Matter 15 Green Wedges, Open Space a (PDF)

Independent Examination of the
Central Lincolnshire Local Plan
Response to Inspectors’ Matters, Issues
and Questions for Examination
Matter 15: Green Wedges, Open Space and
Green Infrastructure

Thonock and Somerby Estates

savills.co.uk

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

Contents
1.
2.
3.

Introduction
Inspectors’ Questions
Conclusions

1
2
6

Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5

Thonock and Somerby Estates

Site Plan Horsley Road
CORE 9 Topic Paper
Gainsborough Inset from Open Space Audit (April 2016)
CLLP Online Mapping – Open Space Provision
Inspector’s Report - West Lindsey Local Plan (2005)

October 2016

1

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

1.

Introduction

1.1.

This Hearing Statement has been submitted on behalf of Thonock and Somerby Estate (TSE) as part of
the Examination in Public on the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) Submission Draft Document.
The Statement highlights and where necessary expands upon representations submitted by TSE at the
Draft and Submission stages of the CLLP.

1.2.

As the most significant landowner in and around Gainsborough, Thonock and Somerby Estates (TSE)
wish to be a pro-active participant in the Local Plan process and building on their established
relationships with the Lincolnshire Planning Authorities intend to play a full and active role in ensuring the
wider planning strategy and framework for Gainsborough is deliverable in the timescales envisaged by
the planning process.

1.3.

The statement relates to the Inspectors’ Matters, Issues and Questions, providing further detail on Matter
15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure.

1.4.

This response is focussed on the designation of land at Horsley Road (see Appendix 1 – Site Plan) as
‘Important Open Space’ under Policy LP23, which is considered to be unsound as it stands.

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

1

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

2.

Inspectors’ Questions
Issue 15b – Local Green Space and Other Important Open Space – Policy LP23

2.1.

(Q11) What criteria have been used to inform the designation of land as ‘Important Open Space’?
Are they justified?

2.1.1.

The criteria for designating land as ‘Important Open Space’ (IOS) is not considered to be justified.

2.1.2.

In plan making, the NPPF requires plans to be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence
1
about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area . It is not
considered that the emerging plan demonstrates up-to-date or robust evidence to support the reallocation
of land at Horsley Road as IOS.

2.1.3.

We understand the current evidence base to support the proposed IOS allocations within the Central
Lincolnshire Submission Draft Plan to be:




Policy LP23 Local Green Spaces and other Important Open Space Evidence Report (2016)
West Lindsey Local Plan (2006)
West Lindsey Local Plan Public Inquiry Topic Paper – Policy CORE 9 – Retention of Important
th
Open Spaces and Frontages (15 November 2004)

2.1.4.

Relating to Open Space, there is also the Central Lincolnshire Open Space Audit and Provision
Assessment (April 2016). This does not relate or refer to the IOS designations, but provides details of the
open space hierarchy and current provision within Lincolnshire.

2.1.5.

The LP23 Evidence Report outlines the rationale for the reallocation of existing IOS as follows:
“The proposed approach to existing open spaces at the Further Draft Stage was to assess these sites
against the LGS criteria contained within the NPPF. This approach has been dismissed due to the
considerable resources that would be needed to undertake a thorough assessment, and due to the
requirement in the NPPF for local communities, rather than local authorities, to identify sites for LGS
designation. The approach for the Proposed Submission stage has therefore been to undertake a desk
based review of existing open space designations in the adopted Local Plans (Visual Amenity Areas in
North Kesteven, Important Open Spaces in West Lindsey and, Critical Natural Assets, Basic Natural
Stock and Functional Open Spaces in Lincoln) to check whether their status has changed since they were
first designated (for example, whether the site has been developed for another use, such as housing) or
whether the site is proposed for an alternative use in the Proposed Submission Local Plan.”

1

Paragraph 158, National Planning Policy Framework

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

2

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

2.1.6.

In short, following a desk based review, if a site was neither developed or proposed for allocation, original
IOS designations have been reallocated within the emerging plan with no further criteria based
assessment to demonstrate their suitability for allocation.

2.1.7.

The evidence base for the allocation of IOS must therefore stem from existing Policy CORE 9 contained
within the West Lindsey Local Plan (2006). The justification for this Policy is to protect the most
important open spaces from infill housing and development pressure.

2.1.8.

While the CORE 9 Topic Paper (2004) (See Appendix 2) provides some further information on the
justification for the allocation, no substantive information is given, or assessment undertaken that
demonstrates the rationale for allocating individual sites, such as Horsley Road. This indicates that the
selection process has been a relatively subjective exercise.

2.1.9.

The Topic Paper further states that many of the IOS designations were carried through from the 1998
2
Local Plan meaning a considerable time period has lapsed without a robust assessment undertaken to
demonstrate whether individual sites still fulfil an important open space function.

2.1.10.

This is not considered to be a robust approach or one that is consistent with National Policy that requires
plans to be based on up to date and relevant evidence. It is considered, therefore, to ensure the plan is
sound, a comprehensive criteria-based assessment and methodology for the designation of land as IOS
should be undertaken.

2.2.

(Q12) Is the designation of land as ‘Important Open Space’ consistent with the Framework, which
seeks to rule out new development on Local Green Space where the bullet-point list at Paragraph
77 is satisfied?

2.2.1.

The IOS allocation is a stand alone designation to that of Local Green Space with no comprehensive
criteria based evidence base to support the allocation.

2.2.2.

As stated within 2.1.2 the NPPF requires plans to be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant
3
evidence and it not considered that the IOS designation demonstrates up-to-date or robust evidence to
support the allocation of land.

2.2.3.

The Framework clearly states that the designation of land as Local Green Space should be consistent
with the local planning of sustainable development and only be designated when a Local Plan is prepared
or reviewed and be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. The designation should meet the
following tests outlined in Paragraph 77:





2
3

Where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
Where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local
significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including
as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of wildlife; and
Where the green area concerned is local in character and not an extensive tract of land.

CORE 9 Topic Paper, paragraphs 4.1 - 4.3
Paragraph 158, National Planning Policy Framework

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

3

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

2.2.4.

The Paragraph 77 tests provide a broad ranging set of criteria for which land can be protected as open
space. It is not clear how the areas designated as IOS differ from those allocated as Local Green Space.
It is also unclear what the specific rationale behind the allocation of each individual area of IOS is and
what attributes they possess to warrant the control of development.

2.2.5.

Furthermore, it is not considered that the criteria based element relating to IOS within LP23 is consistent
with the Framework. In paragraph 154 of the NPPF, Local Plans are required to set out opportunities for
development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where. Only policies that provide
a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal should be included in
the plan.

2.2.6.

Policy LP23 outlines that IOS is safeguarded from development unless the following tests are met:
a.
b.
c.

There is an identified over provision of that particular type of open space in the community
area and the site is not required for alternative recreational uses;
Suitable alternative open space can be provided on a replacement site or by enhancing
existing open space serving the community area; and
There are no significant detrimental impacts on amenity, the character of the surrounding
area, ecology and any heritage assets.

2.2.7.

This correlates with paragraphs 73 and 74 of the NPPF which relates to existing open space, sports and
recreation and the need to provide robust and up to date assessments of the needs for open space,
sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision.

2.2.8.

It should that land at Horsley Road is not identified within The Central Lincolnshire Open Space Audit
and Provision Assessment (April 2016) which seeks qualifies all open space types within the area from
public parks and gardens to natural and semi-natural green space (see Appendix 3). The open space
types can be viewed in more detail within the ‘Open Space Provision’ contained Online Mapping that
Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (see Appendix 4)

2.2.9.

If areas of IOS are not deemed to fall within any of the categories of open space identified within the
Open Space Audit, it raises the question whether it should be allocated as IOS at all and in the absence
of any sort of assessment as to the ‘particular type of open space’ that the IOS is deemed to be, it makes
it extremely difficult to apply the tests of Policy LP23, in particular parts a) and b) of the Policy.

2.3.

Justification for including Land at Horsley Road, Gainsborough as Important Open Space

2.3.1.

Horsley Road is currently allocated as IOS under CORE 9 of the West Lindsey Local Plan (2006). TSE
objects to this designation being carried forward in the CLLP.

2.3.2.

There is no clear assessment of the Horsley Road site and the attributes of the land that warrant its
protection. The Inspector’s Report to the 2006 Local Plan (see Appendix 5) provides the most succinct
summary of the aims and functions of a CORE 9 designation:

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

4

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

“The function of a CORE 09 designation is identify areas or frontages which are structurally important,
in their open state, for the character and appearance of the settlement where they are located. In other
words, they form an integral part of the pattern of development and related spaces which
determines the fundamental attributes of the whole built form.
Measured against this test, excluded are the categories of land which have recreational value without
making the contribution detailed above, large areas of open land which whilst having amenity value in
themselves are not part of the whole pattern referred to, and small pieces of land insufficient in size or in
the wrong position to make an impact on the broader scene.”
2.3.3.

In his assessment, the Inspector requested several modifications to the 2006 plan, with the CORE 9
designation removed from land in instances where there was no real open space function; where
development faced away from open space and there were high curtilage boundaries fronting the space;
where there was considered to be limited visual amenity; where there was limited views from the
settlement; where it was not integral to the layout of surrounding development and where the open land
was not functionally associated with adjoining uses.

2.4.

TSE has submitted a planning application for residential development at Horsley Road which is being
progressed at present.

2.4.1.

In applying the above to the Horsley Road site, it is clear that the site is not structurally important to the
surrounding area. The land in question is private and overgrown grassland located on the edge of an
existing housing estate. The properties that surround the land have no clear relationship with the space,
with the majority of properties orientated away from the land. The sports pitches to the south are clearly
divided from the site through a dense and mature tree buffer which clearly distinguishes the two areas.

2.4.2.

Whilst the site is visible from the River Trent footpath, there is no real visual amenity that can be afforded
to the site, it is not integral to the wider green infrastructure network and does little to enhance the setting
of the riverfront and surrounding buildings to warrant this protection.

2.4.3.

In addition, the site does not fulfil the qualities associated with such a designation as per the criteria listed
within Policy LP23. The site is not locally significant or of special character. The northern part of the site is
overgrown in parts and is currently only used for grazing horses. The site is not accessible to the public
for recreational use.

2.5.

The Estate considers there is adequate open space of this nature within Gainsborough and the
immediate area and indeed surplus sites of higher quality open space available elsewhere.

2.5.1.

Measured against the aims of CORE 9, it is considered that the designation should be removed from the
land at Horsley Road.

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

5

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

3.

Conclusions

3.1.1.

The designation of Horsley Road as IOS within the CLLP is unsound for the following reasons:





Positively prepared and Consistent with National Policy: The designation of Horsley Road as
IOS is not based on up-to-date evidence and it has not been robustly assessed for its value or
contribution to the wider area. Without this, the plan is hindering sustainable sites from coming
forward for housing development and is therefore inconsistent with the aims of the Framework and
the aims of achieving sustainable development.
Justified: There is insufficient, proportionate and robust evidence to support the proposed
designation of IOS at Horsley Road in the plan.
Effective: It is unlikely that the IOS designation at Horsley Road can be robustly defended against
the criteria based policy, so we would question whether the allocation is effective.

How can the CLLP Allocations document be amended to ensure soundness?
3.2.1.

In order for the CLLP Allocations Document to be found sound, the following amendments are necessary:


Ensure that the Plan has sufficient flexibility to adapt to change (NPPF, paragraph 14) by removing
the IOS designation from those parcels of land, such as Horsley Road, where the designation no
longer applies, which as clearly outlined in this representation, does not perform an important open
space function.

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

6

Matter 15 – Green Wedges, Open Space and Green Infrastructure
Thonock and Somerby Estates

Appendix 1 – Site Plan Horsley Road

Thonock and Somerby Estates

October 2016

7