report to cabinet 23 january 2012 portfolio ... - basingstoke
TRANSCRIPT
1
Report To Cabinet
Portfolio Holder presenting: Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
23 January 2012
Subject: Pre-Submission LDF Core Strategy
Status: Open
Ward(s): All
Key Decision: Yes
Key Decision Ref: 739/PTI
Report Of: Interim Head of Planning and Transport, Giorgio Framalicco
Contact:
Andrew Hunter (01256) 845318
Email [email protected]
Mark Lambert (01256) 845750
Email [email protected]
John Guppy (01256) 845462
Email [email protected]
Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Draft Pre-Submission Core Strategy document Appendix 2 – Summary of the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment conclusions Appendix 3 – Summary of Equalities Impact Assessment Process (Equalities Impact Assessment concluisons available to view in the Member Group Rooms and on the borough council’s website) Appendix 4 – Set of plans to highlight amendments to the Adopted Local Plan proposals maps Appendix 5- Extract from Economic Prosperity and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee 23 November 2011 Appendix 6 – Recommendation agreed by Council 15 December 2011 Appendix 7 – Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (available to view in the Member Group Rooms and on the borough council’s website)
Papers relied on to produce this report
Report to Members Advisory Panel July 2008 Feedback from Issues and Options Consultation Report to Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee June / July 2010 Feedback for Key Themes consultation Report to Cabinet 23 March 2010 –Agreement of Shared Vision Report to Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee 17 February 2011 – Feedback from Housing Consultation
2
Report to Cabinet 29 March 2011 (719/PTI) – Site Assessment Methodology Report to Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee 16 June 2011 – Future Housing Requirement Report to Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20 / 21 / 22 September 2011 – LDF Core Strategy - Housing Sites and Distribution Report to Cabinet 17 October 2011 – LDF Core Strategy – Housing Numbers, Sites and Distribution (Key Decision ref: 736 / PTI) Report to Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee 11 / 12 / 17 January 2012 The Localism Act 16 November 2011
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this report is for Cabinet to consider the Pre Submission Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal proposed for public consultation.
1.2 The report follows on from Cabinet’s decision in October 2011 regarding proposed housing numbers, sites and distribution and takes forward discussions held with Members through Member Advisory Panels.
1.3 The paper highlights the steps that have been taken in preparing the Pre Submission Core Strategy, Member and community involvement to date, outlines key elements of the Core Strategy and sets out the proposed approach to consultation.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Cabinet:
i) Considers the comments of the Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee in respect of the Pre-Submission LDF Core Strategy;
ii) Considers the summary of conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal and the Equalities Impact Assessment that have been undertaken as an integral part of the preparation of the Pre-Submission Core Strategy;
iii) Approves the Pre-Submission LDF Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal for consultation for the period 10th February to 23rd March 2012, in line with the approach to consultation set out in paragraphs 6.2 to 6.4 of the report;
iv) Re-affirms its position in respect of the proposed allocated sites and locations for development for inclusion in the LDF Core Strategy; and
3
v) Delegates authority to the Interim Head of Planning and Transport in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning Transport and Infrastructure for minor changes to the Pre-Submission Core Strategy prior to public consultation.
4
PRIORITIES, IMPACTS AND RISKS
Contribution to Council Priorities
This report accords with the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework
Council 3 Year Plan References:
A5
Service Plan References: PL1; PL2; PL12
Other References:
Contribution To Community Strategy
Community Strategy Objectives:
E3
Impacts* (paragraph numbers to be added)
Type No
significant impacts
Some impacts
Significant impacts
Impacts for BDBC
Financial X
Personnel X
Legal X
Impacts on Wellbeing
Equality and Diversity X
Crime and Disorder X
Health X
Environment X
Economic X
Involving Others
Communication/Consultation X
Partners X
Risk Assessment
Number of risks identified: 1
Number of risks considered HIGH or Medium:
1
Strategic: Already identified on Corporate Risk Register?
Yes X
No
Operational: Already identified in Service Plans? Yes X
No
5
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term Definition
BASP Basingstoke Area Strategic Partnership
CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
DPA Dwellings Per Annum
DPD Development Plan Document
EPP OSCOM Economic Prosperity and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
EQIA Equalities Impact Assessment
HCA Homes and Communities Agency
HCC Hampshire County Council
IDP Infrastructure Delivery Plan
LDF Local Development Framework
LPA Local Planning Authority
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
P+I OSCOM Planning and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
PPS Planning Policy Statement
SA Sustainability Appraisal
SCI Statement of Community Involvement
SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
SPB Settlement Policy Boundary
3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.1 The Local Development Framework (LDF) is a set of planning documents
that provides a framework to guide future planning and development decisions in the borough. The first key document to be prepared for the LDF is the Core Strategy, which is the overarching development plan document. The Core Strategy, in the context of the ‘Shared Vision’1 sets out the long-term spatial strategy for the borough and the overall objectives of the LDF. It also sets out the strategic policies and allocates strategic sites, and locations for development. Further Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) will also form a part of the LDF, providing more detailed policies and site specific information as necessary, including any requirement to review Settlement Policy Boundaries. In addition, it will provide an overall framework within which Neighbourhood Plans can be prepared.
1 Shared vision set out in the Council Plan and agreed with partners – agreed by Cabinet 23 March 2010
6
3.2 The Pre-Submission draft Core Strategy has been prepared taking into a
range of issues and considerations, including:
Consultations to date and views expressed;
The outcomes of a comprehensive evidence base;
National guidance in the form of Planning Policy Statements (PPS);
The changing emphasis towards localism and bottom up planning; and
Relevant local documents and strategies, such as the Council Plan, the Community Strategy and those prepared by our partner agencies.
3.3 In addition, officers have been mindful of the draft National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) in preparing the Core Strategy. This is expected to be published in its final form in Spring 2012.
3.4 The Core Strategy has been informed by a Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
and an Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA). In the case of the SA, this evaluates the social, environmental and economic effects of the plan and considers and appraises alternative approaches to ensure that the most appropriate options are taken forward. A summary of the SA conclusions (which includes the Strategic Environmental Assessment) is provided at Appendix 2. A comprehensive report, outlining the SA and SEA process, conclusions and impacts on the Pre-submission Core Strategy as it has developed, will be made available at the time of the Pre-submission Core Strategy consultation due to take place in February/March.
3.5 In the case of the EQIA, this has tested the Pre submission Core Strategy to consider if there are any adverse impacts on any particular group of the population, and where any impacts do exist, to ensure that appropriate mitigation is put in place. A summary of the EQIA process is provided as Appendix 3. A scoping of the individual policies has been completed and it was concluded that no discrimination issues are raised. The results of the assessment to date have been placed in the Member Group Rooms. The EQIA process is continuing and once it has been completed and fully validated, a final version will be placed in the Member Group Rooms and on the council’s website.
3.6 The diagram below highlights the stages in the process of preparing a
Core Strategy and outlines which steps have been undertaken and which are still required to be completed in the future.
7
Issues Identification / Awareness Raising – 2007
Issues and Options - 2008
Key Themes – 2010
Consultation with Rural Communities / Rural Parish Councils - 2011
New Homes Consultation - 2010 / 2011
Pre-Submission Core Strategy – Proposed Feb / March 2012
Submission Core Strategy – Proposed July 2012
Examination – Proposed Autumn 2012
Inspectors Report – Proposed Winter 2012
Adoption – Proposed March 2013
Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report - 2007
Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal - 2008
Pre-Submission Sustainability Appraisal report - 2011
Preparation of Pre-Submission Core Strategy – 2010 / 2011
On-going process of refinement / testing through Sustainability
Appraisal
8
4. PREPARATION OF THE PRE-SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY 4.1 The Core Strategy document consists of the following key elements:
Spatial portrait – to provide a brief overview of the borough, describing its context in terms of social, demographic, economic and environmental conditions, and going on to identify specific key issues that need to be addressed through the strategy;
Vision and objectives – to establish an overall approach for achieving future aspirations for the borough, creating the spatial element of the ‘Shared Vision’;
Spatial strategy – to outline how the borough will change in the future and what it will look like by 2027;
Strategic allocations and distribution approach – to set out how and where future development will be located;
A set of policies – to achieve the spatial strategy, setting out what considerations new development should take into account, providing a framework for making planning decisions; and ,
A set of plans to illustrate and identify particular policy designations. These plans will update the Proposals Map that was adopted as part of the Local Plan.
4.2 These elements are supplemented by a monitoring framework to consider
and evaluate how the policies are being implemented and whether they are achieving what they are intended to do.
4.3 The following sections outline how each of the above sections of the Pre-
Submission Core Strategy have been prepared, in addition to the steps outlined in section 3 of this report.
Spatial Portrait 4.4 The initial section of the Core Strategy is a ‘Spatial Portrait’ which provides
the context for the document, and describes the characteristics of the borough, such as the size of the borough and its population, and particular assets, such as the diversity and value of the built and natural environment. This is intended to provide an initial description of the borough at present, and is supplemented by a series of issues that need to be addressed over the life of the plan. These are set out in section 1 of the Core Strategy, attached as Appendix 1 to this report. These issues are further explored through subsequent sections of the Core Strategy and have been identified through the evidence base, comments made to the consultations undertaken to date and other sources, such as documents prepared by the council and its partners.
Vision and Objectives
9
4.5 The key starting point for addressing identified issues through the Core
Strategy is the adopted ‘Shared Vision’ for the Borough, which was developed through close working with the Basingstoke Area Strategic Partnership (BASP). This vision was adopted in March 2010, by both BASP and the Borough Council, it provides the focus for the type of place that the borough should be. The vision sets the overall context for the LDF as a whole. It should be noted that, in incorporating the adopted Vision into the Core Strategy, the time period for this has been extended to refer to 2027, in line with that of the Core Strategy.
4.6 From the Vision, flow a series of objectives which indicate the broad
direction that the more detailed strategy and policy should take. These are centred around three key themes, directly drawn from the Vision, which underpin the future character of the borough:
Prosperous and thriving;
Connected and vibrant; and
Environmentally responsible and distinctive 4.7 The Pre Submission Core Strategy identifies a set of individual objectives
that have been prepared taking into account the findings of the evidence base and the significant amount of consultation undertaken to date. These objectives set out the key issues which will be addressed in the Core Strategy, which will help to achieve the Shared Vision. These are set out on section 2 of the Core Strategy, included as Appendix 1 to this report.
Spatial Strategy
4.8 The Spatial Strategy effectively forms an executive summary to the Core
Strategy. It builds upon the Vision and objectives and describes how key issues that have been identified will be tackled and how the borough will evolve over the course of the plan period. This has been drafted to respond to the identified issues and in light of comments received through the various consultations undertaken. The Strategy seeks to articulate key projects that are being progressed, such as the regeneration scheme at Basing View, in addition to describing other important priorities for the council and its communities, such as the protection and enhancement of the borough’s built and natural environment. Fundamentally, it describes how and where development will take place to meet needs, including detailing the approach for the borough’s larger settlements and rural areas, in addition to establishing how the local economy will be fostered to improve prosperity.
Location of Development
10
4.9 In order to deliver the Vision and Spatial Strategy, it is next necessary to establish the approach to achieve this through a series of policies to:
Allocate specific sites, and to describe the form of development on each site, including any key features or issues that need to be taken into account in bringing forward development; and
More general development focussed policies, covering issues such as regeneration and the phasing approach for reserve sites.
4.10 Consideration has been given to the appropriate housing number, sites
and distribution through a series of meetings of the P+I OSCOM, in September 2011. Cabinet’s decision in October confirmed a future building level of 594 dwellings per year in the period up to 2027, together with the allocation of a series of sites to accommodate this level of development. In addition to allocated sites, non-site specific allocations were made for four settlements to achieve a certain level of housing. The exact location for these homes would be established through subsequent documents such as the Allocations Delivery Plan Document and / or Neighbourhood Plans.
4.11 Linked to this decision was a requirement for officers to undertake:
Further site based design work, in conjunction with landowners and service providers to ensure that the sites are able to deliver as suggested and that the identified yields can be achieved;
To progress with further work regarding transport, infrastructure and site master-planning; and
Location based work, which officers are proposing will be progressed through discussions with representatives from individual settlements once further progress has been made with the Core Strategy. This will explore the scope to bring forward development through a Neighbourhood Planning approach, or whether there is a requirement to prepare an Allocations Development Plan Document to deliver the identified levels of development in these locations.
4.12 In respect of those specific sites which were the subject of the Cabinet
decision in October, individual policies have been drafted to detail the requirements for development in these locations. These were circulated to Members at the end of November, in advance of a drop-in session for Councillors on 8 December. This provided the opportunity to discuss site based issues with officers. Accordingly, where required, updates have been undertaken to the site based policies to reflect the views expressed. This included specific comments around the provision of infrastructure to serve the sites including school provision, access arrangements, phasing and delivery of sites and a range of more specific issues relating to the location of development within sites.
11
4.13 Officers have also been liaising with site owners / agents for the allocated sites, in order to assist with the drafting of the policies and to confirm any infrastructure requirements. In addition the opportunity has been taken to re-run the transport model to consider the implications of the allocation of sites on the wider transport network. The re-run of the model has initially indicated that by applying interventions at a number of key junctions the impact of development can be mitigated, and thus not extend travel times unreasonably along the main routes as a result of the development(s) when considered against general background growth. However, the detail of the results and the practical appraisal of the design of the interventions is still work in progress and will be continually assessed. The outputs of this model and discussions with service providers have assisted in drafting the site based policies. In addition, this has helped to inform the preparation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Members are asked to note the following issues resulting from these discussions:
BAS104 – North of Popley Fields 4.14 Members will be aware that the landowners for this site have been actively
preparing a proposal for development on this site. At the time of preparing this report, a pre-application has been received by the council with a formal application anticipated in January 2012.
BAS132 – Basingstoke Golf Club 4.15 Members will also be aware that there remained an outstanding issue
regarding the intentions of Basingstoke Golf Club, as set out in the reports to the P+I OSCOM in September. However, it should be noted that a ballot at a General Meeting of the golf club’s members resolved to:
Support the inclusion of the land owned by the Company in the 2012 – 2027 Local Plan of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council; and
Support the decision of the Board of Directors to make such land available for development, to identify suitable land for the relocation of the golf course and to engage appropriate professionals and consultants to advise the Company in lreation to such matters), provided that any proposals for such disposal or relocation is to be put to the members for approval before being implemented.
SOL002 – Redlands, Sherfield-on-Loddon 4.16 In terms of the site at Redlands (SOL002), upon further discussion with
highways officers and the landowner’s agent, the scope to provide a further access point to the site has been discussed. This would facilitate a direct point of access to the site from the A33, via the roundabout junction
12
adjacent to Taylors Farm and would extend the site of SOL002 to the north. A plan to illustrate this is provided in Appendix 4,which contains a set of maps highlighting the proposed changes to the Proposals Maps of the current Adopted Local Plan. It is proposed that this additional land is included within the allocated site to provide a point of access. It should be noted that this does not result in an increase in the number of homes to be accommodated on this site but does increase the site area.
4.17 Accordingly, in light of the above issues, the policies have been
incorporated within the Pre-Submission Core Strategy as policies SS2.1 to SS2.8. In addition, consideration has been given to the phasing and release of the sites, to ensure that development comes forward at the appropriate time. In so doing, account has been taken of the following key issues:
The need to maintain a five year supply of housing sites, and the borough’s current position in this regard;
The lead in times required for bringing forward development sites, including the provision and phasing of infrastructure to serve sites (e.g. the provision of sewerage infrastructure to serve sites to the south west of the town); and
The requirement for homes to be provided to meet local needs in specific areas.
4.18 To respond to this, specific reference has been made to a timescale for
those sites which should be developed in the second half of the plan period (BAS121 – East of Basingstoke, SOL002 – Redlands and BAS132 – Basingstoke Golf Club). In addition, a specific policy has been included to deal with the reserve sites identified at Kennel Farm and Cufaude Farm, which establishes the circumstances within which such sites could be released for development. This is included in the Core Strategy as policy SS3and includes, in summary, reference to the borough’s five year supply position, the availability of infrastructure and progress of development on other allocated sites.
4.19 Since the completion of the site assessment work, Hampshire County
Council (HCC) has raised the possible need for an additional secondary school in the borough, which should be associated with development to the East of Basingstoke. To date officers are still exploring whether site identification is required in the Core Strategy and if the provision of additional capacity at the existing secondary schools may respond to any additional need for secondary places. If formal site allocation is required officers have requested that the Local Education Authority speak with HCC’s property department to consider such provision in conjunction with the site known as BAS 121, at the time of writing this discussion was yet to take place. The Cabinet will be updated on the
13
latest position ahead of the meeting on the 23 January 2012. If such an allocation is required, it is suggested that a site be provisionally reserved on BAS121 and the requirement for such provision be explored through the masterplanning of this site. At that time, it should be clear whether such provision is required. The allocation of such a site could affect the yield anticipated on BAS121 and this loss in numbers would need to be considered through annual monitoring.
Other Issues Arising from the Reports of September / October 4.20 Members will be aware that there are further matters arising from the
reports that were considered in September and October which required further investigation, including an outstanding matter regarding future development in Whitchurch and also issues arising as a result of recent discussions around the Manydown site (BAS098).
4.21 In terms of Whitchurch, officers reported that further work was necessary
to consider how the outstanding figure of 200 homes could be accommodated locally. Having completed initial site assessment work for a new category one site in the town (ref. WHIT018) and considered the views of the local ward Members and the comments made by the Town Council, officers are of the view that the most effective approach would be to maintain a consistent stance to that advocated for other settlements where a non site specific ‘number’ has been identified. This includes Bramley, Kingsclere and Oakley, where the delivery would be achevied by either bringing forward a site or a number of sites through a Neighbourhood Planning approach or a subsequent Site Allocations DPD. The exact method for each settlement may vary, depending upon the views of the local community and the likelihood of a neighbourhood plan being progressed.
4.22 In each of those settlements referred to in paragraph 4.21, opportunities
for development within Settlement Policy Boundaries (SPBs) (i.e. infilling development) will generally be considered to be in addition to the numbers identified in the Pre-Submission Core Strategy. As with all other settlements, a positive approach to well designed development within SPBs would continue, which would be on top of the number and allocations identified for the various settlements around the borough.
4.23 On the 17 October 2011, Cabinet agreed potential sites for inclusion in the Pre Submission Core Strategy. This did not include the allocation of the Manydown site due to the position of the landowners, who were not actively promoting the site for development, and had agreed not to review this position until the first LDF was formally adopted.
14
4.24 Officers would like to reiterate and expand on the reasoning behind their view that Manydown should not be included in the draft Core Strategy. The prospect of development being achieved on the Manydown site in the plan period is central to the assessment of the site’s suitability for allocation in the draft core strategy, as per the relevant tests detailed by paragraphs 54 to 57 of PPS3. The intentions of the landowners of Manydown are essential to the Local Planning Authority’s consideration of the prospect of development being achieved on the site during the plan period. To be allocated within the draft core strategy the local planning authority must be satisfied that the site must either be “deliverable” and “available now” (within years 1 – 5) or “developable” (within years 5-6 or 6-15), Crucially, to be developable, there must be “a reasonable prospect that the site would be available and could be developed at the point envisaged”.
4.25 The background and reasons why the site was originally acquired and the decisions of both landowners made in respect of the site since its acquisition were set out in detail in the report to the Economic Prosperity and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee (EPPOSCOM) on 23 November 2011. An extract of this report (setting out in full this background and those decisions) is provided at Appendix 5 of this report.
4.26 The decisions of the landowners detailed by Appendix 5 are the only substantial evidence available to the Local Planning Authority of the landowners’ intentions. In particular, the following landowners’ decisions and considerations are viewed by officers as defining the landowners’ intentions regarding Manydown:-
a) The decision of the Manydown Executive 13 July 2006 to recommend to Full Council that the borough council’s involvement in the active promotion of the Manydown land for development should be suspended for the time being pending inter alia the outcome of the work on major infrastructure;
b) Full Council’s endorsement of that recommendation 20 July 2006;
c) The decision of HCC’s Executive member for Policy and Resources in February 2009 not to actively promote Manydown further through the preparation of the borough council’s first LDF;
d) The decision of the Manydown Executive Committee on the 23 June 2009 as noted by Full Council on 16 July 2009 not to promote Manydown for development through the preparation of the borough’s
15
first LDF, such a position to be reviewed on 1st September 2011 or the date the LDF is formally adopted, whichever is later;
e) The documentation of the position of both landowners set out in (d) above in a Deed of Variation dated 27 September 2010.
4.27 Applying the ‘deliverability’ test for years 1-5 of the plan (as set out in Paragraph 4.24), in the light of the landowner decisions not to promote the site, it is clear that Manydown is not “available now”. Consequently, Manydown should not be viewed as being ‘deliverable’ and cannot therefore be included in the draft Core Strategy.
4.28 The Local Planning Authority must, however, also consider whether Manydown should be included in the draft Core Strategy by virtue of being ’developable’.
4.29 For Manydown to be considered ‘developable’ there must be a reasonable prospect that Manydown will become available for development at a point envisaged during the plan period. The intentions of the landowners are clearly relevant to the consideration of this issue. Officers are of the view that this cannot be demonstrated for the following reasons:
a) It is clear from the landowners’ decisions set out above that their stated intention is not to promote Manydown in the council’s first LDF (officers have interpreted ‘first LDF’ as meaning the council’s Core Strategy) and not to review this position until the council’s first LDF is adopted. There is no clear stated intention on behalf of the landowners’ to promote the site for development or to make the site available at a point during the plan period;
b) The landowners have been aware of the Local Planning Authority’s intention to exclude Manydown from the draft Core Strategy since 23 September 2011 (when an LDF update report was made to the Joint Manydown Committee). However, neither landowner has made any representations to the Local Planning Authority requesting that the Local Planning Authority review its position regarding the exclusion of Manydown; and
c) At the EPP OSCOM meeting 23 November 2011, a recommendation to Full Council was made (set out at Appendix 6 of this report). This recommendation was subsequently agreed by Full Council on the 15 December 2011. This does not materially change the position of the Landowners regarding Manydown from the Local Planning Authority’s point of view.
16
4.30 In light of the above, on present information, officers are of the opinion that there is no reasonable prospect of Manydown becoming available or being developed during the plan period and therefore cannot recommend its inclusion in the Pre-Submission Core Strategy. The council has identified a number of other ‘developable’ sites for inclusion in the strategy for the next 15 years, so a broad allocation, which has no proven reasonable prospect as to its developability is not required. For clarity, the council needs to produce a plan which has a 15 year supply of developable sites contained within it. As such, officers consider that including a site within the Core Strategy, which does not meet the tests of PPS3, with no clear timeframe as to when and if the site might be released, would not be a sound approach.
4.31 Should the positions of the landowners change in due course and prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy, the Local Planning Authority will have to take account of the landowners’ positions, which may warrant a reassessment of the developability of the Manydown site.
General Policies 4.32 The remaining key element of the Core Strategy is a set of policies to
guide and manage development in the future. As Cabinet will be aware, these have been prepared to respond to the evidence base within the framework provided by the national planning system. In particular, these policies have evolved as a result of the consultation responses that have been received, including the policy areas that were considered and discussed in the Issues and Options and the Key Themes documents.
4.33 The draft non-site based policies have been considered through a series
of six LDF Member Advisory Panel (MAP) meetings over the period March to August 2011. At these meetings, Councillors made a range of comments in respect of the draft policies. A schedule of comments raised during the MAP sessions along with officer responses to these have been placed in the group rooms. The policies were subsequently updated to take into account relevant points, and the policies were recirculated in December 2011. This provided a further opportunity to comment on the policies, prior to their inclusion in the Pre-Submission document. Members will be aware that the policies have been drafted to provide a sound basis upon which to make judgements about future development and have been worded to provide officers and members of the Development Control Committee with sufficient scope upon which to make decisions.
17
4.34 The draft policies have been organised in the Pre-Submission Core Strategy in to three chapters covering:
Meeting community needs – including policies around housing types and tenures, regeneration, transport and accessibility and infrastructure;
Environmental management and climate change – including policies around biodiversity and nature conservation, the historic environment, green infrastructure and those associated with renewable energy and improving energy efficiency; and
Local economic prosperity – including policies around economic development, the regeneration of Basing View, the rural economy and the approach to town centres.
All three chapters cover a range of both urban and rural issues, with different approaches to each outlined where required.
4.35 It should be noted that each policy is supported by an approach to
monitoring, to ensure that the effectiveness of the policies can be measured and reported annually. In addition, as noted previously, the Core Strategy has been subject to an SA and an EQIA to assess and consider the implications of individual approaches.
4.36 Alongside development of the Core Strategy, assessment has been made
as to whether the Core Strategy would have a ‘significant effect’ on the integrity of the European Network of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas under the Habitats Directive. There are no Natura 2000 sites within the borough, but there are a number within neighbouring authorities (including the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) which have been assessed. The draft screening report indicates that the Pre-Submission Core Strategy will not have a ‘significant effect’ on these sites and therefore this DPD will not require a full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations. The screening report will be published alongside the Pre-Submission Core Strategy consultation document.
5. INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN 5.1 An Infrastructure and Delivery Plan (IDP) has been prepared as part of the
evidence base to inform and support the Core Strategy and spatial policies. A draft of this is provided as Appendix 7 which is available in the group rooms and on the borough council’s Website) and this will assist partners and other service providers to identify issues and priorities as part of an integrated approach to planning and infrastructure provision.
18
5.2 The IDP has assessed the infrastructure capacity and needs in the borough for the period to 2027. It forms the basis for assessing infrastructure contributions that would be sought to meet the needs of new development as set out in PPS 12 Local Spatial Planning.
5.3 The IDP seeks to give a broad overview of the way certain infrastructure is
planned and the agencies involved in its delivery. It also looks in more detail at costs and likely funding mechanisms for some items of infrastructure, in particular those that are essential to delivering the Core Strategy.
5.4 The provision of infrastructure is dependant on:
Spatial policies and site allocations including planning obligations for the delivery or funding of community facilities. Current mechanisms include Section 106 agreements attached to development proposals to deliver: highway improvements, open space and affordable housing;
Utility companies, public services, and Hampshire County Council in making provision for infrastructure in their own plans e.g. water company Asset Management Plans, Surface Water Management Plan, local transport plans etc;
Public sector investment, e.g. growth funds, new homes bonus and economic promotion through the LEP; and
The introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help with the funding of strategic infrastructure through the preparation of a ‘charging schedule’.
5.5 Preparation of the IDP has involved a detailed appraisal of the Strategies
and Reports that have been commissioned for the LDF and the outcome of meetings and workshops with key partners and service providers to enable key priorities to be identified and infrastructure needs of each development allocation to be examined. The Members LDF Advisory Panel also met in December to consider the IDP in regard to the level of growth proposed for the town and rural settlements and their future priorities and proposals regarding infrastructure provision.
5.6 Work on the IDP has not revealed any likely ‘showstoppers’ in regard to
the potential capacity of infrastructure provision in the borough to accommodate the amount of development proposed. Further evidence is being gathered with HCC and the Highways Agency on an appraisal of potential improvements to the Black Dam roundabout / M3 junction 6 to meet future growth expectations in the town. The outcomes are expected early in 2012.
5.7 The IDP also seeks to identify the likely phasing of development and an
appropriate strategy for delivery, including indicative costs and funding
19
streams available for its implementation. The IDP therefore sets out in a Development Schedule the proposed infrastructure to be provided in order to deliver planned growth, by whom and when. The IDP outlines:
Infrastructure needs;
Responsibilities for delivery;
Phasing of development and key links with delivery of infrastructure; and
The costs and funding sources. 5.8 It looks to ensure that the strategies and plans of partners and
infrastructure providers are included in the assessment of infrastructure needs and will help support and inform decision making within the borough relating to capital and revenue investment to facilitate the delivery of community infrastructure in cooperation with its external partners within BASP and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA)
5.9 The IDP will be monitored and reviewed as necessary to reflect emerging
plans and strategies and funding to support the preparation of the any subsequent DPDs.
5.10 It is recognised that infrastructure requirements may change in response
to changing or unexpected circumstances and that delivery agencies may have to review their management and investment plans and priorities over time taking into account economic conditions. Therefore, an ongoing review of infrastructure requirements will be needed and continuous dialogue with delivery agencies and developers to co-ordinate development and infrastructure delivery as investment plans and budgeting processes of the different agencies may not be aligned and commercial information may not be currently available for longer term forecasting.
5.11 In addition to the usual funding mechanisms through S106 obligations and
capital programs, the government has introduced regulations to enable local authorities to use the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This will help fund any gaps in the funding of infrastructure within local authorities to include not only roads and railways, but other local facilities including libraries, parks, schools, health and community centres. Proposed amendments to the CIL regulations will require local authorities to pass a meaningful proportion of the revenue generated for the levy to other bodies such as the local elected council for the area where the development and growth take place.
20
5.12 CIL will partially replace the S106 system that is currently used to obtain planning gain from developments and will need to be supported by a robust IDP. PPS12 advises local authorities to advance their infrastructure planning in order to ensure that there is clear evidence about planned infrastructure, its costs, timing and other likely sources of funding to underpin their development strategies; and to serve as a basis for establishing polices for charging the levy.
5.13 The intention is for a levy to apply to new developments to enable funds to be used to provide infrastructure through a ‘Charging Schedule’ once they have an adopted development plan for their area. The Charging Schedule is subject to a public examination by an independent examiner who will check that the legislation has been complied with and that the rates that are proposed will support rather than harm the viability of providing new development.
5.14 The borough council is looking to produce a Charging Schedule in
accordance with CIL Regulations to supplement the required funding for the major infrastructure provision with the borough. The implementation of the levy will follow the adoption of the Core Strategy and consultation on the preliminary draft of the Charging schedule is likely to commence in the Summer 2012 to enable adoption of a charging schedule early in 2013.
6. NEXT STEPS 6.1 Following consideration of the draft Pre-Submission Core Strategy by
members of the P+I OSCOM, a supplementary report will be prepared for Cabinet to consider any points made through the OSCOM which may suggest a change to the pre submission document.
6.2 Once approved the Pre-Submission Core Strategy will go out for
consultation. It is proposed that the document is made widely available for stakeholders and members of the public to provide comments. Consultation will be undertaken for a period of six weeks during the period 10 February 2012 to 23 March 2012 and the methods to be used will be based upon previous consideration of the consultation approaches considered by the P+I OSCOM on 4 March 2010 and in light of the council’s Adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). It is therefore proposed that the following methods be used to consult and engage:
An article in Basingstoke and Deane Today spring 2012 edition, highlighting that the consultation is underway and explaining how residents can have their say on the Core Strategy proposals, what happens next and how they can sign up to be kept up to date;
21
Exhibitions in key locations across the borough with a particular focus on those areas where land is proposed for allocation;
Distribution of reference copies of full draft Core Strategy, with feedback forms, for public locations such as the council offices, all libraries across the borough and to all Parish and Town Councils;
Updated pages on the council’s website giving access to the draft Core Strategy, background information and online response forms;
Publication of an executive summary leaflet highlighting the consultation to be distributed to information points across the borough;
Work with the local print and broadcast media, including news releases and media briefings;
Articles flagging up the consultation submitted to community and parish magazines and websites;
Consultation edition of LDF Newsletter for those on the LDF database (includes amongst others parish councils and community associations) to provide advance warning of the consultation;
Edition of business email newsletter ‘Eye on Business’ to highlight the consultation;
Letters immediately prior to the start of the consultation to all individuals and organisations on the LDF database;
Arrangement of an overall meeting for parish and town council and community association representatives;
Meeting with the Basingstoke Area Strategic Partnership;
Notifications to schools, colleges, ‘hard to reach’ groups’ and advising them of the consultation; and
Copies of all consultation material to Borough Councillors for use with their constituents.
6.3 It will also be necessary to comply with the other statutory regulations, such as the placing of notices in the local press. A statement of all previous stages of consultation will also be made available with the consultation material.
6.4 In terms of responding to the consultation, given that this is a statutory
stage in the process of consulting on the Core Strategy, it is necessary for those providing comments to do so in line with questions around whether they feel the Core Strategy is ‘legally compliant’ and ‘sound’. Where a respondent feels that the Core Strategy is unsound, they must indicate which one of the three tests of soundness they have concerns around. These tests being whether the plan is ‘justified’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent with national policy’.
Justified – founded on a robust and credible evidence base
Effective - the DPD is deliverable, embracing:
- Sound infrastructure delivery planning
22
- Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
- Delivery partners who are signed up to it
- Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
The DPD should also be flexible and able to be monitored.
Consistent with national policy -The DPD should be consistent with national policy. Where there is a departure, LPAs must provide clear and convincing reasoning to justify their approach
Finally respondents will be asked what changes they would see as necessary to make the Core Strategy legally complaint or sound. Officers will work with the communications team to ensure that the response forms and communication of the consultation will be undertaken in the most user friendly manner possible.
6.5 All comments received will be summarised and placed on to the council’s
consultation software for viewing on-line, alongside a scanned version of the comments, with all personal details (other than respondent name) being removed. Comments will subsequently be reported to the P+I OSCOM in June / July. These will be presented alongside the ‘Submission’ version of the Core Strategy, which will be an updated version of the Pre-Submission in light of comments received during the consultation. It should be noted that should there be a need for major changes to the Core Strategy following the Pre-Submission consultation, there will be a requirement for a further round of public consultation to ensure opportunities to comment on any such changes have been provided.
6.6 The Submission version of the document will be presented to Cabinet and
Full Council. Once the document has been approved by Full Council, it will be ‘submitted’ for examination, at which time a Planning Inspector will be appointed to consider the Core Strategy in the context of the tests of soundness and the representations that have been received through an Examination in Public. Subsequently, the Inspector will prepare a report to set out their views on the soundness of the plan and whether the plan should be adopted. It is anticipated that an Examination in Public will take place in September/ October 2012 with the Inspector’s report being received in December /January 2013 and formal adoption of the plan in March 2013.
7. PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7.1 The proposed housing sites and distribution of development were reported
to the P&I OSCOM on 11 &12 January 2012. Due to the timescales involved, the outcomes of this committee will be set out in a
23
supplementary report before the Cabinet meets, rather than summarised in this report.
8. FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 There are no major financial implications associated with this report at
present. However, it should be noted that there will be legal issues to consider in progressing the Core Strategy, in relation to both the necessary regulations and meeting the tests of soundness. In addition, when the Core Strategy is submitted, it will be necessary to enter into a Service Level Agreement with the Planning Inspectorate to secure the services of an Inspector. Furthermore, it will be necessary to appoint a Programme Officer to assist the Inspector in the running of the examination.
8.2 Should the council fail to make progress on the LDF Core Strategy the
following set out the risks that could face the Council;
Delay in adoption beyond March 2013 would mean another 594 homes being added to the end of the period, requiring a further supply of sites to meet this;
5 year supply is dwindling year on year and with no new allocations in the pipeline it will mean the council will need to consider planning applications on non allocated sites more favourably;
The Council could be faced with planning by appeal with no strategic approach in place as to where or when development should come forward;
Delay could impact upon the Council being able to adopt a CIl Charging Schedule as it would have no core strategy in place to respond to nor be tested with. From April 2014 pooled contributions for development will be restricted to 5 developments or less, so collection of funds towards any strategic infrastructure will not be achieved;
With no Core Strategy in place, neighbourhood planning is unlikely to be as effective as it could be; and
Delay means that some elements of the evidence base will become outdated and will need to be updated incurring further costs.