We need your views on the settlement boundaries
Planning regulations make settlement boundaries very important. Within a ‘settlement’ – otherwise known as a village – almost any form of development will be allowed. If there is a large empty space then a developer can apply to build houses on it. In Mylor parish these can be open-market houses and there is no need for any of them to be affordable provided there are not more than five houses (the limits are different in other parishes).
Things are very different outside the boundary. Because we live in an AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), any development outside a settlement boundary must both touch the settlement boundary and be driven by the need for affordable housing. These are known as ‘exception sites’.
Exception sites are, as their name implies, exceptions to the usual planning rules. Open-market housing is only permitted if it is essential to help pay for the affordable housing. In our parish the starting point is that they will provide 100% affordable housing (which may not fall below 50%).
There is no assumption that a development on an exception site will automatically be permitted if it touches the boundary. There may be many other reasons for a development to be refused permission: access problems, protection of views, protection of wildlife or nature and so on.
So, by defining a tight settlement boundary we will not only be protecting the AONB but also ensuring that any development that does take place is for those in real need of affordable housing.
The three plans
We would like your views on three plans of our major settlements showing a tight boundary around each. Do you think the boundaries are in the right place? Should we include/exclude something? You can leave comments in the box below.
Here are the three plans:
Plan 1: Flushing
Plan 2: Mylor Bridge North
Plan 3: Mylor Bridge South
Why have we only defined boundaries for Flushing and Mylor Bridge?
The result of the recent Housing Needs Survey said very clearly that any development in the parish should only take place within walking distance of one of the two major settlements: Flushing and Mylor Bridge.
The Plan will be recommending that new houses should not be permitted in any of the other hamlets unless they occupy space which has already been developed: re-building a house, splitting a garden in two to provide a new plot, or similar infill. We will be drawing plans of these areas as well in due course but they are less urgent than these three.
The safest option is to retain the settlement boundaries as they are. Then any applications for development outside the boundaries can be considered on their merits as exceptions to policy, which would be particularly appropriate for genuinely affordable housing. There would also be some opportunities for re-using existing buildings or small ‘brown’ sites in the countryside, again as exceptions according to merit.
Bingo! Exactly what we think. There is some ‘confusion’ as to where the settlement boundary runs: hence the consultation.
The settlement boundary plans of 2005 and 2011 may (or may not) have lapsed. Quite how a settlement boundary can have ‘lapsed’ rather escapes me but better to be safe than sorry.
Re-using existing brown field sites is potentially contentious and needs to be handled carefully. Think ‘shack to mansion’ (of which there have been a few examples) and you will see what I mean. Sadly, there will never be enforceable as ‘Policy 9 Rural exceptions sites’ which would mean they would have to be affordable housing-led.