policy writing – lets have a go!

36
Joanna Widdecombe BSc (Hons))DipTP MRTPI Neighbourhood Planning Advisor Policy writing – lets have a go!

Upload: rafi

Post on 14-Jan-2016

49 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Policy writing – lets have a go!. Joanna Widdecombe BSc ( Hons )) DipTP MRTPI Neighbourhood Planning Advisor. Today’s Presentation. Just a recap-the not so ‘Basic Conditions’ and more! What the Examiner’s are saying Policy writing-the basics Let’ s have a go!. Evidence gathering. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Joanna Widdecombe BSc (Hons))DipTP MRTPI Neighbourhood Planning Advisor

Policy writing – lets have a go!

Page 2: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Today’s Presentation

•Just a recap-the not so ‘Basic Conditions’ and more!•What the Examiner’s are saying•Policy writing-the basics•Let’ s have a go!

2

Page 3: Policy writing – lets have a go!

3

Evidence gatheringEvidence gathering

Community engagementCommunity engagement

Research and fact finding

Research and fact finding

Identify issues and options

Identify issues and options

Create visionCreate vision

ObjectiveObjective ObjectiveObjective ObjectiveObjective

Policies and proposals

Policies and proposals

Policies and proposals

Policies and proposals

Reasoned justificationReasoned

justificationReasoned

justificationReasoned

justificationReasoned

justificationReasoned

justification

Policies and proposals

Policies and proposals

Page 4: Policy writing – lets have a go!

The Basic Conditions-keep your eyes on them!1. Must have appropriate regard to national policy2. Must be in general conformity with strategic

elements of the Local Plan3. Contributes toward sustainable development4. Has special regard to desirability of preserving

character and setting of listed buildings (NDO only)5. Has special regard to desirability of preserving

character and appearance of conservation areas (NDO only)

6. Compatible with EU obligations

4

Page 5: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Some examples….What the Examiners’ have to say!

5

Page 6: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination – Upper Eden• Written representations• ‘General conformity’ allows a degree of

flexibility in drawing up NP • 2 recommended changes:

– Evidence to support NP policy on affordable rural exception housing in open countryside to meet local needs. Clarification added that policy applies in all rural area, with no site size restriction

– Recommended change to policy on housing for older people

6

Page 7: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination – Exeter St James8 recommended changes:

– Need to state the plan timeframe– Loosen restriction on development in

Hoopern Valley Park to allow for proposals which do not harm the landscape or biodiversity

– Remove word ‘contemporary’ from design policies - ambiguous

– Redefine large scale as ‘10 or more’, rather than ‘over 10’

– Remove requirement to engage local businesses in development proposals

7

Page 8: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination - Thame• Held 1 hearing• Exemplary approach to consultation• Clear link between vision, objectives and

policies• 20 recommended changes:

– Clearer policy wording– Remove conflict with NPPF on out of

town shopping centres– Added Listed Building/Conservation

consideration– Formatting changes

8

Page 9: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination – Tattenhall & District

• Held 1 hearing• “community driven document with

excellent approach to public consultation”

• NP prepared in parallel with emerging Local Plan

• ‘30-limit’ on individual developments within or adjacent to Tattenhall Village

• NP designates Local Green Spaces• Use of Building for Life criteria

commended

9

Page 10: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination –Lynton and Lynmouth

10

The main points to note about the Examiner's report are: •The report is 18 pages long •Suggests only minor amendments,e.g. clarifying the wording on policies. •The examiner staged a clarification meeting with members of the Town Council and National Park Authority but not a public hearing. • Policy aimed at restricting development of second homes

Page 11: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination - NorlandExamined in Aug 2013, written reps – recommended several modifications:•Non-planning matters into separate document or annex•Article 4 beyond powers of NP•Time period of NP should be stated•Needs clear distinction between policy, explanatory text, guidance & background info•Remove ‘unreasonable’ conditions •Policy wording should provide certainty to decision maker•Restriction on extensions needs evidence-base justification•Remove reference to commercial product in policy•Consultation Statement as appendix not necessary

11

Page 12: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination - Broughton Astley Written in Plain English

Evidence published on websiteSelection of sites considered public

opinion & other factors Independent review of pre-submission

consultation results Insufficient evidence for 1st preference to

expand local healthcare facility Remove green space with limited

support for LGS protection Refer to national policy on Listed

Buildings Include design brief requirements for

sites in policy

12

Page 13: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination Cringleford• Max. of 1,200 homes not in conformity with

Local Plan and not showing regard for national policy.

• Max density requirements of 25 dwellings per hectare found not to deliver required number of homes.

• S106/CIL policy and other policies (broadband, sports provision, library) to be subject to development viability

• Policies modified due to insufficient justification: 250m Landscape Protection Zone changed to 145m, 30 – 50 m tree belt zone modified to 35m; requirement on site allocation for 2 hectares of land modified to 1.6 hectares and 50m zone either side of power lines modified to 15m.

• Supported use of RIBA space standards - Cringleford does not have exceptional pressure on space.

13

Page 14: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination: Rolleston on Dove

14

Site identification and selection approach commended Reduced housing requirement and removal of

strategic village status upheld with a 5 year review mechanism despite emerging Local Plan

Two storey height restriction for new residential development and extensions retained

Examiner stated the NP should not be held up by the ‘slowest tier’, the emerging local plan

Tight village settlement boundary was deleted for non conformity with NPPF

Local green space designations must be mapped precisely and public recreational use must be evident if it is the reason for designation

Community infrastructure polices were deleted and included as projects due to lack of secure funding and on the grounds of deliverability

Page 15: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination: Slaugham Recommended not to proceed to Referendum SEA not satisfactory: Failed to comply with the

need to consult statutory bodies on the scope and level of detail of the SEA, assess reasonable alternatives or apply relevant criteria in assessing alternative sites, provide Non Technical Summaries and a clear audit trail.

Lack of robust evidence for 130 dwelling target Site allocation methodology was not justified, and

did not prove exceptional circumstances required for development in the AONB

Pre-submission consultation on the plan and preferred approach was inadequate (3 weeks) and clearer consultation statement needed

CRtBOs recommended for refusal due to lack of EIA , regard to AONB, flood risk and deliverability

Clear vision and approach to monitoring & review

15

Page 16: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination: Woodcote Significant and robust consultation SEA and SA on 3 strategic options 24 dwelling maximum on any one site Approach to site allocation and contingency

sites via memoranda of understanding praised and site selection upheld

One off street parking space per bedroom for new homes retained

Transport statement required for new industrial, distribution and storage uses

Maximum housing figures removed Local connection and viability issues raised Separate policies and link goals to objectives

16

Page 17: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Independent Examination: Kirdford Clear vision and extensive consultation Community Land Trust praised Site specific flood risk assessment retained Non statutory community aspirations and action

plan retained in plan but separated from policies Maximum housing numbers removed CSH Level 5 and Internet policies modified on the

grounds of viability and deliverability Assets of community value and local green space

policies removed Need to prioritise affordable housing over housing

for older persons Issues and objectives to be revised and published

separately

17

Page 18: Policy writing – lets have a go!

And now for the ‘Policies’!

18

Page 19: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Planning policies

“Plans should…provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency.”

NPPF paragraph 17

19

Page 20: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Key rules for policy writingNeighbourhood Plan policies should be:1.Appropriate for a neighbourhood planning document2.Consistent with the NPPF and the Local Plan3.Positively written e.g. “proposals will be supported where…”4.Clear and unambiguous 5.Capable of having the desired impact within the timescale covered by the neighbourhood plan6.Based on robust evidence base

20

Page 21: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Try to avoid…• Covering every

eventuality• Duplicating other

planning documents• Unsupported

statements• Double negatives• Technical jargon (unless

completely necessary)

21

Page 22: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Suggested Policy Format

• Intention – what you want to achieve

• Justification – why this is right for this area– Evidence: engagement and facts, other higher level

policies

• Policy– Planning Permission will be granted provided that…

22

Page 23: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Example policy is it good or bad?

Planning permission will not be granted for major development in the vicinity of A particular major road junction

Page 24: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Example policy – is it good or bad?

Proposals that support the development of small scale social enterprises and other businesses will be permitted provided that the proposals:a)do not involve the loss of dwellings;b)contribute to the character and vitality of the local area;c)are well integrated into, and complement, existing clusters of business activity;d)Protect residential amenity.

24

Page 25: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Example policy – improvements needed?

T5 Loss of Other Tourist Facilities

The loss of other tourist facilities to other uses will not be supported unless:

•It can be demonstrated that the tourist facility is no longer viable;

•The proposed alternative use would provide better benefits for the local economy and community than the current use.

Page 26: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Exeter St James – Tree Policy Justification

Trees and hedgerows perform a number of important roles in supporting biodiversity, providing attractive shade/shelter and generally improving health and amenity. Trees will also help St James adapt to the effects of Climate Change.

Planting more street trees in strategic spaces is a key priority of the community. Sites specifically identified by the community include York Road, Well Street and Thornton Hill, West Avenue, Culverland Road and Union Road.

New development should include the provision of suitable tree planting where appropriate. (although this not included in the policy)

26

Page 27: Policy writing – lets have a go!

The actual Exeter St James Tree policy:-

EN5: TreesDevelopment that damages or results in the loss of ancient trees or trees of good arboricultural and amenity value will not normally be permitted.(Development) Proposals should must? be designed to retain ancient trees or trees of arboricultural and amenity value. Proposals should be accompanied by a tree survey that establishes the health and longevity of any affected trees.

27

Not necessary to qualify policies in this way

Page 28: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Good policies:

• Set out clear criteria to indicate how a policy is applied to various circumstances

• Have clearly defined supporting text - justification• Supported by robust evidence, not just local opinion• Avoid technical planning terms and jargon unless

necessary

28

Page 29: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Remember the 3 audiences for your neighbourhood plan

29

Independent examiner Voters in the referendum Decision makers

Page 30: Policy writing – lets have a go!

and…what it’s all about?

“ Do you want Cornwall Council to use the neighbourhood plan for St Ives neighbourhood area

to help it decide planning applications in the

neighbourhood area”

30

Page 31: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Try drafting a policy • not forgetting why you are doing it and the evidence

there to support it!

31

Policy Drafting Workshop - Have a go!

Page 32: Policy writing – lets have a go!

Next steps:

• Draft of NDP prepared

• Regulation 14 Consultation

• Submission for Examination

• Examination

• Referendum

32

Page 33: Policy writing – lets have a go!

33

How to get in touch with me!

Joanna WiddecombeTel: 07813 029 113

E-mail:[email protected]

NationalAdvice Line: 0330 123 9244

E-mail: [email protected]: www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid

Page 34: Policy writing – lets have a go!

• Our Neighbourhood Plans Frontrunner website – www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.org.uk – for all the latest postings on good/bad practice around the country

• Our ‘Up Front’ e-bulletin for up-to-date news on neighbourhood planning – subscribe at [email protected]

Some useful bits….

Page 35: Policy writing – lets have a go!

35

Page 36: Policy writing – lets have a go!

36