Report and recommendation to Winchcombe Town Council from the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group – August 2015

This paper is prepared to engage the Town Council in taking forward the most challenging elements of the draft Neighbourhood Plan preparation – the proposals for development sites for more than 10 homes to meet the prospective needs of our community. It recommends:

1. deferring any decision about the scale of need for relatively affordable homes for younger families, and potential locations until a Neighbourhood Plan review underpinned by evidence in around 2020; and

2. accepting the case for the Almsbury Farm development – if for a care home and associated housing for older people – if it can be shown to meet the Government’s exceptional circumstances test1; and a series of conditions drafted to reflect the safeguards and benefits the community is entitled to expect as part of a major development on this important site

In December 2014, the Town Council agreed a draft Neighbourhood Plan for formal public consultation after more than 18 months of community engagement. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group has now completed a thorough consideration of all the responses received during the formal consultation period. As a result, we will soon be ready to bring a revised Plan to the Town Council for consideration and – if approved by the Council – for submission to Tewkesbury Borough Council for “examination”.

The most significant issue for decision is the location of further housing development, other than through infill, within or adjoining the developed area of Winchcombe. In meetings to which all Town Councillors were invited, the Steering Group have given careful and thorough consideration to all the responses. This paper now invites the Town Council to decide how the draft Neighbourhood Plan should provide for the two sites identified as meeting the future needs of our community in section 6 of the consultation draft - West of Winchcombe (for about 25 relatively affordable homes for younger families), and land around Almsbury Farm (for supported housing for older people).

All Town Councillors have had the opportunity to access all the 350 or so responses to the consultation draft – representing the views of at least 450 individuals given that some were completed on behalf of more than one person. For ease of consideration, the Town Council commissioned a “collation” by an external consultant.

In respect of West of Winchcombe, those who agreed with the development proposal outnumbered those against by a ratio of over 3 to 1 (282 vs 82). Those

1 See footnote page 3.

1

opposing the proposal cited a wide range of concerns about the need for development, the impact on wildlife, the AONB status of the land, the views from residents’ homes, flooding at times of storm, increased traffic as new residents would drive to the centre of the town, and the pressure on an already full primary school.

In respect of Almsbury, those who agreed with the development proposal outnumbered those against by a ratio of approximately 2.5 to 1 (252 vs 97). Those objecting (as with the other site) expressed a wide range of concerns including that the concept of specialised housing for older people in Winchcombe was not suitable, or was the wrong priority for new housing (the town needed more younger families). There were also concerns about access by road and on foot, about the impact on the AONB, and on storm water flow into the Isbourne.

The consultation responses also included 21 disagreeing with all elements of both the development proposals – most of them in an attachment which was reproduced in full in the collation. The Steering Group and Town Councillors have considered all the points raised from our community – both negative and positive, and welcomed the constructive ideas for improving the draft Plan as well as the straight talking by those who would rather not see more development in or around our town.

As well as the collation of comments provided for the Town Council, the Steering Group has taken account of local authority and other statutory consultees’ responses to the consultation draft. The only relevant County Council recommendation was to improve to the proposed condition on biodiversity (incorporated below). The Borough Council asked that the list of conditions be prefaced with a clear cross reference to the map areas. Severn Trent Water confirmed that some localised foul water capacity improvement might be needed in respect of the Almsbury site: which they would fund that improvement. The Cotswolds Area of Natural Beauty Board “did not raise a specific issue” over the proposed site at Almsbury Farm given the site history and contained nature of the site: but in respect of the West of Winchcombe site, they supported the aim of the community to meet its own local needs in respect of housing provision, but were not satisfied that the exceptional circumstances test had been correctly applied. No responses were received from Natural England or Historic England.

As the two locations identified would meet very different needs, it may be appropriate to consider each in turn:

1. In respect of the West of Winchcombe proposal, the recommendation to the Town Council is to defer any decision about the scale of need for relatively affordable homes for younger families, and potential locations until a Neighbourhood Plan review underpinned by evidence in around 2020; and

2

2. In respect of the Almsbury Farm proposal, the recommendation to the Town Council is to accept the case for development – if for a care home, associated housing for older people and reuse of the historic barn – if it can be shown to meet the Government’s exceptional circumstances test2; and meet conditions based on the following:

a) demonstrate good quality design that conserves and enhances the character of the Conservation Area and listed buildings, especially the listed Almsbury Farm Barn

b) comprise mainly cottages and single storey buildings with pitched roofs respecting the local vernacular

c) incorporate a negotiated proportion of affordable housing3 permanently dedicated to people in need in Winchcombe or the surrounding villages

d) seek to relocate to any care home facility a replacement for the Winchcombe Unit for easier visiting access for relatives and friends of Winchcombe patients

e) include accommodation for visitors, including those visiting the new homes to be provided

f) incorporate measures to protect any important remains identified in an archaeological survey

g) protect and enhance the Cotswolds AONB and views to and from the registered historic parkland

2 The “exceptional circumstances” test allows permission to be granted for major development in a nationally designated landscape

after assessment of ● the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; ● the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and ● any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

3

3

h) investigate areas of areas of ecological importance and include measures to protect those areas and enhance the site’s biodiversity overall

i) maintain the visually attractive avenue of trees between the Vineyard Street bridge and Castle Lodge entrance

j) enhance and increase tree cover to reduce the visual impact from the protected parkland, and from residences in Castle Street and Abbey Terrace

k) respect permeable design principles incorporating new green infrastructure and public open spaces to avoid any sense of creating a “gated community”

l) include a through public route between Vineyard Street and Castle Street for people on foot and cycles

m) include a new bridge and pedestrian access from Abbey Terrace, suitable also for mobility scooters, to avoid the need to cross the existing Vineyard Street bridge and ensure that there is a reasonable alternative route to the town centre for those who may be challenged by the gradient and narrow pavements of Castle Street

n) provide adequate off-street parking, landscaped in a way that respects the special quality of the site, not only to meet the full needs of the development itself but also to provide alternative public parking if the development requires parking restrictions on the access routes or is likely to add pressure to the public parking area in Abbey Terrace

o) provide a managed car share scheme to reduce the number of vehicles requiring parking

4

p) provide a bowling green or similar facility generally available for public use

q) avoid any development in the Environment Agency designated flood zone 3 and meet Sustainable Urban Drainage Standards

r) (through Section 106 agreements or otherwise) incorporate off site measures to improve the resilience of the Beesmore Brook against stormwater and increase the flow rate at the Castle Street bridge by reducing the turbulence at the confluence of the Beesmore Brook and the River Isbourne

s) provide for an appropriate shared use of the historic Almsbury Barn to benefit residents of the development and the wider community of Winchcombe

Town Councillors will appreciate that the precise conditions to be applied to any development can only be considered properly once the full nature of any development proposal becomes clear. But the Town Council can have a significant influence over development if, through the formal device of a Neighbourhood Plan, it makes the main requirements clear in advance. That can help developers bring forward proposals that are more likely to find favour with the local community than would be the case if all started with a blank sheet of paper.

The development would not only help increase the choice of housing in the town, the care home element would mean more local jobs. Many of the proposed conditions set out above would deliver other benefits to the community of Winchcombe as a whole. More ideas may emerge at the time any more detailed planning application is being prepared by a developer. But the Steering Group proposes the set above as the starting point to include in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Richard Wakeford

Chair of Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

5

Background – a reminder of the purpose of the Neighbourhood Plan

The strongly expressed views of local people are that Winchcombe should be a living, working place providing a range of services – that is, to use planning language, a “Rural Service Centre”. Present and future residents want employment opportunities and good services to meet their needs. These services can also help meet the needs of the smaller neighbouring communities and visitors to the town. To address these economic and social needs requires modest development, and investment in the town and surrounding area over the next fifteen years or so. And that development needs to respect the built and natural heritage of the town and surrounds.

The idea of neighbourhood plans comes from the Westminster Government’s view that communities should have more say in decisions about development and conservation. They are intended to provide more locally responsive detail to the development plans prepared by Borough Councils. The purpose of a Neighbourhood Plan is to focus mainly on where new houses, businesses and shops should be located and how they should be designed. But they can only have real influence once they are agreed by the responsible town or parish council, passed to the planning authority to arrange a formal “examination”, and then approved in a referendum by a majority of those voting. In the case of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Plan, we have yet to submit our preferred NP to Tewkesbury Borough Council.

When work started on our Neighbourhood Plan, over 4 years ago, Winchcombe had a smaller population than it has now and fewer homes. The currency of the then Tewkesbury Borough Plan had just come to an end. Even then, Government policy was encouraging more housing development. Given the emerging strong presumption in favour of development, attractive places like Winchcombe were bound to attract developer attention. The intention was for our Plan to shape development proposals and influence Tewkesbury Borough Council’s planning decisions.

We were keen. We started work on our plan even before the legislation was finalised, because the Steering Group and Town Council wanted influence the developments that would shape our town. The idea was to identify where development would be welcome, and under what conditions, in advance of developers’ planning applications – so that they could seek to respond to our requirements. Otherwise, much of the negotiation over elements such as planning gain through Section 106 agreements would continue to take place at arms’ length from the Town Council.

Why has the Neighbourhood Plan process taken so long?

We have not made the progress that any of us on the Steering Group wanted to see, past and present. First, we had hardly got under way when a planning application was made for what is now the Pennylands development. The Town Council initially resolved to oppose that development and it was a while before the Borough Council reached a decision to approve it. It was difficult to progress our plan while that planning application was undecided, and the Steering Group needed to respect the agreed position of the Town Council. In the end, the development has provided public benefits through new community open space and contributions to infrastructure – some meeting our needs so well that we don’t need other developments to contribute to them.

Then came the Meadowfort Grange application. Again, work on the neighbourhood plan had to stop. The Town Council opposed that application too, which was eventually approved on appeal following a failure of Tewkesbury Borough Council to determine it. Very few people from the Winchcombe community objected formally and even fewer attended the public inquiry. The

6

main case to oppose the development was its impact on the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONB; the Cotswolds AONB Conservation Board opposed the proposed development. While the application was still live, it was hard to make progress with the Neighbourhood Plan. The extensive landscape evidence taken at the public inquiry did not persuade the inspector, and the development is now under way.

Meanwhile, further housing development had gained approval, next to Mount View. Housing here was originally permitted as an exception to national AONB policy because it provided affordable housing our community needed. The extension to Mount View and the other two major new developments each contributed to the supply of housing association homes for families that needed them – as far as we can tell, exhausting the immediate local needs for affordable housing for the time being.

The influence of the Joint Core Strategy and draft Tewkesbury Borough Plan

All these developments would count against an emerging draft allocation for new home numbers, which the Joint Core Strategy suggested should be shared between Bishops Cleeve and Winchcombe – as “rural service centres” (to use the planners’ jargon). So, the work of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group needed adjustment as the permissions came through. Before the approval of Meadowfort Grange, the total number of new homes Winchcombe was to be asked to deliver by 2031 was thought to be well over 200. But with planning permissions granted in both Winchcombe and Bishops Cleeve, all the signs are that the draft joint total envisaged in the draft Borough Plan for the two rural service centres will soon be reached.

On the other hand, there will be developers who argue that exhausting a total 2031 housing target by 2015 simply demonstrates that the draft plans are not providing for enough new homes.

Another early topic for our Neighbourhood Plan was where to locate the modest increase in convenience retail floorspace recommended in the draft Joint Core Strategy. Once again, the development industry has moved faster than the planning process. The new homes and increasing local population may well have been a factor encouraging Budgens to gain permission to open a new foodstore on what was the Castleways bus depot.

The potential influence of Joint Core Strategy decisions

The Secretary of State’s examination of the Joint Core Strategy continues. There are suggestions that the overall number of new homes to build in the JCS area might need to be higher. But on the other hand, recent census data suggests that the need in the Tewkesbury Borough area of the JCS may not be as great as originally projected. The Inspector examining the draft Joint Core Strategy has called for a lot more evidence. We cannot predict the Secretary of State’s decision, but meanwhile planning appeals continue in the villages around us, and some are being approved despite the scale of housing that is being added.

Experience around England suggests that a local development plan policy for Winchcombe indicating that no new housing can be built until 2031 – the end of the Borough Plan period – is unlikely to stand up against determined challenge by developers. It would also do nothing to deliver the further modest investments in housing and businesses that residents have said our community needs to remain a living, working place.

It is, however, certainly arguable that the developments under way can meet our general and affordable housing needs until the early 2020s. The Town Council’s formal response to the draft Borough Plan made clear that no further “general” housing should be provided for in that plan – especially as all the potential sites identified in the Plan were within the designated Area

7

of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there is a policy presumption against development unless exceptional needs have been identified.

Those developments have also contributed to many of our infrastructure needs – new playing fields, a new recreation area, extended medical facilities, new teaching areas at Winchcombe Abbey School, new sports facilities at the secondary school and traffic calming that helps to address frequently expressed concerns about the speed of traffic through the town and pedestrian safety.

So, what do we need from a neighbourhood plan now?

In the first year or so of the Steering Group’s work, confidential discussions with landowners were a crucial element of preparing a neighbourhood plan. Such discussions are advisable to ensure that in identifying land for development – and land to protect from inappropriate development - plans focus on the areas where there is a reasonable likelihood of their policies being regarded as robust. In other words there is no point identifying land e.g. for development if there is no chance that the owner would release that land. These discussions made the Steering Group aware of two sets of potentially competing plans for developments for care homes and associated supported housing for residents aged 55 plus – that is developments other than general market housing for which a case might be made to overcome the AONB presumption against development.

In the summer of 2013, the Steering Group considered the merits of these two potential developments. Both would need to be treated - for planning policy purposes - as major developments in the AONB. To be permitted, they would need to pass the National Planning Policy Framework tests – requiring an assessment of the need for the development, the scope for meeting that need outside the AONB or in some other way whilst giving great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty.

The Steering Group’s initial thinking was presented in the exhibition in the Library in early 2014. One developer had provided a sketch plan of how a care home and associated supported housing and facilities might be delivered in the redundant buildings at Almsbury Farm and on the land behind it. We used that as an illustration to help people understand what such a development might contribute to our community – in terms of facilities and jobs.

At that time it also seemed likely that we would need to provide in our plan for further market housing. Nor did we appreciate then that development in Greet, which was also included in the NP as one of the possible locations for a major housing development could not contribute to the rural service centre total proposed for Winchcombe and Bishops Cleeve. The community delivered a range of thoughtful responses enabling us to proceed with more detailed analysis – and with an environmental assessment, assisted by Tewkesbury Borough Council officers.

During the public participation sessions in monthly Town Council meetings, concern was expressed about the evidence base that had been used to prepare the Library exhibition. A landscape assessment was commissioned, therefore, to assess what impact on landscape might result from development – to give town councillors a professional opinion of the weight that landscape factors should be given in looking at the merits of alternative development sites. All remotely possible sites were covered – whether or not there was any known developer interest. In this way we would not need to commission further work if a developer came forward for such sites.

The consultation draft Neighbourhood Plan – responding to needs

8

In 2014 the Town Council finalised a draft Neighbourhood Plan for public consultation. The draft was clear that major development could be acceptable to meet the needs identified through community engagement over the previous two years – but only on two sites. This outcome was reflected in draft plan policy 3.1:

In the period to 2031, developments of ten homes or more will be permitted only on the sites identified in specific policies in section 6 below (and identified on the attached map) to meet specific needs. Such developments must respect the general policies in section 1 and other sections of this Plan.

All other housing development will be required to:a) comprise five units or fewer, and cover a total site area of less than 5,000 sq metres;b) comply with the policies related to location and connection with the rest of the town

set out elsewhere in this Plan;c) meet the design and other standards for development set out in this Plan; and

If six or more homes are proposed the development must include provision for affordable housing

The specific needs were set out in policies 3.4 and 3.5. To ensure that larger housing schemes embraced the need for some affordable housing, the relevant part of policy 3.4 reads:

In the case of any development proposal for six or more homes, the applicant will be required to submit a “Winchcombe and Sudeley Affordable Housing and Dwellings Provision” statement. This should clearly set out the affordable housing needs within Winchcombe and Sudeley that the proposed development is intended to address, and how those needs will be met and maintained after completion of the development.

Drawing on views expressed by the community over the period we had worked on the Plan, Policy 3.5 (shown here as proposed for amendment by the Steering Group in the light of public consultation) is headed “Meeting needs for new homes for those of retirement age” and reads:

As part of meeting the overall need for housing in Winchcombe, supported housing (ie a group of individual “cottages” and apartments designed to meet the special needs of older people, along with one or more central service buildings for health treatments, catering requirements and a care home) will be encouraged on a suitable site capable of providing for a sufficient number of units and necessary supporting facilities within reasonable walking distance of the town centre.

The overall policy approach in 3.1 was acceptable to the majority state number of those responding to the formal consultation. Among the 91 respondents who disagreed, around 20 felt that the Neighbourhood Plan should be delayed until after the Tewkesbury Borough Plan had finally set a number of new homes for the town. Other significant responses concerned the need for infrastructure – medical facilities, schools, road improvements - to be delivered alongside new housing.

The proposed policy on affordable housing was also supported by almost 300 respondents – with the main objections coming from those asserting that Winchcombe already had enough affordable housing to meet its own needs up to 2031.

The proposed policy on homes for those of retirement age was also supported by almost 300 respondents. The main objections came from those who thought this need should be met through mixed new housing developments, although no particular location was suggested. Others suggested that Winchcombe was not the place for “luxury” developments – or as one Councillor has put it “gated communities”.

9

None of these policies were site specific. The Town Council’s aim was to consult on the general policies separately from any attempt to identify the preferred sites for development. Site specific policies were set out for consideration in Section 6 of the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

The consultation draft Neighbourhood Plan – identifying potential sites

The special character of the town, with its Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Area, all set in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected by national and more local policies makes it very hard to identify sites capable of accepting development of more than 10 homes. The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that planning permission for such major development should be refused in AONBs except in exceptional circumstances and where it is demonstrated to be in the public interest.

At the same time, even if the owners of sites in the Special Landscape Area wedge (between Gretton Road and Broadway Road) were willing to bring land forward for development, the Steering Group’s assessment was that such development would not be compatible with the requirement to meet sustainable development goals. People living that far from the town centre would be much more likely to use their cars to access jobs, shops or community activities in the town (many public responses to our consultations have stressed the traffic problems in town). And the landscape assessment indicated that development in that wedge would be likely to have adverse effects on the adjacent AONB (as had also been argued in the case of the Redrow development). The wedge would also fail to meet other goals such as protecting productive land, securing easy access to the town centre on foot or cycle and maintaining local green spaces to protect the character of the setting of the town.

In looking at sites where major development might be envisaged, the Town Councillors assessed the following public priorities:

the need for the development, (including in terms of any national considerations such as the need for housing to meet the need for sustainable development);

how it would help the local economy; the scope for developing elsewhere outside the AONB, or meeting the need for it in some

other way; and the effects on the environment, landscape and recreational opportunities.

To help weigh exceptional circumstances against local needs, the Town Council drew on the independent landscape assessment (described above), which had researched 14 parcels in the AONB and in the Special Landscape Area designated to protect views of and from the AONB. Having considered the report, Town Councillors decided initially to rule out any proposal to promote development on all the sites where the Study indicated a significant adverse impact and where there was no prospect of adequately mitigating that impact.

They then assessed the remaining parcels of land against the following criteria: the effect on landscape, natural assets and setting of Winchcombe’s historic character; the effect on Winchcombe’s sense of place; the degree of re-use of brownfield sites, less productive land and unused/underused

buildings; the “connectivity” enabling access on foot to the town centre shops, schools and the

Cheltenham bus service; the impact of new housing on traffic flows through the town; the capability to help meet the identified needs for new homes for those with modest

incomes, and for those of retirement age or approaching it.

Their conclusions were that the Almsbury Farm site (scored by the Study as “moderate beneficial” –the most positive landscape impact of all the sites assessed) was also:

10

the most preferable for conserving and enhancing historic character and improving Winchcombe’s sense of place (relevant to draft policy 1.1);

prioritising reuse of less productive land (relevant to draft policy 1.2); giving good connectivity on foot to the town centre (relevant to draft policy 1.4); giving access to the Cheltenham bus service (relevant to policy 1.4); meeting the identified need for new homes designed for those of retirement age (draft

policy 3.5)

Of the other sites, Parcel 1a (an extensive development west of Winchcombe) scored better in most respects than a similar scale of development in Greet (parcel 5). As Greet is not a settlement designated in the draft Joint Core Strategy for major housing development, the Town Councillors ruled parcel 6 out of further consideration.

Given the scale of impact, Town Councillors were not prepared to designate the whole of parcel 1a for development – instead concluding that only the more limited West of Winchcombe parcel 1b should be indicated for development. This site could provide a smaller development of housing designed to meet the needs of younger first time buyers, so long as a suitable footpath access could be secured to offer reasonable access to Winchcombe Abbey School and to the town centre and Cheltenham bus service.

Indications of landowner interest in response to the West of Winchcombe consultation

No response to the draft plan consultation was received to show that the desired footpath access to site 1b could be achieved. But another developer responded to the consultation on the draft Neighbourhood Plan suggesting that housing development would be suitable on a different West of Winchcombe site – also in the AONB. The suggested new option would be marginally more significant in impact on landscape and marginally further away in walking distance from the Junior School and shopping area.

It would also represent major development on an AONB site. Would this site satisfy the national policy requirement for exceptional circumstances to be demonstrated? The case would need to focus on the likely lack of starter homes suitable for younger families in order to sustain a reasonable mix of generations in the town (an aspect of sustainable development).

The Steering Group have considered the principle of what this developer has proposed. They have taken into account the scale of development in recent years, including housing suitable for younger families. They reflected on the Town Council’s recent consultation response to Tewkesbury Borough Council’s draft Borough Plan that they see no need for further general housing in the town or surroundings for the foreseeable future. At this stage, the Steering Group has not seen convincing evidence of need for the type of development proposed by the developer, sufficient to overcome the national AONB development tests. It would be better to revisit the case for development to meet these needs in a few years’ time – and assess at that point (with the benefit of new evidence of need) which sites in or adjacent to the town might best meet the identified need.

Their recommendation to the Town Council is to defer until a Neighbourhood Plan review in around 2020 any decision about the scale of need for relatively affordable homes for younger families and the best potential locations.

Almsbury Farm – reuse of the barns

11

In the draft Neighbourhood Plan, the Almsbury Farm site was addressed in two elements – the existing buildings and the land behind, running down to Castle Street.

In respect of the existing buildings, Policy 2.1 encouraged re-use, conversion, extension and adaptation of rural buildings for small business, recreation, or tourism uses, provided that:

a) the relevant building is structurally sound and capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction;

b) its proposed use is appropriate to its setting;c) the conversion or restoration work respects the character of the immediate area and/or

buildings;d) the local road system is capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed

use; and e) parking is provided on-site to the extent needed to avoid any increase in on-street

parking

There was support state scale and level among the consultation responses for restoration and reuse of the historic farm buildings, but seven of those responding said that did not see the need for a hotel. Steering Group members were generally keen to see these buildings brought back into uses that would encourage the tourism economy and offer new retail opportunities.

The Steering Group did, however, spend time debating the impact of such development on traffic and parking – not least in the context of draft policy 4.6 which proposed designating land opposite the Almsbury Farm frontage for a future new car park. The main justification for this draft policy had been to ensure that, as the town grew in population and business terms, sufficient off street parking would continue to be available. The Town Council had identified the potential re-use of the Almsbury Barns or other development served by Vineyard Street as a potential trigger for action – because safe highway access would require further parking restrictions on that street. It would therefore be legitimate to require the developer to make provision for alternative parking.

Additional parking provision was also essential if the character and environment of the centre of the town, as well as road safety, were to be enhanced by a redesign of Abbey Terrace parking. There were plenty of examples to follow, both in the UK and in Europe. Across the bridge, tree lined Vineyard Street itself would also offer a much more attractive approach to the parkland and Sudeley Castle if it were not full of parked cars.

The main objections to this draft policy were to the idea of reduced numbers of car park spaces in Abbey Terrace. In explaining the policies in the next version of the Plan, it would be important to explain the justification for that more clearly. New car parking was needed if a more attractive and safer Abbey Terrace was to be delivered – which would be a major step in improving the town’s economy.

Almsbury Farm – proposals to develop the site behind the barns

In respect of the land behind, Town Councillors originally concluded that the Almsbury Farm parcel development could meet a clear need for supported housing for older people. This was illustrated at the Library exhibition in 2014, identified in the Sustainability Appraisal, and translated into draft policy 6.1 in the consultation document. Such a development would also bring new employment opportunities.

Despite planning consent being granted for a major development (but subject to a Section 106 agreement) over a decade ago, the site has remained unused. According to the Landscape Study, sensitive development on this site would not adversely affect the AONB. And in response to the

12

public consultation, the Cotswold AONB Board stated that “it does not raise a specific issue over the site at Almsbury Farm, given the site history and contained nature of the site”.

In the Town Council’s view there was no reasonable scope for a care home and supported housing development elsewhere within Winchcombe, outside the designated AONB– that would deliver the social benefits to residents, of easy access to community services, which would contribute to the wellbeing of residents and help Winchcombe’s retailers.

The majority of those responding to the consultation were in favour of using the land behind the Almsbury Farm buildings as proposed; 252 agreed and 97 disagreed, but it is important to look carefully at all the points made. Many (23) of the general objections were mainly concerned about development in the AONB, and some suggested that the development would be better sited on land between Winchcombe and Greet. Others suggested that this type of development would not be in the town’s interest, or that the concept was not suitable for Winchcombe. The crucial concern for many is whether there is a need for a care home and supported housing for older people in Winchcombe.

The draft policy included a series of tests which the development would be expected to meet, feeding through from generic policies in the plan:

a) demonstrate good quality design that conserves and enhances the character of the Conservation Area and listed buildings, especially the Almsbury Farm Barn (1.1)

b) protect and enhance the Cotswolds AONB and views to and from the registered historic parkland (1.1)

c) investigate areas of ecological importance and include measures to protect those areas and encourage biodiversity and wildlife (1.1)

d) enhance and increase tree cover to reduce the visual impact from the protected parkland, and from residences in Castle Street and Abbey Terrace (1.1)

e) incorporate new green infrastructure and public open spaces (1.1)f) carry out an archaeological survey and incorporate measures to protect important

remains (1.1)g) avoid any development in the Environment Agency designated high risk flood zone (1.3)

and meet Sustainable Urban Drainage Standardsh) incorporate off site measures to improve the resilience of the Beesmore Brook against

stormwater and reduce the turbulence at the confluence with the River Isbourne (1.3)i) include a through route between Vineyard Street and Castle Street for people on foot

and cycles (1.4)j) include a pedestrian access from Abbey Terrace that avoids crossing the existing

Vineyard Street bridge (1.4)k) include provision of hotel accommodation for visitors, including those visiting the new

homes to be provided (2.6)l) incorporate a negotiated proportion of affordable housing (3.1)m) comprise mainly cottages and single storey buildings with pitched roofs respecting the

local vernacular (3.5, 5.1 and 5.4)n) meet off-street parking requirements (3.8) o) provide additional public parking spaces as described in policy 4.6p) provide a bowling green for public use

Some of those responding to the consultation reacted to these proposals. For example, fifteen were concerned about the risk of increased flooding; five thought that other amenities (eg small health club, gym, pool for older retired residents) should be prioritised over a bowling green. There were concerns that the new pedestrian and cycle route through the site would be used by vehicles; and about whether older people would be fit enough to walk up Castle Street. Vineyard Street is a clear concern, given the traffic the development would generate. Other concerns focused on the design of the development and views.

13

Interestingly, no-one responded to suggest that a care home in Winchcombe would be far more accessible to visitors than the Winchcombe Unit on Cleeve Hill. On the other hand, there were general comments suggesting that a nursing home and old people’s home is needed.

The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group reflected on all the concerns raised and recommends the inclusion of a comprehensive set of conditions to apply to any proposed development involving the unused Almsbury Farm buildings and on the land behind them. This recommended set of conditions is set out in the introduction to this paper.

14