses in the ‘Significant Gap’ is not policy compliant – (more later)

15. South Worcester Development Plan - Remaining issues (1) - Remaining issues (1) The thick red line on the DPD denotes the development boundary within which the mix of amenities required by the policy needs to reside. The thick red line on the DPD denotes the development boundary within which the mix of amenities required by the policy needs to reside. However, it only shows allocation of amenities on land owned by Welbeck or St Modwen, and land outside their control has been left blank. No involvement has been sought from other landowners within the boundary who might wish to sell their land for development, but not to either Welbeck or St Modwen. This removes several sites within the development boundary from consideration, unnecessarily restricting an already cramped plan further. However, it only shows allocation of amenities on land owned by Welbeck or St Modwen, and land outside their control has been left blank. No involvement has been sought from other landowners within the boundary who might wish to sell their land for development, but not to either Welbeck or St Modwen. This removes several sites within the development boundary from consideration, unnecessarily restricting an already cramped plan further.

16. Remaining Issues (2) Development Boundary. Development Boundary. Independent Landowners with land available for development as identified within the SHLAA. Independent Landowners with land available for development as identified within the SHLAA.

17. South Worcester Development Plan - Remaining issues (3) The location of two ‘Traveller Accommodation’ sites are ‘to be determined through the master planning exercise’. The location of two ‘Traveller Accommodation’ sites are ‘to be determined through the master planning exercise’. Given the current allocation of land within the development boundary, and the constraints imposed by land ownership factors (as previously discussed), it is difficult to see where these sizeable features might reside. Given the current allocation of land within the development boundary, and the constraints imposed by land ownership factors (as previously discussed), it is difficult to see where these sizeable features might reside. The path of least resistance may be to use a site controlled by one of the ‘big two’ developers which is not currently allocated for residential or industrial development, e.g. the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre. The path of least resistance may be to use a site controlled by one of the ‘big two’ developers which is not currently allocated for residential or industrial development, e.g. the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre.

18. South Worcester Development Plan Potential solutions (1) Potential solutions (1) Assuming that only land controlled by the ‘big two’ continues to be considered, items allowed within the ‘Significant Gap’ south of the Garden Centre should be ‘limited to’, rather than ‘including’, otherwise it will become the ‘dumping ground’ for those items that will restrict profit for the two developers. Assuming that only land controlled by the ‘big two’ continues to be considered, items allowed within the ‘Significant Gap’ south of the Garden Centre should be ‘limited to’, rather than ‘including’, otherwise it will become the ‘dumping ground’ for those items that will restrict profit for the two developers. Maintaining the ‘openness’ of the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre is ambiguous and needs clarification; there is debate as to the whether a traveller site maintains ‘openness’ or not. Maintaining the ‘openness’ of the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre is ambiguous and needs clarification; there is debate as to the whether a traveller site maintains ‘openness’ or not. Wychavon Councillors are opposed to any new traveller site being within WDC, since it has met its obligations until 2020. This should be explicit within the plan by identifying the sites within MHDC or WCC. Wychavon Councillors are opposed to any new traveller site being within WDC, since it has met its obligations until 2020. This should be explicit within the plan by identifying the sites within MHDC or WCC.

19. Potential solutions (2) ‘Limited to’, rather than ‘including’. ‘Limited to’, rather than ‘including’. Definition of ‘openness’? Definition of ‘openness’?

20. South Worcester Development Plan - Remaining issues (again) (1) The 40 houses within the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre are to be placed ‘along the line of the existing dwellings’. The 40 houses within the ‘Significant Gap’ to the south of the Garden Centre are to be placed ‘along the line of the existing dwellings’. We are in discussion with Welbeck to find a solution that will provide the necessary security for the sports facilities, without impacting too much on the existing dwellings, whilst also maintaining the openness of the ‘Significant Gap’. We are in discussion with Welbeck to find a solution that will provide the necessary security for the sports facilities, without impacting too much on the existing dwellings, whilst also maintaining the openness of the ‘Significant Gap’. We are also trying to re-instate allotments in the plan, which seem to have disappeared as various revisions have been incorporated. We are also trying to re-instate allotments in the plan, which seem to have disappeared as various revisions have been incorporated. The solution may be something like this... The solution may be something like this...

21. Remaining Issues (again) (2) New houses ‘alongside the northern boundary of the Significant Gap’. New houses ‘alongside the northern boundary of the Significant Gap’. Possible allotments. Possible allotments.

22. South Worcester Development Plan - What happens next? - What happens next? NJKPC continue to lobby for answers and solutions to the remaining issues, however time is running out; there are no further opportunities for public consultation unless the Planning Inspector directs ‘major’ amendments to the plan. NJKPC continue to lobby for answers and solutions to the remaining issues, however time is running out; there are no further opportunities for public consultation unless the Planning Inspector directs ‘major’ amendments to the plan. Despite the lack of further public consultation events, you still have the right to write to your Councillor (Rob Adams), the Chair of WDC (Paul Middleborough - who lives in the village), or your MP (Peter Luff). Despite the lack of further public consultation events, you still have the right to write to your Councillor (Rob Adams), the Chair of WDC (Paul Middleborough - who lives in the village), or your MP (Peter Luff). Councils will consider the Planning Inspectors final report, agree changes (if required) and adopt – September to November 2013. Councils will consider the Planning Inspectors final report, agree changes (if required) and adopt – September to November 2013.

23. South Worcester Development Plan Summary Parish Council approach (under mandate from the parishioners) remains one of engagement rather than confrontation, with both Wychavon Council and Developers. Parish Council approach (under mandate from the parishioners) remains one of engagement rather than confrontation, with both Wychavon Council and Developers. We will continue to negotiate to achieve the best possible physical and visual separation of Norton from the new development, “such that the physical and visual separation of the distinct individual settlements within the Parish is maintained” [extract from our 2009 petition wording]. We believe we have achieved a lot, but we are running out of time. We will continue to negotiate to achieve the best possible physical and visual separation of Norton from the new development, “such that the physical and visual separation of the distinct individual settlements within the Parish is maintained” [extract from our 2009 petition wording]. We believe we have achieved a lot, but we are running out of time. We will keep everyone informed through The Parish Magazine, fliers and events like this. We will keep everyone informed through The Parish Magazine, fliers and events like this.

24. Discussion / Questions