TITLEY & DISTRICT GROUP PARISH COUNCIL
(Incorporating Knill, Nash, Rodd and Little Brampton with Staunton On Arrow And Titley)
Parish Clerk : Mrs Rachael Jones
Flintsham Court
Titley
Kington
Herefordshire
HR5 3RG
Telephone : 07929 650290
Email: clerk@titleygroup-pc.gov.uk
28th April 2023
Mr John Slater
John Slater Planning Ltd
The Oaks
Buckerell
Honiton
Devon
EX14 3ER
Dear Mr Slater
Thank you for agreeing to act as examiner for the revised Titley & District Group Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031.
The Parish Council, with the backing of the Steering Group, thought it may be helpful to provide some background to assist you in your examination of the plan.
The NDP previously passed examination in December 2019, but was rejected at referendum in May 2021. Residents who voted against approval of the plan said they did so because they disagreed with the previous Examiner’s recommendation, that the Titley settlement boundary be extended.
The boundary as proposed by the Examiner, would incorporate a piece of land on which outline planning permission for five houses was granted in 2016 and an application for a further five houses was dismissed at appeal in 2018. (See Appendix 1)
The Examiner’s view was that excluding this land from the settlement boundary would leave “an isolated and irregular piece of land and an oddly shaped settlement boundary”. The Parish Council, backed by the Steering Group, disagrees.
The 2016 permission was not supported by the local community and local people want to ensure the remainder of the site remains undeveloped. Objections to the proposed development of the site included concerns about access, impacts on a registered park and gardens and landscape impacts.
The Parish Council, backed by the Steering Group, has recognized that the previous iteration of the NDP did not set out the planning reasons for excluding this site from the Titley settlement boundary clearly enough. The revised plan now explains the thinking more fully.
Essentially, the settlement boundary as drawn protects the historic pattern of development, including preserving an important gap between the village and Eywood Park (registered park) and gardens. It also addresses concerns that increased traffic from the development of the site, would increase the highway risk at the junction with the B4355, which provides access to the site.
The main reason for dismissal of the non-determination appeal for the second phase of development on this site, was the highway risk arising at this junction. The appeal decision is attached at Appendix 2.
The outline permission remains valid, as there are outstanding reserved matters awaiting approval. However, the five houses permitted are not included within the number of houses that would be delivered by the NDP, on the basis that the development may not proceed and is not supported by the plan.
The Examiner also took the view that extending the settlement boundary would provide additional opportunities for infilling, addressing a concern raised by Herefordshire Council that the plan had overestimated likely windfall development.
The NDP now explains that the majority of windfall development in the neighbourhood area in recent years has arisen from barn conversions outside the settlement boundaries and that this pattern is likely to continue. Herefordshire Council does not have any concerns about the ability of the plan to deliver the minimum proportional growth target allocated to the Neighbourhood area by the Core Strategy.
The Parish Council, backed by the Steering Group, would also like to draw your attention to the responses from Herefordshire Council to the Regulation 16 draft of the plan. The NDP committee had provided responses in the Consultation Statement to Herefordshire Council’s comments and so is disappointed that these have not been referenced in the Progress to Examination report. The relevant section of the Consultation Statement is attached at Appendix 3.
The only comments from Herefordshire Council not addressed in the Consultation Statement, are those from the Transportation Team. This was because the Parish Council and Steering Group saw these for the first time when they received the Progress to Examination Report. The Steering Group’s responses are attached at Appendix 4.
The Steering Group had also responded at the Regulation 14 and Regulation 16 stages, to the claim from Mr Forbes, that the Group had failed to engage with him over his wish to include land adjacent to the converted Titley Court Barns within the Titley settlement boundary.
The Steering Group explained to Mr Forbes why the land was not included and the reasons are set out in the Consultation Statement.
The Statement explains:
“Consideration was given to including 193183 and the converted barns at Titley Court within the settlement boundary, but this would have entailed incorporation of areas unsuitable for development including a historic walled garden.”
Yours sincerely
Titley & District Group Parish Council and Steering Group