Publication Draft

We support the Council's intention to plan for the full Objectively Assessed Housing Need in the District, as set out in Policy DS2. However, we believe that there is an error in the number reported.

The supporting text refers to the Joint Coventry and Warwickshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013 (SHMA) which objectively assessed the future housing needs of the Housing Market Area and the six local authority areas within it. The supporting text states that the Objectively Assessed Need in Warwick District is 12,860 new homes between 2011 and 2029.

The SHMA recommends at Table 97: Overall Assessed Need for Housing (per annum 2011-2031) that the Objectively Assessed Need for Warwick District is 720 per annum, which over the 18 years of the plan equates to a total of 12,960 dwellings. It is not clear why Warwick are planning to under-provide by 100 dwellings with no justification presented, particularly as policy DS7 Meeting the Housing Requirement, allocates sites for 12,964 new homes over the plan period.

It has widely been reported that the sub-national population projections (SNPP) published in May 2014 suggest a lower level of growth than that contained in the consultation document.

However, the figures contained in the Joint Coventry and Warwickshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013) still represent the most up-to-date evidence of the district's objectively assessed housing need. The SNPP numbers represent the starting point for assessing housing need, but the SHMA represents the most up-to-date assessment of objectively assessed need.
The NPPF requires local planning authorities to "boost significantly the supply of housing" and "use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing" (paragraph 47). It also requires local planning authorities to prepare a SHMA to assess their full housing needs which meets household and population projections (paragraph 159).
The NPPG is clear (Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 2a-015-20140306) that "Household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need." (my emphasis)

It goes on to explain further:
"The household projections are trend based, ie they provide the household levels and structures that would result if the assumptions based on previous demographic trends in the population and rates of household formation were to be realised in practice. They do not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour.
The household projection-based estimate of housing need may require adjustment to reflect factors affecting local demography and household formation rates which are not captured in past trends. For example, formation rates may have been suppressed historically by under-supply and worsening affordability of housing. The assessment will therefore need to reflect the consequences of past under delivery of housing. As household projections do not reflect unmet housing need, local planning authorities should take a view based on available evidence of the extent to which household formation rates are or have been constrained by supply."

Therefore, it is clear that the newly published SNPP numbers are the raw data, and the starting point for assessing the objectively assessed need whereas the Joint SHMA makes adjustments to take account of factors affecting local demography or household formation rates, including supply constraints.

To reduce the housing requirement below the level demonstrated by the evidence base on the basis of the new SNPP figures would render the Plan unsound as it would not comply with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

We support the proposed allocation of land north of Rosswood Farm for the development of 35 dwellings.

The site has been considered against reasonable alternatives and has been demonstrated have the least negative impact with good connectivity with the settlement with suitable access and provides opportunities to enhance the visual appearance of this part of the village, clearly defining an entrance to the village from the south. The site would form a logical boundary to this end of the village with development extending no further south than the pub and fronting the highway.

As such, as will be demonstrated below, the allocation of site H19 is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence and is consequently sound.

Green Belt:

As set out in strategic policy DS4, some Green Belt will be released where exceptional circumstances can be justified. In this instance, the exceptional circumstance is to help address local housing needs and the imbalance in the current housing markets, which given the demographic trends in this physically constricted settlement is likely to have an impact on the future of the local services and facilities.

Each of the exceptional circumstances listed in Policy DS4 will be discussed in relation to this site in turn:

1. the availability of alternative suitable sites outside the Green Belt;

Baginton has been identified as a sustainable Growth Village in the Settlement Hierarchy Report (2014) meaning it is one of the most sustainable rural settlements according to a range of sustainability indicators, including the availability of local services and facilities as well as accessibility to larger settlements. Consequently, Baginton is deemed appropriate to accommodate part of the district's growth, according to the evidence base.

All alternative sites adjacent to Baginton are within the Green Belt and this site would have the least unacceptable impact on the Green Belt of the reasonable alternatives.

The site was included as parcel BAG4 under the Green Belt and Green Field Review November 2013. Whilst the parcel received a high sensitivity rating this referred to the land parcel as a whole which stretched from the A46 and sewage works, across to Coventry Road and Stoneleigh Road, as far south as Stoneleigh and Gantry Heath Wood and includes the castle. The results are therefore broad brush and not indicative of the entire parcel which was then assessed separately as a sub-parcel.

The sub‐parcel was considered to be "one which could accommodate a village extension as part of a sustainable pattern of development within the proposed village inset, with a modest impact on the fundamental aim and purposes of the Green Belt."

Furthermore, all of the land parcels at Baginton were considered to have between medium and high landscape value, save for land parcel BAG6 which is the very small parcel adjacent to the A46.

In addition to the Green Belt and Green Field Review, the owners of the site have sought specialist advice from landscape architects who have produced a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and Site Comparison Assessment which are submitted alongside this representation. The LVIA exceeds the size limit so will be emailed separately. These documents demonstrate that site H19 could be developed without causing unacceptable harm to the landscape or result in an unacceptable visual impact and crucially, that development would have significantly less landscape and visual impact than the other sites considered as part of the Local Plan process meaning it is the most suitable choice for development at Baginton. All alternative sites around Baginton are within the Green Belt so no non-Green Belt options exist.

Taking into account the site conditions, visibility and the nature of the development proposals assessed, it is felt that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable harm to the landscape or result in an unacceptable visual impact and recommends various mitigation measures to minimise this impact.


2. the potential of the site to meet specific housing or employment needs that cannot be met elsewhere;

Given the considerable extent of the Green Belt in Warwick District, in order to provide for the district's full objectively assessed need in the locations where this need arises, Green Belt releases will be necessary.

Locating all growth outside of the Green Belt would result in a disproportionate amount of development in the south-eastern corner of the district and deprive the majority of the district of the benefits that growth can bring.

Paragraph 83 of the NPPF states that the appropriate time for the review of Green belt boundaries is through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. In doing so, consideration should be given to the permanence and endurance of the Green Belt boundaries in the longer term beyond the plan period. If Green Belt releases are not made at this point, the remainder of the District which is not in the Green Belt would be unable to accommodate the District's full objectively assessed need and it would therefore be likely that an early review of the Local Plan would be necessary. The current Green Belt boundaries cannot therefore endure in the longer term.

The housing needs of Baginton, which lies to the far north-east of the District, cannot be met through new development in the south of the District.

3. the potential of the site to support regeneration within deprived areas;

Given the relatively small scale of the allocation and that it is to serve the needs of Baginton which has no regeneration sites, allocation of this site would not prejudice opportunities for urban regeneration elsewhere within the District.

4. the potential of the site to provide support to facilities and services in rural areas.

Development of his site provides an opportunity to assist in re-balancing the local housing markets in Baginton and to provide much needed affordable housing and market homes for local residents. With new housing comes the positive benefits of helping support and sustain local services, facilities and businesses.

Site H19 serves none of the five purposes of including land in the Green belt, as defined in paragraph 80 of the NPPF:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

Baginton is a growth village; it is not a large urban area. Whilst close to Coventry, the site is remote from the edge of Coventry and located to the south of Baginton so the site does not act to constrain sprawl from Coventry.

To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

Whilst in the proximity of Coventry, the site is a considerable distance from Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington Spa so would in no way contribute to the merging of these towns.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

Although the site is located in the countryside it is adjacent to the village of Baginton and would not represent unacceptable encroachment. The site has been demonstrated to be the least impact on the Green Belt of the other Baginton site options. This is dealt with fully in the LVIA submitted with this representation.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;

The sensitive historic features of Baginton, i.e., the Lunt Roman Fort, Baginton Castle and Fish Ponds lie to the north and west of the village, remote from the site. The site does not contribute to preserving the historic setting of Baginton.

The above evidence demonstrates that, measured against National Green Belt policy, the release of site H19 from the Green Belt is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and allocation of the site is consequently sound.

Landscape:

Site H19 has been demonstrated by the Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study and the Green Belt Review to be the most appropriate site in Baginton for development in visual landscape terms.

The Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study has identified the site as having a high-medium sensitivity to housing development. To put this in context, of the 13 sites assessed in Baginton, 9 have been assessed to have a high sensitivity to housing development. Three were considered medium-high (including the preferred development site) and one assessed to have medium sensitivity. The medium site lies within the airport area and disconnected from the village.

The Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study recommends that development should be restricted to roadside only, with a landscape buffer of native tree planting to the west with development not being extended further south than the pub. These visual impact mitigation measures are all entirely achievable on this site. It also identifies that the visual appearance of the area has already been slightly degraded due to the lack of hedgerows which have been replaced by post and wire / tape fences and that Coventry Airport is very visible beyond the zone to the east. It identifies the potential for landscape enhancement as a result of development through replacing native hedgerows and the planting of a landscape buffer of native woodland around the new development.

Notwithstanding this, in order to better inform how this site can be sensitively masterplanned to accommodate the proposed level of development with least impact on the Green Belt, the site owners have sought specialist advice from landscape architects.

Consequently a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is submitted alongside this representation. The LVIA exceeds the size limit so will be emailed separately. This demonstrates that:

Due to the local topography significant visual impacts are apparent only from certain locations, particularly nearby. The overall visual impact without mitigation was assessed to be moderate.

With mitigation measures, the landscape and visual impact were found to be low.

The mitigation measures recommended by the LVIA are:

* Implementation of perimeter tree and hedgerow planting as proposed
* Preservation of the existing roadside hedge and trees
* Use of native hedging shrub species to increase biodiversity and enrich the local habitat

The LVIA recommends that by employing these specific mitigation measures (as part of the site landscape proposals) it is considered that detrimental effects of landscape and visual impacts can be minimised.

In summary the LVIA concludes that taking into account the site conditions, visibility and the nature of the development proposals assessed, it is felt that the site could be developed without causing unacceptable harm to the landscape or result in an unacceptable visual impact.

Also submitted alongside the LVIA is a Site Comparison Assessment which concludes that site H19 could be developed with significantly less landscape and visual impact than the other sites considered as part of the Local Plan process, and due to the absence of other constraints such as contamination, existing trees, access problems, air pollution and flooding is the most suitable choice for development at Baginton.

The above demonstrates that, in light of the evidence base, allocation of site H19 is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and is consequently sound.

Access:

There is currently an existing access into the site on Church Road opposite the bus stop. The advice regarding highways and transportation is that the site has excellent access to public transport with a pavement which provides safe access for pedestrians into the village centre. There are likely to be major positive effects on access to public transport which will outweigh any negative effects of the increase in traffic through allocation of this site which are likely to be minor.

In light of the evidence base, allocation of site H19 is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and is consequently sound.


Flooding:

The effects on flooding are considered to be neutral for this site which lies outside of a flood risk zone and any development approved would be designed in accordance with SUDs and the NPPF requirement that development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

In light of the evidence base, allocation of site H19 is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and is consequently sound.

Environmental Health:

Whilst the site could be subject to noise, odour, light and air quality due to the proximity of the airport and sewage works, all the sites assessed in Baginton were within proximity of the sewage works so this constrain affects all sites equally. With regard to the airport, this can be mitigated by appropriate masterplanning and noise attenuation measures.

In light of the evidence base, allocation of site H19 is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and is consequently sound.

Connectivity/Sustainability:

Whilst the site lies on the southern tip of the village it would be well connected to the existing village services, meaning development would not be peripheral or detached. The village does not have a defined "centre" with the main services (village hall, post office and pub) being spread throughout the village. The post office and village hall are to the north of the preferred site option with the pub in very close proximity to the south.

With the bus stop opposite the site and a pavement to all of the services it has excellent walking and public transport links. The pub lies directly opposite the site with open space (Millenium Field) directly adjacent. The village shop and post office is less than 500 metres from the site, an acceptable walking distance with the village hall just in excess of 500 metres from the site. The Manual for Streets (Paragraph 4.4.1) states "walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes' (up to about 800 m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot".

Whilst there are no healthcare or education facilities in Baginton, proximity of the village to Coventry means that it is reliant upon Coventry for such services.

In light of the evidence base, allocation of site H19 is the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives and is consequently sound.


Whilst we are not seeking a modification, we would welcome the opportunity to participate in the oral examination in order to be able to fully represent the benefits of the site which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily through written representations alone.

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.

We support this policy as it is entirely in accordance with national policy and consequently sound. Our support is, however, on the basis that the Green Belt boundary as per the policies map includes the Green belt releases necessary to deliver the District's housing needs. Without the Green Belt Review the Green belt boundary would not endure beyond the plan period and consequently fall foul of paragraph 83 of the NPPF and be unsound.
Whilst we are not seeking a modification, we would welcome the opportunity to participate in the oral examination in order to be able to fully represent the benefits of the site which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily through written representations alone.

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.