The CDC Local Plan as it affects Sherborne

About 18 months ago, the Cotswold District Council (CDC) distributed an early draft of their local plan. Aspects of the plan, particularly section EN18, caused some alarm in the community. In this section, the National Trust presented their concept for "Big Nature, Better Access", and that caused most of the concern.

The CDC have now issued the latest draft of their plan for public comment, and you can find it here, along with a number of appendices . This is a huge amount of documentation. If you are interested in this strategic paper, I suggest you dip in and out. But you will need some time.

I propose in this post just to extract those aspects of the CDC plan that specifically affect the interests of the Sherborne Brook Support Group. What follows is my own personal interpretation. You should make your own. What follows is my opinion and not any formal position of the Sherborne Brook Support Group. In what follows, I highlight some key points, address Core Policy 58, mention neighbourhood development plans, and finally address the issue of holiday lets because of its potential impact on the community here in Sherborne.

Key Points

1. Understand clearly the purpose of the document. You'll get this from reading the foreword of the main document. I'm not going to repeat it here. I could summarise it by saying this is a plan to shape the future of the Cotswold District Council's area in terms of planning. They say the plan is to protect communities from speculative development and ensure that new homes, jobs and infrastructure are delivered in the right places.
2. The Cotswold District Council is going to disappear within the next two years, but this plan will be taken on by the new Gloucestershire Unitary Authority.
3. You still have a chance to comment. It has not yet been formally adopted. This is the last consultation phase. Details of how to comment are at this link.
4. Policy EN18, which addressed the National Trust's Big Nature Better Access Plan, has been dropped completely. I suspect that the politicians in CDC saw the whole issue as too thorny. This is not necessarily a good thing. The Big Nature, Better Access plan is still running, albeit probably with quite a few changes, it's just no longer a component of the CDC plan. There were pros and cons within EN 18, but most importantly, the CDC indicated that a Working Group should be set up. That working group never met and now never will. That Working Group would have given the community a real voice. Now we need to find alternative routes and places for that voice.
5. The role of the Parish Council as a statutory body to be consulted for any development in Sherborne obviously continues.

Core Policy 58

1. In my view, this is the most important policy from the perspective of the Sherborne Brook Support Group.
2. Core Policy 58 covers Registered Parks and Gardens, and it sets a clear test. Development must "preserve the significance of the asset," taking account of the landscape setting and key views, both within the parkland and from the wider village.
3. This matters enormously for Sherborne. The Trust's own 2013 Statement of Significance called the view of "an 18th century formal landscape of lakes and cascades" especially significant. Our own community heritage statement says the same. Policy 58 asks: does a scheme preserve that view, or does it change it? Converting open water into marsh and wetland is not a neutral change. It replaces the very feature the policy protects.
4. The policy does support removing "structures and uses that detract from the special historic interest" of the parkland. We should welcome that. Silt and encroaching vegetation genuinely do detract from the Broadwaters, and clearing them would reveal, not diminish, the historic landscape.
5. But Policy 58 will only apply if planning permission for anything is submitted. The National Trust's plan affecting the upper end of the parkland has already been withdrawn. We should recognise and welcome the fact that the National Trust are at least talking about removing vegetation and possibly some silt from the lakes. We need to actively support them publicly in this effort and praise them when it happens. Policy 58 can sit behind us. We should all talk in terms of "preserving the significance of this asset in our landscape". Language is important.
6. Core Policy 55 is also important. It refers to  "a valuable contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area"and "allowing important views into or out of the Conservation Area" as key factors.

Neighbourhood Development Plans

1. In the past, I raised the possibility of Sherborne Parish Council developing its own local plan. I do think this is probably a step too far, too much effort required, and we don't have the resources to be able to do that. But it's interesting to see that other localities within CDC have done exactly that.
2. I do think that a community combined response to the CDC plan would have value in supporting the impact of Core Policy 58 and perhaps addressing one or two other issues. If nothing else, it will tell our local politicians we still hold strong views. And we are, after all, the people who vote for them.

Other Issues

It is perhaps interesting to note the CDC's policy towards holiday lets and change of use in the planning process for taking property into holiday rental markets. See Core Policy 50. The CDC seems quite firm in rejecting holiday lets/Airbnbs in larger communities, classified as Main and Principal settlements. But that doesn't apply to Sherborne. Quite the opposite, perhaps.

"proposals for self-catering accommodation.or holiday lets, will be supported, where they are provided through the renovation of a suitable existing building that is structurally sound and capable of conversion.without substantial rebuilding or extension."

My own very personal view in a community like this is that we should be seeking to increase the local permanent population. We need to build our community, not weaken it, so perhaps the community should consider requesting the CDC policy for more built-up areas also be applied to smaller villages such as Sherborne. Villages like Sherborne are much more vulnerable to changes in population driven by holiday lets. It is reasonable for property owners to see the financial benefit of holiday lets, but that's a dangerous path to follow, I believe, in small communities. If half of Sherborne were to become a transient tourist-driven population, it's the village itself, the community, that suffers. I'd support going back to the CDC, suggesting a more rigorous approach to prevention of this strategy in villages like Sherborne. Where a property can provide a permanent home for a family, that's what we should encourage. And against the instructions from central government to build more properties across the CDC, it's only reasonable that we maximise the use of such properties in Sherborne for permanently resident families, developing and contributing to our community. In the past, the National Trust have acknowledged their obligation to encourage letting to local families in Sherborne, and that should be reinforced.

I'll be taking my suggestions for some of these to the Parish Council as well as responding personally to the CDC as invited, and you, of course, should do the same based on your own interpretation.