Fillable WLPC Local Plan Partial Review Response March 2017 (Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank WLPC Local Plan Partial Review Response March 2017 (Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online WELSHAMPTON AND LYNEAL PARISH COUNCIL pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

WLPC Local Plan Partial Review Response March 2017 (Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council)

On average this form takes 65 minutes to complete

The WLPC Local Plan Partial Review Response March 2017 (Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council) form is 17 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 0 check-boxes
  • 260 other fields

Country of origin: UK
File type: PDF

Use our library of forms to quickly fill and sign your Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council forms online.

BROWSE WELSHAMPTON AND LYNEAL PARISH COUNCIL FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
1
Shropshire Local Plan Review - Issues and Strategic Options
Introduction
We advise you read through all the information provided in support of this consultation
prior to starting your response. We would also advise you to have a copy of the Issues and
Strategic Options Consultation Document available to refer to as you work through the
questions.
The questions are included within the Issues and Strategic Options Consultation Document
to allow you to start thinking about them as you go. This response form is broken down into
the same 3 sections as the Issues and Strategic Options Consultation Document to try and
help you simultaneously navigate the information and response form.
All questions marked with a red asterisk* require an answer to be provided.
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may
be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information
legislation (primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 1998
and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).
Shropshire Local Plan Review - Issues and Strategic Options
Respondent information
*1. Please provide the following information.
Please note: we cannot accept anonymous responses.
Your name:
Company name (if relevant):
Position (if relevant):
Address:
Postcode:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
2. If you are responding on behalf of a client, please provide the following information.
Client name:
Client address:
Client postcode:
Client phone number:
Client email address:
Rebecca Turner
Welshampton & Lyneal Parish Council
Clerk
The Old Police House, Nesscliffe, Shrewsbury
SY4 1DB
01743 741611
clerk@welshamptonandlynea-pc.gov.uk
2
Shropshire Local Plan Review - Issues and Strategic Options
Housing requirement and strategic distribution options
*3. Do you consider the housing need identified in Shropshire between 2016 and 2036
within the Full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (FOAHN) is appropriate and in line
with national guidance?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
Please use this space to make any comments about this:
*4. Which housing requirement option would you prefer to see used for the Local Plan
Review?
Housing Requirement Option 1: ‘Moderate Growth’
Housing Requirement Option 2: ‘Significant Growth’
Housing Requirement Option 3: ‘High Growth’
Don't know / no opinion
Please use the space below to explain your reasons for your choice.
You can also use this space to let us know if you think there are any other housing
requirement options that the Council should consider.
3
*5. Which strategic distribution option would you prefer to see used for the Local Plan
Review?
Strategic Distribution Option A: ‘Current Policy - Rural Rebalance’
Strategic Distribution Option B: ‘Urban Focus’
Strategic Distribution Option C: ‘Balanced Growth’
Don't know / no opinion
Please use the space below to explain your reasons for your choice.
You can also use this space to let us know if you think there are any other strategic
distribution options that the Council should consider.
Shropshire Local Plan Review - Issues and Strategic Options
Economic growth and employment
Strategic Options for Economic Growth
6. How might Shropshire best exploit these new investment opportunities to improve
the economic performance of the County and what challenges might be encountered
when seeking to achieve this?
Growth should go where the transport, infrastructure and jobs are.
4
7. What other opportunities / challenges for economic growth might be encountered
in the County over the period to 2036?
*8. Which of the following Strategic Options would provide the most appropriate level
of aspiration for the growth of the Shropshire economy?
Option 1: Significant Growth
Option 2: High Growth
Option 3: Productivity Growth
Don't know / no opinion
Please set out the reasons for your choice and outline the opportunities and
challenges for the Shropshire economy.
Or, set out an alternative Strategic Option outlining the key characteristics of this
option for the growth of the Shropshire economy.
Economic Objectives for Shropshire
*9. Do you agree that these strategic objectives should continue to influence the
economic strategy in the Local Plan for the period to 2036?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
Please consider whether:
Any of these strategic objectives might be amended to better address the needs of
the Shropshire economy;
Other strategic objectives might be identified in the Local Plan.
Although question delivery of event this 'status quo'. This option (No1) is
aspirational but may not be a 'SMART' target as Shropshire lack competitive
advantage. There is no evidence to suggest it will outperform the UK. Growth must
be consistent with Bank of England Growth projection. The current policy is not
Shropshire specific and must reference strengths that the county could exploit eg
see Q.7.
5
Range and Choice of Remaining Allocations
*10. Do each of the 19 sites detailed make a positive contribution to the employment
land supply in the County?
Yes - all sites
Yes - some sites
No
Don't know / no opinion
Might some, or all of these sites be used in other ways to make a more positive
contribution to the Local Plan strategy over the period to 2036?
Protecting existing employment land
*11. Does the protection provided to existing employment areas as a source of
serviced and readily available land make a positive contribution to the supply of
employment land and premises in Shropshire?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
Please consider whether:
The level of protection provided to existing employment areas shown in the Authority
Monitoring Report is appropriate.
The approach to protecting existing employment areas might be changed or
improved in the partial review of the Local Plan.
We do not want agricultural land to be lost to other different employment uses. In
view of current uncertainty of the agricultural business, occasioned by Brexit/subsidy
withdrawal, agricultural land needs to be safeguarded.
6
Shropshire Local Plan Review - Issues and Strategic Options
Rural policy
Identification of Community Hubs
*12. Do you agree with the approach and/or the methodology proposed to identify
Community Hubs?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
Identification of Community Clusters
*13. Do you think any of the existing Community Clusters identified in Appendix 3
should no longer have Community Cluster status?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
If yes, please specify the community cluster(s) and any community support you are
aware of for this proposal:
*14. Do you think any additional Community Clusters should be formed?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
If yes, please specify the community cluster(s) and any community support you are
aware of for this proposal:
Please use the space below to explain your reasons for your choice.
Points scoring system does not cover some basic essential prerequisites for
development. This includes mains sewerage, transport network and infrastructure
for modern life (broadband/mobile coverage for example). Without these essential
basics, settlements should not even be allowed to be assessed on a points basis as
part of the process of identifying hubs.
Welshampton and Lyneal Cluster. Both settlements have none of the essential
basics outlined in Q12 above. Lyneal has none of the facilities in the points exercise
(App 2) and Welshampton lacks essential basics as well. Please see box after Q15
also.
7
Criteria for the Community Hub Policy
*15. The table below provides a summary of some of the criteria which may be
included within the Community Hub policy.
Please provide your opinion on the importance of each criteria, using the following
ranking scale:
(1) Unimportant; (2) Neutral; (3) Important; or (4) Very Important
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1. Development proposals must have regard to relevant
policies on Sustainable Design and Development
Principles.
2. Development should be of a scale and design that is
sympathetic to the character of the settlement and its
environs.
3. Development should be well and clearly related to the
existing built form of a settlement and not result in an
isolated form of development.
4. Development should reflect design criteria and policies
identified within relevant Neighbourhood Plans and
Community Led Plans.
5a. Development proposals to extend a Community Hub
beyond its natural built form will normally consist of a
small group of dwellings and include a range of housing
sizes, types and tenures.
5b. Development proposals should protect the integrity of
any strategically important gaps between settlements.
6. There should be sufficient infrastructure capacity, or
scope to address or alleviate any infrastructure
constraints to appropriately meet development needs.
7. Sites of five or more dwellings should include an
appropriate mix* of types and sizes of housing; and meet
local needs for
affordable and family housing based on any local
evidence
8. Non-residential sites should be designed to
complement their setting and meet the needs of their
intended occupiers.
9a. The cumulative impact of residential development
proposals is a significant policy consideration.
Cumulatively, residential development proposals** must
complement the nature, character and size of a
settlement.
9b. Decisions on cumulative impact will have regard to
the cumulative increase to the size of the settlement.
9c. Decisions on cumulative impact will have regard to
the number of other development proposals in close
proximity or adjacent to the proposal site, in seeking to
avoid the over-development of settlements
9d. Decisions on cumulative impact will have regard to
the benefits arising from the development.
10. The cumulative impact of non- residential
development is also a significant policy consideration.
Cumulatively, non-residential development** must
complement the nature, character and size of a
settlement.
Don’t know /
no opinion
8
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
11. Allocations made within Community Hub settlements
in the SAMDev Plan are considered appropriate sites for
development.
12. Development within the Green Belt is generally
considered inappropriate, apart from the specific
exceptions referenced within national policy.
13. Development should respect the qualities of the local
landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual
quality.
14. Development should have a positive effect on any
relevant heritage designations.
15. Development should have a positive effect on any
relevant environmental designations.
* When determining an appropriate mix of types, sizes, and tenures, regard should be given
to the need to provide appropriate family accommodation, available local evidence, and the
outcomes of community consultation.
** In combination with any existing commitments, allocations or completions since the 31
March 2016.
16. Use this space to identify any additional criteria you consider would be beneficial
for community hubs:
Criteria for the Community Clusters
*17. The table below provides a summary of some of the criteria which may be
included within the Community Cluster policy.
Please provide your opinion on the importance of each criteria, using the following
ranking scale:
(1) Unimportant; (2) Neutral; (3) Important; or (4) Very Important.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1. Development proposals must have regard to relevant
policies on Sustainable Design and Development
Principles.
2. Development should be of a scale and design that is
sympathetic to the character of the settlement and its
environs.
3. Development should be well and clearly related to the
existing built form of a settlement and not result in an
isolated form of development.
4. Development should reflect design criteria and policies
identified within relevant Neighbourhood Plans and
Community Led Plans.
Don’t know /
no opinion
Don’t know /
no opinion
Cont from Q13. Welshampton and Lyneal have both delivered what was envisaged
in SAMDev and have reached limits of their capacity. There is no protection against
over development and even through this has been raised as a concern on planning
applications it has not bee taken into account of by the Planning Authority. Both
Welshampton and Lyneal wish to be designated as Open Countryside.
9
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
5. There should be sufficient infrastructure capacity, or
scope to address or alleviate any infrastructure
constraints to appropriately meet development needs.
6a. Development should either be located on small scale
infill sites or represent conversions of existing buildings
within or adjoining the settlement. Infill sites will consist of
land usually with built development on adjacent land on
three sides.
6b. The rural area between Community Clusters is
considered countryside. The integrity of any strategically
important gaps between settlements will be protected.
7. When considering the size, type and tenure of housing,
all residential development should have regard to the
need to provide appropriate family accommodation;
available local evidence; and the outcomes of community
consultation.
8. Non-residential sites should be designed to
complement their setting and meet the needs of their
intended occupiers.
9a. The cumulative impact of residential development
proposals is a significant policy consideration.
Cumulatively, residential development proposals* must
complement the nature, character and size of a
settlement.
9b. Decisions on cumulative impact will have regard to
the cumulative increase to the size of the settlement.
9c. Decisions on cumulative impact will have regard to
the number of other development proposals in close
proximity or adjacent to the proposal site, in seeking to
avoid the over-development of settlements.
9d. Decisions on cumulative impact will have regard to
the benefits arising from the development.
10. The cumulative impact of non- residential
development is also a significant policy consideration.
Cumulatively, non- residential development* must
complement the nature, character and size of a
settlement.
11. Allocations made within a Community Cluster
settlement in the SAMDev Plan are considered
appropriate sites for development.
12. Development within the Green Belt is generally
considered inappropriate, apart from the specific
exceptions referenced within national policy.
13. Development should respect the qualities of the local
landscape and be sympathetic to its character and visual
quality.
14. Development should have a positive effect on any
relevant heritage designations.
15. Development should have a positive effect on any
relevant environmental designations.
* In combination with any existing commitments, allocations or completions since the 31
March 2016.
Don’t know /
no opinion
10
18. Use this space to identify any additional criteria you consider would be beneficial
for community clusters:
*19. Do you think that criteria based policies for Community Hubs and Community
Clusters will strike an appropriate balance between providing certainty on the types
and levels of development whilst also maintaining choice and competition?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
Please use this space to make any comments about this:
*20. Do you agree that a consistent approach of identifying no development
boundaries within Community Hub and Community Cluster settlements is
appropriate?
Yes
No
Don't know / no opinion
Please use this space to make any comments about this:
11
Residential Development in the wider Countryside
21. What local criteria, if any, do you consider should be applied in addition to those
produced at the national level for residential development in the wider countryside?
Non-Residential Development in the wider Countryside
22. What local criteria, if any, do you consider should be applied in addition to those
produced at the national level for non-residential development in the wider
countryside?
Policy not objective. Key concerns:
1. Rural Worker Housing - ok in principle but how is this occupancy condition
enforced in reality.
2. Exceptional design criteria too subjective.
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

WLPC Local Plan Partial Review Response March 2017 (Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 15 July 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document