South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 Examination

Transcription

1 South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 Examination Inspector Mike Hayden BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Programme Officer Helen Wilson progofficer@aol.com Tel: MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS (MIQs) Abbreviations LDS Local Development Scheme; NPPF National Planning Policy Framework; PPG Planning Practice Guidance; SA Sustainability Appraisal; SDLPP1 South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1; SDLPP2 South Derbyshire Pre-submission Local Plan Part 2. Introduction The purpose of this independent examination of the SDLPP2 is to determine whether the plan: has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate and the legal and procedural requirements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations 2012; and is sound, as defined in paragraph 182 of the NPPF. I have set out below under Matters 1 to 8, the main issues and questions for examination, based on my initial reading of the plan, the evidence base and the representations. Matter 1 covers questions related to legal compliance and the duty to co-operate. Matters 2 to 8 set out the questions on the soundness of the plan. With regard to soundness, I have posed a series of detailed questions under each of the matters and issues, but which are based on two overarching questions: Are the policies and allocations consistent with, and do they positively promote, the vision and spatial strategy contained in the SDLPP1; and Are the individual policies clear, justified and consistent with national policy and will they be effective. In framing these questions and the more detail questions, I have had regard to the definition of soundness in paragraph 182 of the NPPF, and the principles for Local Plans listed in paragraph 157 of the NPPF. Paragraph 154 of the NPPF also establishes that only policies which provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal should be included in the plan. Therefore the SDLPP2 should set out clear policies on what will and will not be permitted. Scope of Examination in respect of Housing Supply and Omission Sites It is not the role of this examination to re-open discussion on matters and issues which were considered as part of the examination of the SDLPP1. In particular this applies to the objectively assessed housing need and housing requirement for South Derbyshire, which were agreed as part of the recently adopted SDLPP1. Therefore, it is not a matter for this examination to rectify any perceived shortcomings in the SDLPP1 s strategy for housing land supply or to 1

2 address any alleged shortfalls against the district s 5-year housing supply, which would be a matter for the Council to resolve via its annual review of housing land availability. In taking this line, I am supported by the court judgements in Oxted Residential v Tandridge DC [2016] and Gladman Development Ltd v Wokingham BC [2014]. The scope of the SDLPP2 with respect to housing supply is limited to allocating sites to meet the requirement of 600 dwellings on non-strategic sites set out in Policy S4 of the SDLPP1. The SDLPP1 does not require the SDLPP2 to do anything else with regard to the district s housing supply. Therefore, the purpose of this examination in terms of South Derbyshire s housing supply will be to consider whether the proposed housing allocations meet the non-strategic housing requirement of Policy S4 in a way that is consistent with national planning policy and the other tests of soundness. A number of alternative housing sites have been put forward in representations, which are known as omission sites. I will not be considering the merits or otherwise of these sites as part of the examination, but testing the soundness of the housing allocations proposed in the plan and the process by which they have been selected. If following the hearings I were to conclude that the SDLPP2 is unsound in respect of its allocations for non-strategic housing sites, then it would be for the Council to put forward alternative sites to rectify any such shortcoming. In doing so the Council would need to undertake further consultation on any alternative sites proposed. Amongst other things, this would ensure that interested parties who may not previously have been affected by the plan, but could be affected by the inclusion of omission sites, have the opportunity to make representations. 2

3 Matter 1 - Legal Compliance and Duty to Co-operate Issue 1a: Duty to Co-operate Q1. In preparing the SDLPP2, has the Council complied with the Duty to Cooperate required by Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended)? Q2. In the light of the new Policy INF13 proposed as a main modification to the submitted plan, has the Council complied with the Duty to Co-operate with regard to the Southern Derby Area? Issue 1b: Other Legal Requirements Q3. Do the scope, content and timescale for the preparation of the SDLPP2 accord with the latest version of the Local Development Scheme (C.33)? Are there any obvious omissions, in terms of policy guidance, from the submitted plan? Q4. Has consultation on the SDLPP2 been carried out in accordance with the Council s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (E.23) and the minimum consultation requirements in the Regulations? Q5. Are the likely environmental, social and economic effects of the SDLPP2 adequately and accurately assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (E.1- E.7)? Does the SA test the plan, its allocations and policies against all reasonable alternatives? Have the requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment been met? Is it clear how the SA has influenced the SDLPP2 and how mitigation measures have been dealt with? Q6. Is the Plan legally compliant with respect to the Habitats Regulations and any requirement for appropriate assessment? How have the findings of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report (E.19) influenced the SDLPP2 and will the policies achieve the necessary mitigation? Q7. Has the preparation of the SDLPP2 complied with Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Plan) (England) Regulations 2012 in all other respects? 3

4 Matter 2 Settlement Development Issue 2a: Principles of Settlement Boundaries (Policy SDT1) Q8. Is the use of settlement boundaries to define where non-allocated development would be acceptable in principle within South Derbyshire justified, effective and consistent with national policy in enabling the delivery of sustainable development and the spatial strategy of the SDLPP1? Q9. Have reasonable alternative approaches to managing the location of nonallocated development been fully considered and assessed in preparing the SDLPP2? If so what are they and on what basis were they discounted? Q10. Is the methodology for the review and definition of settlement boundaries set out in the Settlement Boundaries Topic Paper (E.43) soundly based? Are the criteria under Principles 3 and 4 logical and justified in defining the built limits of settlements and the land to be included within and excluded from settlement boundaries? Should any other principles or criteria have been applied in defining settlement boundaries? Q11. Is Policy SDT1 consistent with Policy H1 of the SDLPP1 in managing the distribution and location of development within the settlement hierarchy? Q12. Is Policy SDT1 justified in not defining settlement boundaries for all of the Rural Villages defined in the Settlement Hierarchy in Policy H1 of the SDLPP1? Q13. Have the settlement boundaries been drawn up in a way that allows potential for windfalls to come forward, given that the housing requirement specified in the SDLPP1 relies on windfalls to deliver 450 dwellings within the Swadlincote and Villages area of the district over the plan period up to 2028? Issue 2b: Individual Settlement Boundaries (Appendix A) Q14. Are the settlement boundaries proposed in Appendix A to the SDLPP2 logical in defining the built limits of individual settlements and justified in relation to the principles and criteria set out in the Settlement Boundary Topic Paper (E.43)? Have they been positively prepared and are they likely to be effective in enabling the delivery of the spatial strategy of the SDLPP1? 4

5 Matter 3 Non-Strategic Housing Allocations Issue 3a: Overall Approach to Allocating Non-Strategic Housing Sites (Policy H23) Q15. In the light of the Council s answer to Question 9 of the Inspector s Initial Questions (EX1) and the evidence set out in the SA: - Was the process for the selection of non-strategic sites robust? - Was an appropriate range and selection of potential sites assessed? - Were appropriate criteria taken into account in deciding which sites to select? - Was the assessment against these criteria robust? Q16. Is the distribution and location of sites principally in or adjoining the Urban Areas and Key Service Villages justified as the most appropriate strategy for the apportionment of non-strategic housing across the district s settlements, taking account of the plan s spatial strategy and national planning policy for sustainable development in rural areas, and when considered against reasonable alternative strategies? Q17. Is the overall level of housing provided for in Policy H23 consistent with the housing requirement and strategy set out in Policy S4 of the SDLPP1? Q18. Is there a sufficient range and number of sites allocated in Policy H23 to deliver the non-strategic housing requirement over the plan period? Do the allocations allow sufficient flexibility to meet the non-strategic part of the housing requirement in Policy S4 of SDLPP1? Q19. Is Policy H23 justified and effective in setting upper limits for the number of dwellings to be accommodated on each site? Is this consistent with national policy, Policy S4 of the SDLPP1 and the proposed minor modification to paragraph 3.1 of the SDLPP2? Q20. How has the development potential or yield for each site identified in Policy H23 been arrived at? What safeguards are there that the development potential of each allocation will be realised? Issue 3b: Non-Strategic Housing Allocations Deliverability and Developability (Policies H23A-H23N) Q21. Are the proposed sites deliverable, if required to contribute to the district s 5 year housing land supply, or developable if intended for later in the plan period, according to the definitions in footnotes 11 and 12 of the NPPF? Q22. Are there any significant factors that indicate any of the sites should not be allocated? Is there a risk that site conditions or constraints might prevent development or adversely affect viability and delivery? Q23. Are the proposed sites viable having regard to the provision of infrastructure, affordable housing and other policy requirements and taking account of any environmental constraints requiring mitigation? Q24. Do Policies H23 and H23A-N and the supporting text provide sufficient clarity on the likely affordable housing and infrastructure requirements for each site to allow for an assessment of viability and deliverability? Q25. Do the minor modifications proposed to Policies H23A, H23B, H23C, H23I, H23J and H23M materially affect the policies? Are they necessary to ensure 5

6 the policies are effective in securing sustainable development? If so should they be considered as main modifications to the SDLPP2? Q26. Are the Site Specific requirements for each of the non-strategic housing sites in policies H23A-N adequately justified? 6

7 Matter 4 Development in the Countryside Issue 4a: General Policy for Development in the Countryside (Policy BNE5) Q27. Is Policy BNE5 consistent with Policies H1, E7 and INF10 of the SDLPP1 and Policies H24-H28 and Policy BNE6 of the SDLPP2 in defining the circumstances in which development in the countryside outside of the settlement boundaries would be appropriate? Q28. Is there a need for consistent use of terminology between Policy H1 and Policies SDT1, H24, H25, H26 and H28 which have varied references to Rural Areas and Countryside in defining areas outside of the Settlement Boundaries? Q29. Is Policy BNE5 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? Do the changes to Policy BNE5 and its Explanation proposed in main modification MM1 and minor modification M25 improve the clarity and effectiveness of the policy? Q30. Does minor modification M25 materially affect the interpretation of Policy BNE5? If so should it be considered as a main modification to the SDLPP2? Q31. Are Policy BNE5 and its Explanation consistent with national planning policy in respect of Traveller Sites and the presumption in favour of sustainable development? Q32. Should Policy BNE5 include reference to the need for development in the countryside to have regard to the protection of Green Wedges leading into Derby City? Issue 4b: Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside (Policy H24) Q33. Is Policy H24 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? In particular, how will the term substantially be measured in applying criteria i) and ii)? Q34. Is Policy H24 consistent with national policy on replacement dwellings in the countryside? Issue 4c: Rural Worker s Dwellings (Policy H25) Q35. Is Policy H25 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? In particular, are the criteria for permanent and temporary worker s dwellings and occupancy conditions consistently worded? Are all of the key policy requirements referred to in the Explanation in paragraphs included within the policy? Q36. Is Policy H25 consistent with national policy on rural worker s dwellings? Q37. Does minor modification M24 materially affect Policy H25? If so should it be considered as a main modification to the SDLPP2? Issue 4d: Residential Gardens within the Countryside (Policy H26) Q38. Is Policy H26 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? In particular, is the phrase detrimental domestication adequately explained and justified? 7

8 Issue 4e: Residential Extensions (Policy H27) Q39. Is Policy H27 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? In particular, is the phrase amenities of adjoining properties adequately explained and justified? Are all of the policy requirements expressed in the Explanation in paragraphs included within the policy? Issue 4f: Residential Conversions (Policy H28) Q40. Is Policy H28 clearly expressed, capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making and consistent with national policy? In particular, is the distinction between the countryside outside of settlement boundaries in part A and isolated locations in the countryside in part B adequately explained and justified? Is part C a policy requirement or a statement of intent and does it apply to all residential conversions in the countryside or simply to those in isolated locations? Q41. Are all of the policy requirements expressed in the Explanation in paragraphs included within the policy? Issue 4g: Agricultural Development (Policy BNE6) Q42. Is Policy BNE6 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? In particular, is criterion i) adequately explained and justified? Q43. Are all of the policy requirements expressed in the Explanation in paragraph 4.6 included within the policy? Should the reference to materials be included in criterion ii) of the policy? 8

9 Matter 5 Built and Natural Environment (Policies BNE7-BNE12) Issue 5a: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgrows (Policy BNE7) Q44. Is Policy BNE7 clearly expressed and capable of being applied effectively in day to day decision-making? In particular, is the term high value trees in Parts A and C of the policy clearly understood or defined? Q45. Is Part B of Policy BNE7 consistent with the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) Regulations 2012 and the national Planning Practice Guidance in respect of protected trees? Issue 5b: Local Green Spaces (Policy BNE8) Q46. Given that the SDLPP2 does not designate any Local Green Spaces, is Policy BNE8 justified and capable of being applied effectively in decision making on development proposals? Q47. Is Policy BNE8 consistent with national policy on the preparation and content of local plans? Issue 5c: Advertisements and Visual Pollution (BNE9) Q48. Is Policy BNE9 clearly expressed, capable of being effective in the control of outdoor advertisements and otherwise consistent with national planning policy? In particular, do criteria i) and iii) overlap or duplicate each other in respect of effects on visual amenity? Issue 5d: Heritage (Policy BNE10) Q49. Is Policy BNE10 clearly expressed and capable of being effective in the control of development affecting heritage assets? Q50. Is Policy BNE10 consistent with Policy BNE2 of the SDLPP1 and with national policy? In particular: - Is the first paragraph of the policy consistent with section A of Policy BNE2? - Are the requirements in the fourth and fifth bullet points consistent with the guidance in paragraphs of the NPPF, particularly in respect of the weight to be given to any harm to a heritage asset relative to the level of harm and the significance of the asset? Q51. Does minor modification M26 materially affect the interpretation of policy BNE10? If so should it be considered as a main modification to the SDLPP2? Issue 5e: Shopfronts (Policy BNE11) Q52. Is Policy BNE11 clearly expressed and capable of being effectively applied to day to day decisions? In particular, in criterion i) how would the adherence to historic shopfronts be applied in the context of more modern buildings and in criterion iii) would the use of traditional materials be appropriate for all shopfronts? Issue 5f: Former Power Station Land (Policy BNE12) Q53. Is Policy BNE12 clearly expressed, justified and capable of being effective in the control of development on the former Drakelow and Willington Power Station land? 9

10 Q54. Is Part B of Policy BNE12 consistent with Policies H6, E1 and SD6 of the SDLPP1 in respect of the former Drakelow Power Station site, in particular in terms of the range of uses permitted? Is it clearly expressed in relation to the SDLPP1 policies and would it be effective in controlling the future development of the site, in conjunction with the SDLPP1 policies? Q55. Is Policy BNE12 Part C consistent with Policy SD6 of the SDLPP1 in respect of the former Willington Power Station site? In particular, is the inclusion of any other uses sufficiently clear and justified and would it be effective in supporting the development of the site for additional energy generation capacity allowed for in Policy SD6? Q56. Is there a resulting requirement for alterations to the Policies Map to identify the former Willington Power Station site? 10

11 Matter 6 Retail and Town Centre Development Issue 6a: Retail Hierarchy (Policy RTL1) Q57. Is Policy RTL1 capable of being effectively applied to proposals for town centre uses outside of defined centres in the hierarchy? In particular how would the sequential and impact tests be applied in relation to local centres and centres in key and local services villages, where the boundaries to such centres are not defined in the SDLPP2? Q58. In light of the Council s answer to question 13 of the Inspector s Initial Questions, is the proposal in Main Modification MM2 to use 1,000 sqm as the threshold for impact tests for retail proposals in out of centre locations justified as the most appropriate strategy, based on proportionate evidence? Is it consistent with national policy, including the guidance set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (ID 2b ). Q59. Is Part B of Policy RTL1 consistent with national policy in respect of its control over changes of use within the primary frontage of Swadlincote town centre? In particular is it consistent with changes of use permitted under Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO? Q60. Are parts C and D of Policy RTL1 consistent with national policy in respect of its support for the location of main town centre uses within existing centres? Would these sections of the policy be effective in day to day decision-making on non-retail town centre uses within local centres and other centres in the district? Issue 6b: Swadlincote Town Centre Potential Development Sites (Policy RTL2) Q61. Is last sentence of Policy RTL2 consistent with national policy in requiring the redevelopment of the identified sites in Swadlincote Town Centre to accord with supplementary planning documents which would not be subject to independent examination? 11

12 Matter 7 Infrastructure Matter 7a: Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12) Q62. Is policy INF12 justified in allocating 2 sites for the provision of a minimum of 800 secondary school places on 10 hectares of land? Q63. If justified, would the allocation of the site at Thurston Fields require the release of land from the Green Belt and would this be consistent with national policy on the protection of Green Belt land? If the site were not released from the Green Belt would the delivery of a new school on this site be at risk as inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the NPPF? Q64. Does minor modification M27 materially affect the application of Policy INF12? If so should it be considered as a main modification to the SDLPP2? Matter 7b: New Policy for the Southern Derby Area (INF13) Q65. Is the new Policy INF13 proposed by main modification MM3 necessary to make the SDLPP2 sound? If not would the absence of the proposed policy from the Plan undermine the delivery of strategic development in this part of the district and within Derby City? Q66. What would the status of the proposed development framework be in relation to the Local Plan and how would it ensure the effective delivery of the Plan and the proposed Infinity Garden Village? M Hayden INSPECTOR 12