Mr Martin Small Historic England Section on History and Historic England (HE) consider that it would be helpful for the Plan to include enough information “about local heritage to guide decisions and put broader strategic heritage policies from the local plan into action at a neighbourhood scale and about local non-designated heritage assets including sites of archaeological interest to guide decisions” as set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance, although HE accept that this is not essential for the Plan to meet the basic conditions. Nothing specific has been suggested, but reference is made in the representation to identifying locally important buildings in the Plan. Mr Martin Small Historic England 5.15 In paragraph 5.15 it could be noted that Historic England, as one of the three national bodies to be consulted where their interests are affected by a neighbourhood plan, also commented on the draft Plan, although it appears that these were not received by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. Amend paragraph 5.15 in order to make reference to Historic England. Mr Martin Small Historic England Support O2, O5, O10, O15 Historic England considers that Neighbourhood Development Plans should be underpinned by a thorough understanding of the character and special qualities of the area covered by the Plan, as per paragraph 58 in the NPPF. Historic England therefore welcome and support Objectives O2, O5, O10 and O15. Mr Martin Small Historic England Support GD1 Historic England note compliance with paragraph 58 of the NPPF. Historic England therefore welcome and support Policy GD1.
Mayall Southern Water Oppose LD1 Southern Water understands Whitchurch Town Council’s desire to protect community facilities. However, SW cannot support the current wording of this policy as it could create a barrier to statutory utility providers, such as Southern Water, from delivering their essential infrastructure required to serve existing and planned development. Policy LD1 of the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Plan does not meet the basic conditions necessary for a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), namely: to have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. To meet the basic conditions necessary for a NDP, Southern Water propose the following amended wording to policy LD1: “Community, Leisure and Cultural facilities and the open spaces as shown in Figure 7.2 will be protected and retained unless development is essential to meet specific necessary utility infrastructure needs and no alternative feasible site is available.”
How the LPA’s comments on the Pre-Submission draft Plan have been addressed in the Submission Neighbourhood Plan and Remaining Issues. Section/ Policy Issue Relevant National Guidance (NPPF and PPG) Not met/Partially Met/ Comment Forward States that: “A Basic Condition of the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) is that it must, in general, comply with the NPPF and the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) adopted and emerging Local Plan policies amongst other considerations.” However, the Basic Conditions require compliance with strategic policies of the “development plan”, which does not yet include the emerging Local Plan. The relevant basic condition states: “the making of the order (or neighbourhood plan) is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area). .” Paragraph: 065 Reference ID: Met The terminology has been clarified and updated in order to reflect that the then emerging Local Plan has now been adopted. The consultation is referred to as taking place under Regulation 14 of the Localism Act. The correct legislation constitutes Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations (General) 2012. Paragraph: 050 Reference ID: “A qualifying body must publicise the draft neighbourhood plan or Order for at least six weeks and consult any of the consultation bodies whose interests it Partially met The introduction makes reference to the plan having been submitted under Regulation 16, whereas it should refer to Regulation 15.
the opportunity to implement or fund some of the measures identified in the transport study once complete, in order to provide a link to future implementation of schemes. It is considered that this issue is adequately addressed by means of policy CP1. 9.3.1 The bullet points and paragraph immediately at the top of page 60 read as a policy. If this is the intention then this text could be converted into a policy. Met This text has now been converted into a policy – IP1. It is considered that this new policy helps ensure that the plan supports sustainable development. ES2 The first sentence is a statement rather than a policy and would be better placed in supporting text, ‘Major’ development s could also be defined in supporting text. It is also considered that some of the elements of the policy are overly specific, in particular the reference to the backhaul systems. As such the council is concerned that they are not a reasonable policy requirement. It would be unreasonable to potentially refuse a major application on the grounds of lack of clarification regarding the capacity of the backhaul systems. Additional guidance regarding the potential content of the connectivity statement should be provided to aid applicants and decisions makers. Partially met It is noted that the first sentence has been removed from the policy, and some additional supporting text has been added in order to provide clarification regarding how to interpret the policy, both of which are considered beneficial. The LPA is aware that a similar policy has been found to meet the basic conditions elsewhere (Woodcote Neighbourhood Plan). Policy IP1 2nd para, 2nd sentence It is stated that “The need for system improvements and upgrades shall be funded in accordance with the Local Plan.” This is considered potentially misleading, as waste PPG ID34-004. “Companies are subject to a statutory duty to ‘effectually drain’ their area. This Met
water infrastructure upgrades are funded and delivered by the water company (Southern Water in Whitchurch) who bid for funds through their five year asset management plan process which is submitted to the regulator, Ofwat. requires them to invest in infrastructure suitable to meet the demands of projected population growth. There is also statutory provision for developers to fund additional sewerage infrastructure required to accommodate flows from a proposed development.” The sentence which was recommended for removal is no longer present in the Plan. Policy IP1 2nd para, 3rd sentence The BDBC Infrastructure Delivery Plan is not a policy document. Accordingly, the way the document has been referred to in the policy is potentially misleading. It implies that development must comply with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan in the same way as development must comply with the development plan. Not all developments will need to provide waste water infrastructure, and hence the wording of the policy should be clarified. Met The policy has been amended in accordance with the recommendations set out in the LPA comments at Regulation 14 stage. 9.4 This paragraph is slightly confusing, as it mentions ‘allocating’ land for an extension to the doctor’s surgery but no explicit allocation appears to have been made. Therefore, it is presumed that this paragraph actually means that there is scope to extend the surgery premises and that such an approach would be supported in principle. If that is the case then clarification along those lines is recommended. Met The policy has been amended in accordance with the recommendations set out in the LPA comments at Regulation 14 stage. 9.5 The council’s Playing Pitch Strategy and Built Sports Facilities Strategy have recently been published so there is the opportunity to review Met The policy has been amended in accordance with the
● the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; ● safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and ● improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.” in particular concerning enforceability. However, it is noted that the policy now specifies that a Transport Statement and Traffic Management Plan will only be required where significant amounts of traffic are generated, which improves the compatibility of this policy with national level planning policy and guidance (e.g. paragraph 32 of the NPPF). The policy also contains more clarity in terms of how its requirements can be met, which will aid with the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. 10.4 The reference to there being an “absence of concrete evidence to show that the North West Whitchurch site is not deliverable” does not seem a reasonable basis for relying on a site to meet an identified land use need, especially when the site in question has proved problematic to bring forward for a number of years. Policy D3.21 of the Adopted Local Plan will not be retained once the submission Local Plan is adopted and therefore it cannot be relied upon to meet the employment need identified. Only policy ES4 makes provision for new employment land, and it may not lead to the result which is favoured by the employment site selection analysis, namely the development of the North West In addition to paragraph 19 referred to above, given the considerable delay in developing the site at North West Whitchurch for employment use, the following section in the NPPF is potentially relevant: “22. Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated Met The WNP now makes an allocation for employment land, and has worked with the landowner to establish that the site can be delivered. The allocation has been made on the basis of detailed analysis of the neighbourhood area’s employment needs and following a detailed site assessment process. The site allocation also addresses the previous delivery impediments associated with this site, namely the need to gain access to the land via the railway tunnels, and an
Whitchurch site for employment use. It could lead to a less preferable site(s) coming forward to meet the demand identified. The conclusion also seems to assume that the North West Whitchurch site can be accessed through the railway tunnel to the north of the site. However, this has been at the root of the considerable delay in bringing the site forward for development, and no evidence has been presented that this issue has been resolved. The conclusion also appears confused in that it is stated that there is no need to make an allocation for employment need, owing to the existence of the saved policy, whilst, on the other hand, the WNP provides a policy to allow additional employment land to come forward on a more flexible basis – ES4. on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.” alternative means of access has now been identified and specified in the site specific policy. 11.3 It should be noted that the council is proposing to amend policy SS5 in the Submission Local Plan. This is not strictly relevant in relation to the basic conditions as the Submission Local Plan is not currently part of the development plan. However, by the time WNP is examined the Submission Plan may have been adopted, in which case the proposed Met The relevant paragraphs at the start of the housing section, and subsequent housing allocations, have been updated in order to reflect the amendments made to policy SS5 of the ALP.
amendments to policy SS5 would be of relevance. It should be stressed though that the proposed amendments are still subject to public consultation (December – February 2016) and consideration by the Inspector in his report of the Submission Local Plan. 11.4 Reference is made to the emerging Local Plan policy in respect of affordable housing, this is not necessary in respect of the ‘basic conditions’ as this is not yet part of the development plan. Met This section of the WNP has been amended in order to reflect the policies in the now adopted Local Plan. 11.4 second paragraph ‘Social housing’ is a form of ‘affordable housing,’ as are affordable rent, and intermediate housing. In the future, the government may change the definition of affordable housing to include ‘starter homes’. NPPF Annex Glossary contains the current definition of affordable housing. Please be aware that the government is currently consulting on an amendment to that definition: Met This paragraph has been amended in order to accord with the NPPF. HD1 This policy is quite convoluted, as it attempts to address affordable housing, older persons housing, and presumably the mix of market housing. The policy moves between different issues related to housing mix, which undermines the clarity and coherence of the policy. The first sentence is somewhat ambiguous, as it is not clear what constitutes the “specific needs identified for Whitchurch”. In respect of the second sentence, it is not clear what would constitute addressing the “local need for older persons’ housing”. i.e. Partially met This policy has been clarified and converted into a more clearly structured criteria based policy. However, the policy does not appear to have responded to the changes which have been made to the PPG in relation to the thresholds for when affordable housing requirements can be imposed. While clause a) does accord with policy CN1 in the ALP, it should be stressed that CN1
requirement to maintain a five year housing land supply, but it not clear what this means in respect of the timescale for delivering the site. This comment applies to each of the housing allocations. sufficient flexibility in order to address any possible under delivery on this site i.e. the plan includes a contingency of 20 units. HA3 The allocation appears to envisage a relatively high density (approximately 66 dph). Therefore, the council is concerned about the deliverability of the quantum of development allocated. Some evidence to demonstrate that this quantum/density of development is feasible would be helpful. Not met The site is now allocated as a reserve site. However, there is no mechanism for its release within the policy (though there is reference to when the site would be released in the supporting text), nor is it entirely clear why this site has now only been allocated as a reserve site. It should also be noted that the site is within the SPB and hence its development for housing is potentially already acceptable in principle. Therefore, it is recommended that consideration is given to the site being allocated for housing as opposed to only as a reserve site. In addition, as with HA1, the LPA is not aware of any evidence which has been provided to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the number of units allocated. However, the reference to ‘approximately’ in the policy in relation to the number of units allocated will allow for some
flexibility in terms of the number of units provided on the site. It should be noted that if the number of units which can be provided falls below 10 then it cannot be counted against the number of dwellings required by policy SS5 in the ALP (please see para 4.67 in the ALP). HA4 Many of the clauses/criteria within the policy are logical and well expressed. However, the council is concerned that the requirements in respect of football provision do not appear to be justified by the material set out in the Plan. More specifically, it is noted that the apparent local need for open space suitable for football use is referred to on page 39. However, this reference does not specify a quantum which is needed. If the need for the space cannot be properly evidenced then the council is concerned that the associated policy requirements may not be justified. The council supports the provision of additional public open space and sports facilities, but is seeking to ensure that the relevant policy requirements are capable of retention through the Independent Examination process. The council is also concerned about the deliverability of the sports facilities. Is it the intention for the developer to provide the changing facilities as part of the planning application? If so, there is no guarantee that they would provide them. Based on the evidence available, it would not be NPPF para 204 and CIL Reg 122: The provision of 4 team changing rooms would not be “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development” i.e. 100 houses. CIL Reg 123 also relevant. Met Outline planning permission was granted 15/03693/OUT in May 2016 for 100 units. A resolution to grant consent for the reserved matters was also established at Planning Development Control Committee on 8 March. Therefore, the LPA is confident that the number of units set out in the policy can be successfully delivered.
appropriate to seek three pitches and the changing facilities through a legal agreement with the developer (i.e. through a section 106 agreement) as they would not meet the three tests in the NPPF (para 204). They could be funded through CIL if land was made available through s.106, but there are lots of demands on the borough council’s CIL funds, so funding cannot be guaranteed. The town council could contribute towards changing facilities from its neighbourhood proportion of CIL. In addition, The borough council has separate standards for green space and sport facilities, so football pitches would not count towards meeting the green space standards. The specification in the policy of the location of the car park vis-a-vis the changing rooms appears to be an issue which is more suitable for supporting text/guidance, as it would seem unreasonable to refuse an application for a 100 unit scheme purely because the car park is not next to the changing rooms. It should also be noted that Lifetime homes standards can no longer be sought and have been replaced by the new optional technical standards. Part 4M(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings is similar to the lifetime homes standard. 11.8/HA5 It is not clear from the wording of these sections whether this is a policy which the Met