The policy should include and not exclude the urban extension areas proposed so that this policy can be properly and logically related to policy CS13.
It is difficult to reconcile the figure of 3,000 dwellings quoted for Weston-super-Mare urban area given the comments in paras 3.208 and 3.210 regarding an over provision of 3,005 dwellings and the other related points referred to in the comments relating to the previous policy. This results directly from the Council's own confusion arising out of its flawed thinking upon such matters.
As stated in comments upon the previous policy, the proposals relating to Clevedon/Nailsea/Portishead should permit a greater scale of residential development than that proposed. These towns have the capacity and range of facilities and services capable of accepting further residential development beyond the severely restricted basis the subject of this policy. Given that shortfalls elsewhere can reasonably be anticipated now in the delivery of other allocations already referred to, it is necessary to permit additional housing development in these localities. This in itself, when taken together with the ability of residential development to act as an anabler or "pump primer" for employment development, will also contribute to addressing issues of self-containment and enhancement of service centre roles.
Equally, the scale of development proposed to be permitted in respect of the Service Villages and small settlements is very restricted as drafted and should permit the scale of development both as envisaged within the RSS for the remainder of the District and also taking account of any inherent ability of these to mitigate shortfalls elsewhere without any undue harm. The use of the words "... but only where it will maintain or improve self-containment, support the retention of existing services or fulfil an identified local housing need in respect of affordability or dwelling mix" should also be amended to put a positive emphasis, for instance using instead the words "particularly where...".
In respect of prioritising previously developed land, the need for flexibility (as stated in point 2 under the comments on policy CS1) is again reiterated.
The target for net density of 40 dpha is supported as being more appropriate, permitting as it does a range of densities relevant to the particular circumstances of individual planning applications. The wording should include an emphasis on the appropriateness of such a range.
It follows from the objections above that the settlement boundaries will need to be amended accordingly. The suggestion of the possibility of altering settlement boundaries as part of any future (and as yet unknown) Sites Allocations DPD means that the right must be reserved to make further comments and/or representations in respect of this policy once such detail is made available.
The deletion of all other settlement boundaries is considered unnecessary and counter-productive. These have the considerable advantage of being both well established and equally well understood in the communities they serve and should therefore be retained. No significant harm will be caused by the retention of same.