There has been much discussion about the N&SDC’s proposals for a significant expansion of the town. Despite over 200 responses to their original proposals, the District Council pressed ahead with its plans for new housing estates of 4-5 bedroomed houses on the west and south of the town.

The Town Council has objected to these plans by pointing out that these plans are ‘unsound’ The Town Council’s subnissions to the Inspeectirate are below.

Southwell Town Council considers the DPD to be UNSOUND on four issues 1 – the density of dwellings on sites  2) Site specific issues 3) Southwell Bypass 4 ) Southwell Cemetery

1  Density of  dwellings on sites

We consider the DPD Report for Southwell unsound as it generally applies a fixed density of 30 dwellings/ha.  We would recommend a considerably higher density on housing sites closer to the town centre (eg So/Ho/6, So/Ho/7) provided this results in the removal of the housing allocations on the greenfield sites identified in 2b below.  This would be more sustainable, especially for transport purposes, and it would add to the economic vibrancy of the town centre.  These town centre sites would be more suited to smaller dwellings and apartments, which is what is needed in the town, according to Policy So/HN/1 Southwell Housing Need.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued in March 2012 recommends that in order to boost significantly the supply of houses, local planning authorities should ‘set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.’  This is precisely what we are recommending for Southwell.

Core Policy 3 of the Core Spatial Strategy states that ‘Densities of 30 dwellings per hectare, or more (emphasis added) will be set for other locations in the Allocations and Development Management DPD’.  The Town Council’s representations provided a basis for applying this policy on an individual site basis within Southwell but the DPD Report continues to apply the minimum density of 30 dw/ha across all allocated sites.

In fact Newark and Sherwood DC have followed these national and local policies in recent years in housing sites near to the centre of Southwell :  Abbey Mews, The Burgage, – 17 dw on 0.17 ha = 97.7 dw/ha Palmer’s Court, Easthorpe    – 24 dw on 0.6 ha   = 37.5 dw/ha

Proposal – We therefore feel it would be more sound to apply this policy of variable density on a site specific basis in Southwell as recommended by the Town Council and other consultees rather than the blanket approach adopted in the DPD Report.

2.  Site Specific Issues

A.  Southwell Housing Site 6  (So/Ho/6) The Burgage

We consider the DPD entry unsound as it takes insufficient account of the following policy.

1. Policy So/HN/1, Southwell Housing Need, identifies the significant shortfall in smaller properties including 1 or 2 bedroom flats and the need to accommodate an ageing population.  We strongly believe that higher density housing on this site would help to meet that objective.

2.  The DPD entry has failed to take into account the additional  land available behind So/Ho/6 (Tuck’s Yard), which could further increase the number of dwellings on this site, (from 25 to 60 dw.)

Proposal – There should be higher density housing and Tucks Yard should be added to this site.

B.  Three gateway sites –

Housing Site 2 (So/Ho/2)  Halloughton Rd South,

Housing Site 4  (So/Ho/4)  Kirklington Rd.

Housing Site 5  (So/Ho/5) Lower Kirklington Rd/Southwell Nature Trail.

We consider the DPD entry unsound in identifying these three greenfield sites, all in sensitive locations, when it is possible to achieve the housing numbers by using the ‘brownfield’ site, off Crew Lane, So/As/3 and, additionally,by accepting a policy of higher density on sites closer to the town centre, namely So/Ho/3, So/Ho/6 and So/Ho/7.

So/Ho/2  Halloughton Rd South The suggested development of So/Ho/2 is particularly unsound.  The assessment of the site is inaccurate.  There is evidence to show that it will not be possible to mitigate surface water from what is called ‘Spring Field’ to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on runoff.  We are surprised that a Flood Risk Assessment is planned for So/Ho/3, where there is no history of water problems but not for So/Ho/2 which has a long history of water problems.

So/Ho/4  Kirklington Rd Development on this greenfield site would be unsound as it was not allocated in the draft proposals.  The site covers land used for allotments, already in short supply in the town.  There is no proposal for new allotments despite the Core Strategy policy of seeking to augment supply.  There is current underprovision, yet the allocation of this site reduces the provision of allotments by 50%.  Furthermore the site is not on a bus route and is not sustainable.

So/Ho/5  Lower Kirklington Rd/Southwell Nature Trail The report shows this to be a low density site, indicating large dwellings for which there is no identified need.  On the other hand Policy So/Ho/HN/1 points out Southwell has significant shortfalls in smaller properties, especially 1/2 bedroom flats and 2 bedroom bungalows.  There is also no intention to improve the highway network identified in the District Council’s CIL spending plans, despite the fact that the DPD Report suggests there is provision for improvement.  The site is unsustainable as it is further away from the  town than the other allocated sites and does not lie on a bus route.

Proposal – There should be no development on all three gateway sites.

C. Southwell Mixed Site  (So/Mu/1 site) Church St

With regard to this site, we consider the DPD Report unsound because it takes insufficient account of the following CSS policies.  In our opinion there should be no development in this very sensitive location.

1.  Core Strategy Area Policy SoAP1   Role and Setting of Southwell

There is no recognition in the DPD of the potential benefits to the local economy of developing this site as a Heritage Park and as an additional tourism attraction.  Southwell Heritage Trust has submitted a planning application for the site to be preserved as a Heritage Park, which would exploit the acknowledged historical importance of the site.

2.  Policy So/PV (Southwell Protected Views)

The site falls within the cone of protected views.  Housing here would have a negative impact on views of Southwell Minster,the Archbishop’s Palace and the prebendal buildings from the south and south east.

3.  Policy Policy DM 8 (Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment) Development would fail to secure the protection of valued heritage assets and would mean further archaeology could not take place once building was carried out.

4.  Policy So/MOA (Southwell Open Areas) This policy identifies open land which plays an important part in defining Southwell’s form and structure.  Much of So/Mu/1 was originally part of the Archbishops of York Deer Park, designated as a Main Open Area on the Proposals Map.

Proposal – The site should be added to the Main Open Area and there should be no development in this very sensitive location.

3.  Southwell Bypass

We regard the DPD entry unsound as there is no evidence that Nottinghamshire County Council will ever implement the Southwell Bypass scheme.  NCC consulted upon the retention of the bypass when developing their previous Local Transport Plan.  There was overwhelming local support for its deletion but the NCC continue to retain the line on the map.

The continued presence of the bypass on the plan has an significant effect on potential housing numbers in So/Ho/7 and So/As/3.  These two sites are potential sites for high density dwellings as they are close to transport links and closer to the town centre than the allocated gateway sites So/Ho/2, So/Ho/4 and So/Ho/5.

Furthermore there is no evidence that a bypass will help to facilitate the delivery of the employment allocations in So/E2 and So/E3.  Existing access to these two sites is quite satisfactory at present.

Proposal – The Bypass line should be deleted.

4.  Southwell Cemetery – increased provision

STC supported the earlier DPD proposal for an extension to the cemetery, to be located near the recently closed cemetery.  There seems no justification for removing the cemetery extension from the latest DPD map.

Proposal – The Southwell Cemetery should be reinstated.

   Leave a comment