We support the principle of part 1 of this policy to establish design, layout and scale through a collaborative approach with various stakeholders, however, the current wording is unsound as it does not enable the delivery of the development strategy.

It presents no alternatives where such stakeholder groups, for example Neighbourhood Plan Teams do not exist or where agreement cannot be reached. The policy is undeliverable because it provides no scope for the allocated sites in Growth Villages to be delivered, other than via collaboration with the various stakeholders.

Whilst the policy does not state that the allocations must be delivered via a Neighbourhood Plan; if a Neighbourhood Plan Team exists or a Parish are intending to bring forward a Neighbourhood Plan it is unlikely that the Team/Parish Council would agree other than via a Neighbourhood Plan. Giving this much power to communities could have the effect of stalling much needed development.

Whilst we support the aspiration to enable local communities to shape their neighbourhood, this will not ensure delivery of sites and therefore assist in delivering the district's housing need.
The District Council has no control over the Neighbourhood Plan process and cannot compel communities to prepare Neighbourhood Plans or agree to the delivery of allocated sites through a collaborative approach. The NPPG states (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 41-002-20140306) that neighbourhood planning "is not a legal requirement but a right which communities in England can choose to use".
Even where Neighbourhood Plans are produced, they are not subject to the same rigorous tests of soundness as Local Plans, only that they fulfil the basic conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The NPPF only requires Neighbourhood Plans to be in "general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan" therefore, provided a Neighbourhood Plan does not plan for less development than stated in the Local Plan, it could be free to allocate alternative sites in favour of those which have been subject to the much more rigorous Local Plan tests of soundness.
Paragraph 182 of the NPPF does not apply to Neighbourhood Plans therefore there is no requirement for it to be deliverable. To rely on non-paragraph 182 compliant Neighbourhood Plan deliveries to fulfil the District's objectively assessed need would result in the Local Plan falling foul of paragraph 182.
The NPPG offers some additional guidance in relation to deliverability (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 41-005-20140306); it states that "If the policies and proposals are to be implemented as the community intended a neighbourhood plan needs to be deliverable." Deliverability therefore, whilst desirable, is not a requirement that the neighbourhood Plan must demonstrate it has satisfied, in order to pass examination.
Therefore, even if the required numbers do come forward through Neighbourhood Plans in good time; there is no guarantee that the allocations will be deliverable. Consequently, the Council cannot rely on 743 homes being delivered in the Growth Villages. This will fall foul of the NPPF paragraph 47 requirement to provide five years worth of deliverable sites and paragraph 182 requirement to be deliverable.
There is no proposed mechanism for review in the event that the Neighbourhood Plans not deliver a sufficient number of dwellings, nor is there a mechanism in the event of non-agreement with the various collaboration groups or where no such groups exist. The NPPG (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 12-002-20140306) states that "The Local Plan should make clear what is intended to happen in the area over the life of the plan, where and when this will occur and how it will be delivered." As drafted, the policy fails to do this.

We support parts 2) and 3) of the policy.