TAMWORTH LOCAL PLAN 2001-2011 Inspector's Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TAMWORTH LOCAL PLAN 2001-2011 Inspector’s Report Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Paragraph 1.36 Objections: 146/679 Mr & Mrs Whorton Key Issues: a) Whether it is unclear if the SPG is a part of the plan; b) Whether the SPG contains important matters that ought to be part of the plan. Inspector’s Reasoning: 1.1.1. If this paragraph is read in the context of the section entitled ‘How to Use the Plan’ it is reasonably apparent that the Local Plan consists only of the Written Statement and the Proposals Map (with inset). The SPG is not intended to be a part of the development plan. 1.1.2. SPG must not be used to avoid subjecting to public scrutiny, in accordance with the statutory procedures, policies and proposals which should be included in the plan. The SPG documents issued at the same time as the Local Plan are not the subject matter of this report, so I make no comment on their detailed contents. However, I am confident that the council is well aware of the limits to which SPG can reasonably go. Recommendations: 1.1.3. I recommend that no modification is made in response to this objection. 1.2. Paragraph 1.8 Objections: 95/1101 Advantage West Midlands Key Issues: a) Whether this paragraph should be brought up to date; b) Whether there should be references to Regional Economic Strategy (RES) and to other regional strategies. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report Inspector’s Reasoning: 1.2.1. This Paragraph, under the general heading of ‘Policy Background’, deals specifically with regional planning guidance. I do not think it necessary to include here references to the other regional documents, important though they are. The former Regional Planning Guidance is now of course the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). It would be helpful to make this clear. In its response to the objection, the council suggested a form of words (SC1) that deals with the point satisfactorily. Recommendations: 1.2.2. I recommend that the Local Plan is modified in accordance with SC1. The heading of the Paragraph should read: ‘Regional Spatial Strategy’. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report Chapter 2: Strategy 2.1. Strategy Objections: 89/190 Mr R Lancaster 159/797 Country Land & Business Association 159/798 Country Land & Business Association Key Issues: a) Whether the key objective (‘to develop the town as a sustainable place….’) is matched by the detail in other parts of the Plan; b) Whether points from PPG7 regarding rural sustainable development should be included in the Plan; c) Whether in the section on Transport Strategy there should be more recognition of the separate transport needs of rural residents. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.1.1. There is no difficulty with the Key Objective as a general statement. There may be room for disagreement about whether individual policies, elsewhere in the Plan, take adequate account of that Key Objective, but there is no doubt that it has been consciously addressed. There are various references, throughout the plan, to relevant ‘sustainability principles’. Objections to individual polices will be considered at the appropriate point in the report. 2.1.2. Tamworth’s rural area is modest in size and in close proximity to the town. In these circumstances the scope for application of the points from PPG7, which are referred to, is necessarily somewhat limited. There is no advantage in setting them out in the Strategy Chapter of the Plan. (PPG7 has now of course been replaced by PPS7.) 2.1.3. Similarly, the rural parts of Tamworth Borough are close to the main urban area, and its various services and facilities. It is not necessary to include a special section, in this Chapter, on rural transport issues. Recommendations: 2.1.4. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections. 3 Chapter 2: Strategy Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report Paragraph 2.2 Objections: 142/646 Compass Roadside Limited Key Issues: a) Should the objective dealing with transport be expanded, to include the phrase ‘for all transport users, on the national and local transport network’? Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.1.5. The objective as contained in the deposit plan is only intended to be a very broad statement. There would be no advantage in expanding it in the manner suggested. Recommendations: 2.1.6. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection. 2.2. Paragraph 2.6 Objections: 101/375 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust Key Issues: a) Whether the Local Plan should contain specific targets for Biodiversity Action Plan objectives, or at least contain a strong commitment by the council to produce its own nature conservation strategy or biodiversity action plan. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.2.1. This legitimate concern is addressed in Policy ENV4 and the explanatory text. (It is also mentioned under ‘Targets and Indicators’ at the end of Chapter 3 of the Plan.) For Tamworth district it is quite reasonable to pursue the matter by reference to the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan, as stated in the policy and supporting text. Whether there should, in addition, be some SPG on the topic is a matter for the council, and will not be the subject of a recommendation in this report. Recommendations: 2.2.2. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to this objection. 4 Chapter 2: Strategy Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report Paragraph 2.8 Objections: 94/218 CENTRO 142/645 Compass Roadside Limited Key Issues: a) Whether the Transport Strategy should refer to the fact that commuting to the conurbation will continue and whether measures should be in place to encourage such trips to be made by public transport; b) Whether the MSA at junction 10 of the M42 should be identified on the Proposals Map and whether the ‘provision of roadside facilities’ should be mentioned in the strategy. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.2.3. The strategy already puts some emphasis on the encouragement of public transport use. That use of public transport will inevitably include a significant amount of commuting to the conurbation. This obvious point need not be added to the text. It is of course the case that the wider objective is to reduce all forms of commuting to the conurbation. 2.2.4. As the MSA already exists, there is no clear advantage in identifying it on the Proposals Map. The objector draws attention to the safety advantages of appropriately sited MSAs. However it is not necessary to ‘pick out’ this particular aspect of highway safety in a broadly-worded Transport Strategy. Recommendations: 2.2.5. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections. 2.3. Paragraph 2.9 Objections: 94/219 CENTRO 107/422 Campaign to Protect Rural England Key Issues: a) Whether the spatial strategy should be amended to reflect the fact that there will continue to be commuting into the conurbation; 5 Chapter 2: Strategy Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report b) Whether there should be no greenfield development, pending further study. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.3.1. The objective of the strategy is to ‘minimise’ the need to travel. That is entirely in accordance with government guidance. The objector is right to point out that there will continue to be a substantial amount of commuting to the conurbation. However that fact does not undermine the validity of the strategy which, essentially, looks to the future. There is no need to alter the spatial strategy in this respect. 2.3.2. Re-use of previously developed land should take priority over development of greenfield sites. However, considerable study of various options did take place before the decision to identify a strategic greenfield site in the Anker Valley. Leaving that matter aside, it is not realistic to suppose that the needs of the Borough (for land for housing, employment and other purposes) can be met without any greenfield development whatsoever. Recommendations: 2.3.3. I recommend that: • No modification is made in response to these objections. 2.4. Paragraph 2.10 Objections: 90/1329 Mr K Forest Key Issues: a) Whether the word ‘consultation’ should be added at the end of this paragraph. Inspector’s Reasoning: 2.4.1. The council has accepted that a reference to consultation would be appropriate. I agree that this would improve the paragraph. Recommendations: 2.4.2. I recommend that: • the plan is modified by adding the words ‘and consultation’ at the end of paragraph 2.10, in accordance with SC2. 6 Chapter 2: Strategy Tamworth Local Plan: 2001-2011 - Inspector’s Report Chapter 3: Environment 3.1. ENV1: Accessible Green Space Objections: 79/1210 Mr M Wright 101/374 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 102/376 English Nature 105/1138 Wiggington and Hopwas Parish Council 107/1066 Campaign to Protect Rural England 153/715 Redrow Homes & Bellway Estates 166/856 Environment Agency Key Issues: a) Whether the policy has been unacceptably weakened by the various changes made from the first deposit draft, for example by the introduction of the word ‘encouraging’; b) Whether the word ‘encouraging’ should be replaced by ‘ensuring’; c) Whether in the policy or supporting text there should be targets (as recommended by English Nature) for the provision of ‘accessible natural greenspace’ and its location in relation to the population concerned, and whether there should be targets for the provision of local nature reserves; d) Whether the term ‘green wedge’ is unsatisfactory; e) Whether riverside corridors, waterside recreational space and the promotion of water recreation should be specifically mentioned.