The Cabinet Notice of Meeting
Monday 28 September 2015
2.00 p.m.
The Council Chamber Elizabeth House Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon
Members of The Cabinet are requested to attend
Leader Councillor Christopher Saint
Deputy Leader Councillor Stephen Thirlwell (Partnerships Portfolio)
Councillor Mike Brain Technical Services Portfolio Councillor Stephen Gray Community Safety, Health & Well Being Portfolio Councillor Maurice Howse Enterprise, Housing and Revenues Portfolio Councillor Lynda Organ Finance and Physical Resources Portfolio Councillor Daren Pemberton Environmental Services Portfolio
Observers:
Councillor Mike Gittus Chairman of the Council Councillor Tony Jefferson OSC Chairman Councillor Peter Moorse Leader Liberal Democrat Group
Paul Lankester Chief Executive
Elizabeth House, Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6HX
For further information about this agenda Telephone 01789 267575 Contact: Caroline Nash Facsimile 01789 260007 Telephone: 01789 260245 Minicom 01789 260747 DX700737 STRATFORD-ON-AVON 2 e-mail: [email protected] website www.stratford.gov.uk THE CABINET
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS
Members of the public are permitted to address The Cabinet if notice has been given in writing or by electronic mail to the Chief Executive no later than midday two clear (working) days before the day of the meeting. For example if the meeting is to be held on a Monday the deadline would be midday the Wednesday before.
Each notice must give the name and address of the speaker.
At any one meeting speakers may only address The Cabinet on matters contained within the Agenda.
The speaker will be invited to address the meeting at the time the item they wish to make representations on is to be discussed, in accordance with the following procedure:
a time allowance of three minutes for each member of the public to address The Cabinet be implemented; and
if more than one person wishes to address the meeting on one particular subject, a maximum of 5 minutes would be allowed in total. Members of the public will be encouraged to nominate a spokesperson if they consider that they would not have sufficient time to adequately express their points.
Scope of statement
The Chief Executive may reject a statement if it:-
is not about a matter for which the Council has a responsibility or which affects the District;
is defamatory, frivolous or offensive;
is substantially the same statement which has been put at a meeting of The Cabinet in the past six months; or
requires the disclosure of confidential or exempt information.
Recording of meetings by Press and the Public
Recording, filming and photography at meetings of the Council, which members of the public can attend is allowed as long as proceedings at the meeting are not disrupted. Recording is not allowed when the meeting has agreed to formally exclude the press and public due to the nature of business discussed. To minimise disturbance to others attending the meeting please switch your phone or other mobile device to silent mode.
Unless agreed otherwise in advance, recording and reporting must take place from the public seating area and should be overt and focused on those speaking at the meeting, not other members of the public.
Notice of Webcasting of Meeting
Please note that this meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed.
You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy.
Therefore by entering the Council Chamber and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for web casting and/or training purposes.
If members of the public do not wish to have their image captured they should contact Members Services on 01789 260245 who will make alternative seating arrangements.
THE CABINET
28 September 2015
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence
2. Disclosures of Interest Members are reminded that, unless they have been granted a dispensation, if they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter as defined by Regulations made by the Secretary of State where the interest is theirs, their spouse’s or civil partner’s, or is an interest of somebody with whom they are living as a husband or wife or as if they were civil partners, they may not participate in any discussion of or vote on the matter and must also leave the room for the duration of the matter. They must also disclose the interest if it has not yet been entered on the Authority’s register unless it is a sensitive interest.
3. Minutes (Pages 1 - 10) To confirm and sign the minutes of the meetings held on 1 and 7 September 2015.
Part A - Matters to be referred to Council
None.
Part B - Matters for Decision by The Cabinet
Leader: Leadership and Governance
4. Community Infrastructure Levy (Pages 11 - 20) To consider the new proposals for charges under the Community Infrastructure Levy.
5. Progress report on housing activity in rural areas (Pages 21 - 40) To consider the Progress of Housing Activity Analysis. 6. Tredington Parish Plan (Pages 41 - 50) To consider the assessment of the Parish Plan.
7. Salford Priors Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission (Pages 51 - 70) Consultation To consider the Council’s response to the pre-submission consultation undertaken by Salford Priors Parish Council in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission consultation.
Deputy Leader: Partnerships Portfolio
8. Member Development Work programme (Pages 71 - 74) To agree the six monthly Work Programme.
Part C - Issues arising from Overview and Scrutiny Committees
None.
Part D - En-bloc Items
NOTE: For the items in this section, the reports and recommendations will be approved en-bloc unless a request is made to the Leader at the start of the meeting for the item to be discussed.
Leader: Leadership and Governance
9. The Cabinet Work Programme To note The Cabinet Work Programme for the period 19 October 2015. (to follow)
Part E - Other Matters
10.Urgent Business To consider any business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, is urgent in accordance with the provisions of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
11.Exclusion of the Public The following reports contain exempt information as defined in the following paragraph of Part 1, Schedule 12A of Local Government Act 1972:
Para 3: Relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
Members are reminded that whilst the following items have been marked as exempt, it is for the meeting to decide whether or not to consider each of them in private or in public. In making the decision, members should balance the interests of individuals or the Council itself in having access to the information. In considering their discretion members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers.
Should Members decide not to make a decision in public, they are recommended to pass the following recommendation: “That, pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the public be excluded from the remaining business of the meeting in view of the fact that the nature of the proceedings will be such that, if the public were present, there would likely be disclosure to them of exempt information under Paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the said Act (as amended)".
This agenda constitutes the 5 day notice required by Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 in terms of the intention to consider an item of business in private.
12.Stratford-upon-Avon Markets Forum (Pages 75 - 76) To note the Minutes of meeting held on 8 July 2015.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Please note: The next meeting of The Cabinet is scheduled to take place on Monday 19 October 2015 This page has been left intentionally blank Item 3
THE CABINET
1 September 2015
Held at Council Chamber, Elizabeth House, Stratford-upon-Avon Meeting commenced: 11.00 a.m. Meeting ended: 11.51 a.m.
MINUTES
Present: Councillor C Saint, Leadership and Governance Councillor M C Brain, Technical Services Portfolio Councillor S Gray, Community Safety, Health & Well Being Portfolio Councillor M Howse, Enterprise, Housing and Revenues Portfolio Councillor L Organ, Finance and Physical Resources Portfolio Councillor D Pemberton, Environmental Services Portfolio Councillor S Thirlwell, Partnerships Portfolio (Deputy Leader)
Observers: Councillor M Gittus (Chairman of the Council) Councillor T Jefferson (OSC Chairman) Councillor P Moorse (Leader Liberal Democrat Group) Councillors M Cargill, C Kettle and K Rolfe
278. Disclosures of Interest
No disclosures of interest were made at this point of the meeting.
279. West Midlands Combined Authority
Councillor Chris Saint – Leader of the Council
The Cabinet was presented with a paper that:
a) reviewed the potential for the Council to enter into a combined authority arrangement: and
b) sought to clarify the Council’s policy position.
The report;
provided information about the Government’s policy drive on devolution, growth and combined authorities and current proposals for the West Midlands; and
outlined the response to date to this rapidly moving agenda outlining the discussions with other local authorities and the Government to review how the Council’s objectives could be achieved through membership of a combined authority.
In receiving the report, The Cabinet acknowledged that combined authorities were not intended to replace existing local authorities, with member councils continuing to deliver local services and retain civic responsibility for their areas. In addition, a combined authority was not a replacement for Local Enterprise Partnerships, which were made up of local businesses and local authority representatives and would continue to operate alongside combined authorities.
Page 1 In view of the Government’s support for devolution, Birmingham City Council and the four metropolitan district local authorities that made up the Black Country announced their intention to create a combined authority for their area and invited other neighbouring authorities (including Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire local authorities) to consider joining them in a combined authority for the West Midlands.
The announcement of the move towards a West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) indicated that the West Midlands was the only metropolitan area in England without a combined authority and was viewed as being behind other areas of the country. In addition, the statement perceived that the Midlands was at risk of missing out on the Government’s devolution agenda, particularly as the Northern Powerhouse concept had been developed and supported by Government (including specific provision in the last budget and the creation of a minister responsible for the Northern Powerhouse in the new Government).
With regard to membership of the WMCA, under the provisions of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 District Councils could only currently be non-constituent members with voting rights limited in that it would not extend to powers that were not the province of District Councils, e.g. transportation. However, any District Council that decided to participate in the WMCA would have the opportunity to influence the areas in which devolution should be sought. In addition, it may also be feasible to request powers under the devolution deal to allow Districts to become constituent members, if that was considered worthwhile pursuing.
The options open to The Cabinet were to either:
1. recommend that Council expresses a preference to participate in the WMCA, as a non-constituent member, with the final decision being dependent on the benefits for the communities of Stratford district, the voting arrangements, an exit strategy and other governance issues; or
2. recommend that Council take no part in the WMCA, acknowledging the potential issues that may result. However, should the Council so decide it would need to consider the wider risks raised by such non-participation as there would be a need to work with any West Midlands Combined Authority in terms of economic prosperity, transportation proposals and any other matters that may be devolved, but the Council would not be able to influence such issues except as a consultee on any issues.
In considering the options, The Cabinet accepted that there was not a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ policy decision in deciding whether to join the WMCA and be part of a devolution deal, but there were important factors the Council should be able to confirm if it was minded to participate in the arrangement, i.e.
there were sound economic links between the constituent authorities;
there was a strong geographic case for inclusion; and
the independence of all local authorities could be clearly demonstrated without compromise.
In addition to the foregoing, The Cabinet acknowledged that there was no alternative to the WMCA proposal, as the Communities and Local Government Department had confirmed that as Coventry had opted to be part of the WMCA, they could not be part of any other Combined Authority proposal. Consequently,
Page 2 it was important for the Council to decide how it wished to react to the proposal from the West Midlands Metropolitan Councils to consider creating a combined authority for the West Midlands covering three Local Enterprise Partnerships which included Stratford District. Even if this was not the Council’s ideal option it was important to establish what the benefits of such an authority and subsequent devolution deal might be for Stratford District’s communities and whether or not it was a viable option for the Council to consider. It was imperative the Council did not become isolated in its approach to the WMCA or any other proposal.
In respect of the terms of a devolution deal, although the exact terms were still to be clarified, the launch statement had identified the following principles:
A commitment to collaborative working on the creation of a combined authority at the heart of a Midland’s engine covering the geography of the three LEPs.
A prize of strong economic growth for the West Midlands as part of a Midlands Engine and a rebalancing of the UK economy.
Smart investment which ensured focus on where the biggest outcome for the combined authority could be achieved.
Pursuing growth accompanied by an agenda of innovation and public service reform that would reduce the overall level of public spending.
Collaborative working with the private sector as the primary driver of economic growth and working with them to establish the economic priorities of the combined authority.
All communities benefiting from growth but not necessarily at the same time nor in the same way.
Having regard to the foregoing, it was
RECOMMENDED to Council:
(1) That the Leader of the Stratford-on-Avon District Council sits as an observer on the newly formed Shadow Board of the proposed West Midlands Combined Authority to enable the Council to participate in formal discussions;
(2) That, at the same time, the Council will actively pursue alternatives with other local authorities that reflect the district’s rural and small town heritage;
(3) That any decision about the Council’s longer term membership of any Combined Authority would be by a further vote of Council, following detailed analysis of the economic and other benefits for the communities within Stratford-on-Avon District, voting arrangements, exit strategies and governance issues; and
(4) That Council asks the Leader to provide regular updates on progress, including issues relating to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, so that the Council can evaluate the issues and vote on the matter before the
Page 3 Parliamentary Order to create the West Midlands Combined Authority is tabled.
NOTE: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC as the item is subject to a recommendation to Council
280. Urgent Business
There were no items of urgent business.
CHAIRMAN
Page 4 Item 3 Appendix 1
THE CABINET
7 September 2015
Held at Council Chamber, Elizabeth House, Stratford-upon-Avon Meeting commenced: 2.00 p.m. Meeting ended: 2.50 p.m.
MINUTES
Present: Councillor C Saint, Leadership and Governance (Leader) Councillor M Brain, Technical Services Portfolio Councillor S Gray, Community Safety, Health & Well Being Portfolio Councillor M Howse, Enterprise, Housing and Revenues Portfolio Councillor L Organ, Finance and Physical Resources Portfolio Councillor D Pemberton (Environmental Services Portfolio) Councillor S Thirlwell, Partnerships Portfolio (Deputy Leader)
Also in Attendance: Councillor M Gittus (Chairman of the Council), Councillor T Jefferson (OSC Chairman) and Councillor P Moorse (Leader Liberal Democrat Group).
The Chairman made it known that he would be raising an item under Urgent Business, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
307. Disclosures of Interest
There were no disclosures of interest.
308. Minutes
The Minutes of the meetings held on 20 and 27 July 2015 were confirmed and signed.
309. Notice of Motion - Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Level Compliance
Councillor Saint – Leader of the Council
The Chief Executive noted that the report contained a typographical error, in that the title and report should read ’Community Infrastructure Levy’.
Consideration was given to the following Notice of Motion, in the names of Councillors Moorse and Fradgley that had been presented to the Council meeting on 20 July 2015:
Rules introduced by the government and effective at the beginning of April this year place constraints around what can be claimed under S106. No S106 claim can be made where, since 2010, more than 5 similar contributions have been claimed on previous developments and ‘pooled’ towards a joint project.
It was the government’s intention that many S106 claims would be replaced by a new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge. However, in order to charge under the CIL regime a council is required to have a Core Strategy in place. Thus Stratford District Council is caught between two regimes: unable to charge CIL because it doesn’t have a
Page 5 Core Strategy, but unable in some circumstances now to charge S106 either.
Officers at the county and district councils have concluded that for some infrastructure projects, including some secondary education schemes, S106 claims can no longer be made as they are no longer ‘CIL compliant’, i.e. they don’t meet the new CIL rules.
(Officers’ opinion on this is contained in the West Planning Committee papers for the 24th June, (15/00390/FUL), where they state that primary education claims of £151,000 can be made, but contributions for both secondary and 6th form education are ruled out on the grounds of non CIL compliance. At West Planning Committee (3rd June 14/01715/OUT) WCC withdrew an initial claim for £1.28 million and claimed instead £656,000 – a reduction of £626,000 - on the grounds that the claim was not ‘CIL compliant’, although this application was refused by the committee on other grounds).
Council is concerned that until the Core Strategy is introduced, very large sums of S106 money, particularly for secondary education, may be lost. It requests that officers from this council liaise urgently with the county council to consider ways in which all future S106 claims can be made CIL compliant.
At the invitation of the Leader, the meeting was addressed by Councillor Moorse.
The options open to The Cabinet were to:
1) To consider the content of the Motion at the meeting without the benefit of a report from the officers on the implications to the Council of accepting or rejecting the Motion;
2) To defer consideration of the Motion to await reports from the officers to the next available meeting of The Cabinet; or
3) To refer the Motion to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration and report back to The Cabinet.
In considering the options, The Cabinet acknowledged that the Notice of Motion be accepted and that a progress report be considered at Council on 19 October 2015, and that a report was not required from the officers on the implications to the Council of accepting or rejecting the Motion as the work was currently being undertaken.
Accordingly, it was
RECOMMENDED to Council:
That the Notice of Motion be accepted and that a progress report be considered at the Council meeting to be held on 19 October 2015.
Note: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC as it is subject to recommendation to Council.
Page 6 310. Revenue Budget Monitoring
Councillor Lynda Organ – Finance and Physical Resources Portfolio
The Cabinet received an update on the estimated revenue outturn position for each service for period 4 as derived from budget variances identified and the estimated income and expenditure for the remainder of the year.
In receiving the report, The Cabinet noted that the estimated favourable variance of £7,000, together with approved slippage of £272,000 and a contribution to reserves of £314,385, would leave the revenue reserves with an estimated balance of £5,155,416.
Following discussion, it was
RESOLVED:
That period 4 budget variance and estimated outturn position for 2015/16 be noted.
NOTE: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC.
311. Capital Budget Monitoring
Councillor Lynda Organ – Finance and Physical Resources Portfolio
The Cabinet was presented with details of the Capital Budget Monitoring for period 1- 4 (April 2015 – 31 July 2015).
Following consideration, it was
RESOLVED:
That the position on the Capital expenditure and income for the period April 2015 to July 2015 (period 1 – 4) be noted.
NOTE: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC.
312. The Cabinet Work Programme
The Cabinet Work Programme for 28 September 2015 was noted.
313. Member Development Working Group
On the presentation of the draft Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2015, it was
RESOLVED:
That the Minutes of the meeting be received.
NOTE: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC.
Page 7 314. Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Committee for Economic Growth and Prosperity
On the presentation of the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2015, it was
RESOLVED:
That the Minutes of the meeting, as presented, be received.
NOTE: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC.
315. Urgent Business
The Chairman had agreed, in accordance with Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, to allow this item of business to be considered at the meeting in view of the requirement to act speedily in response to the serious issue of the refugee crisis. In view of the urgency in progressing the matter, the Chairman of the OSC agreed to waive the call in provisions of the Constitution.
The Chairman raised four main points for consideration, for Stratford-on-Avon District Council to:
Act as a collection centre for charitable gifts, or to coordinate others that were already in the process of doing so; Provide an Information Sheet to those wishing to help; Signpost those who may be able to accommodate refugee families; and Use resources to support Government initiatives.
The Chief Executive stated that the West Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership had been set up to review the issues and suggested that the Head of Enterprise, Housing and Revenues, as Lead Officer, work closely with them.
Councillor Gittus noted that Warwickshire County Council was currently liaising with both Coventry and Worcester City Councils and suggested that any work was conducted in collaboration with them.
Councillor Moorse proposed that as the holiday season was coming to a close that there was perhaps an opportunity for housing to be made available via that route.
The Chief Executive suggested that The Cabinet may task the Chairman of the Council and Officers to set up charitable fundraising.
Accordingly, it was
RESOLVED:
That in accordance with the preamble above, Stratford-on-Avon District Council set up an initiative, with the Chief Executive and the Head of Enterprise, Housing and Revenues as Lead Officers, to implement the four points proposed by the Chairman as detailed above, supplemented by the suggestion raised by Councillor Moorse regarding holiday accommodation, along with any contributions to or actions in conjunction with the International Disaster Fund acting where appropriate in partnership with neighbouring Councils.
Page 8 Note: This item is not subject to call-in to the OSC as the Chairman agreed to waive the call-in provisions for this item.
316. Exclusion of the Public
On the motion of the Chairman, it was
RESOLVED:
That, pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the public be excluded from the remaining business of the meeting in view of the fact that the nature of the proceedings will be such that, if the public were present, there would likely be disclosure to them of exempt information under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the said Act (as amended).
317. Three Way Joint Legal Services - Update
Councillor Stephen Thirlwell – Deputy Leader of the Council
Consideration was given to the update on the implementation of the three-way Joint Legal Service for Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC), South Northamptonshire Council (SNC) and Cherwell District Council (CDC). A similar report had been shared with the two-way Joint Arrangements Steering Group at SNC/CDC.
The Deputy Leader noted that indications showed that the joint legal service was moving in the right direction and expressed his gratitude to the Legal Teams for their positivity in realising the project, and his appreciation to ICT for the systems implementation.
The Deputy Leader then proposed that the temporary posts be made permanent and that a review be carried out a year from the commencement of the service. Councillor Gray, Community Safety, Health and Well Being Portfolio Holder, acknowledged the positive steps that the Joint Legal Service had taken and gave his support to the Deputy Leader’s proposals.
Accordingly, it was
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted; the two solicitor posts in the approved business plan be made permanent and that the business benefits realisations review be completed directly after the first anniversary of the joint legal service coming into being.
NOTE: This item is subject to call-in to the OSC
CHAIRMAN
Page 9 This page has been left intentionally blank Item 4
THE CABINET 28 SEPTEMBER 2015
Subject: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – Revised Draft Charging Schedule Lead Officer: Dave Nash Contact on 01789 260399 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor C Saint
Summary This report sets out new proposals for charges under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). These arise as a result of changes at both the national and local level arising in the period following consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule in August/September 2014. The changes have regard to the response to that consultation and to the proposed modifications to the Core Strategy.
Recommendations (1) That the ‘CIL Economic Viability Study: Submission Charging Schedule’ report, Peter Brett Associates, August 2015 be received as evidence to inform the preparation of modifications to be incorporated into the CIL Submission Draft Charging Schedule; (2) That the modified CIL rates set out in this report be endorsed as comprising the Council’s Submission Draft Charging Schedule; and, (3) That the Submission Draft Charging Schedule be published and distributed to the consultation bodies invited to make representations under CIL regulation 15, in accordance with regulation 19 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011.
NOTE:The CIL Economic Viability Study: Submission Charging Schedule attached as an electronic supplement to this agenda.
1 Background/Information Introduction 1.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on new development to help fund supporting infrastructure. Its introduction and operation are governed by the CIL Regulations which came into force on 6 April 2010 and were amended in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Page 11 1.2 The regulations scale back the use of s106 obligations. Under Regulation 122 a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 1.3 Furthermore, from 6 April 2015 there are restrictions on the pooling of s106 contributions such that no more than five contributions can fund a project or type of infrastructure. In practice this means that s106 can only be used to mitigate the direct impacts of a development and that CIL should be used to obtain developer contributions for more strategic infrastructure. 1.4 In accordance with the regulations, the Council has produced a Draft Regulation 123 List which sets out the infrastructure that will be funded, in whole or in part, though CIL and that which will continue to be funded through planning obligations. The use of highways agreements under s278 of the Highways Act is also restricted by the CIL regulations in that these cannot be used to fund infrastructure on the Regulation 123 List. 1.5 The Council is therefore implementing a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in accordance with these regulations. It has previously consulted on Preliminary Draft and Draft versions of its Charging Schedule. However, the changes to the Draft Charging Schedule that are considered appropriate having regard to the latest available evidence are such that a further consultation on a revised Draft Charging Schedule is necessary in advance of any decision to submit for Examination by an Independent Inspector.
2 Evidence Base 2.1 The CIL regulations require that the Council, as the charging authority, must when setting CIL rates ‘aim to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an appropriate balance between (a) the desirability of funding ……… infrastructure required to support the development of its area; and (b) the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area’. The rates proposed by the Council must therefore represent, in the context of this District, an appropriate balance between the need to raise money to support sustainable communities and the need to ensure that development viability and affordable housing yields are maintained. 2.2 The viability study undertaken by Peter Brett Associates (PBA) in October 2013 recommended a positive CIL rate for residential and retail development. Other sectors were found at that stage to be unable to support a CIL charge. That report provided the basis for the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule which was subject to consultation in autumn 2013. 2.3 The subsequent 2014 review (PBA, June 2014) focused on detailed aspects of the modelling for residential and retail development and on the strategic sites at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and the Canal Quarter. Relatively minor revisions to the viability modelling were made for a number of reasons, principally involving the need to respond to new
Page 12 evidence arising from the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule consultation, additional work undertaken on affordable housing, proposed changes to the defined Stratford-upon-Avon town centre boundary, minor changes to retail policy, and a continuing evolution of best practice in the field, not least in response to Inspector’s decisions at CIL Examinations. PBA also revised the viability work on the Canal Quarter and Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath to reflect recommendations made in the Draft Regulation 123 List outlining which items of infrastructure should be funded through CIL and which through planning obligations (s106/s278). 2.4 The mid-2014 review informed the proposals set out in the Draft Charging Schedule. This was subject to consultation in autumn 2014. Responses to that consultation were reported to The Cabinet in April 2015 (minute 867 (2014/15) refers). The Cabinet received the summary of responses accompanying that report as evidence to inform the preparation of further modifications to the draft schedule. 2.5 PBA continue to be engaged and have prepared a further addendum viability report, (Peter Brett Associates, September 2015) that has taken into account more recent evidence including the following: The summary of responses to the 2014 consultation; The increased Core Strategy housing requirement of 14,480 and the resultant decision to propose an additional strategic development site at Long Marston Airfield alongside those at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and the Canal Quarter; Fresh evidence on land transactions, including that made available during the Draft Charging Schedule consultation – these have been taken into account in setting the Benchmark Land Values (against which Residual Land Values are assessed in estimating the ‘CIL ceiling’ or ‘headroom’); New data from the Land Registry to make the testing more robust; The proposed modifications to the affordable housing policy set out in policy CS.17 of the Core Strategy and arising from the change in national government policy on affordable housing thresholds (see separate report to this meeting); The modified approach to older person’s housing that has emerged from the initial stages of the Core Strategy examination. The Inspector appears to consider that there is insufficient evidence to support the proposal that C2 ‘Residential Institution’ developments should contribute to the provision of affordable housing. C2 developments include residential care homes and nursing homes, but are also argued to include extra care developments. It is evident that, with an assumption that there will be no affordable housing requirement, extra care developments will have sufficient headroom to make it appropriate to consider applying a CIL charge. The new report recommends that this be applied at the prevailing rate proposed for the specific location where the development would be carried out; and, For the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath Strategic Site, new data has been provided which suggests a lower sales value than assumed previously; in addition further work on master planning and financial modelling has
Page 13 resulted in an increase in costs associated with the provision of playing pitches and sports pavilions.
A comparison of the infrastructure costs for the new settlement proposals at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and Long Marston Airfield is provided at Appendix 1 to this report. 3 New proposals for the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) and Regulation 123 List 3.1 As a result of the new evidence, the CIL rates now proposed as comprising the DCS are shown below as Table 1: Table 1: Proposed CIL Rates for Draft Charging Schedule Development Sector Proposed CIL £ per sq m
Residential development At Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath new 110 settlement (1)
At Long Marston Airfield new 75 settlement (2)
85 Canal Quarter strategic site* (3)
Rest of District: 150 Sites of 11+ dwellings
Sites of 1-10 dwellings 75
Extra Care accommodation As above rates, dependent on location. Retail (A1-A5) Within all identified centres (4) 0
Within Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and Long Marston Airfield new 10 settlements (1)(2)
Out of centre retail 120 Retirement dwellings and Care Homes 0 Employment (B1, B2, B8) 0 Hotels 0 Mixed Leisure 0 Public service and community facilities 0 Other uses 0 * with a 20% affordable housing yield at the Canal Quarter (1) Boundary as defined for Proposal GLH of the Proposed Modifications Core Strategy June 2015, and shown on page 233 of that document.
Page 14 (2) Boundary as defined for Proposal LMA of the Core Strategy Proposed Modifications August 2015, and shown on page 40 of that document (3) Boundary as defined by Proposal SUA.1 of the Proposed Modifications Core Strategy June 2015, and shown on page 225 of that document. (4) Centres boundaries as defined under Policy CS.22 of the Proposed Modifications Core Strategy June 2015, and shown on pages 216-224 of that document. 3.2 The Draft Regulation 123 List will be updated to reflect the assumptions about infrastructure provision made in Appendix C of the latest report.
4. Options available to The Cabinet 4.1 In relation to recommendation 1, The Cabinet has the options of either accepting the updated ‘CIL Economic Viability Study: Submission Charging Schedule’ report into the Council’s evidence base or of requesting that further work be carried out to clarify and/or amend certain aspects of the report. 4.2 In relation to recommendation 2, The Cabinet has the options of either endorsing the modified CIL rates set out at paragraph 3.1 of this report or of recommending some other rates. The rates are in line with those recommended in the updated PBA report. If that is accepted into the Council’s evidence base, the rates must reflect the advice it contains. 4.3 If the report is taken into the evidence base, then in relation to recommendation 3 The Cabinet has the options of either publishing the revised Submission Draft Charging Schedule and inviting representations on it, as required under the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011, or of delaying such publication to a later stage pending further progress towards the adoption of the Core Strategy. Whilst there may be an element of risk in working towards the possible submission of the Draft Charging Schedule before the Core Strategy examination process is complete, the alternative would mean that the ambition to introduce the CIL regime alongside or very soon after the adoption of the Core Strategy would be unachievable.
5. Implications of the Proposal 5.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 5.1.1 This report has been commissioned in response to a changed regime for S106 negotiations resulting from the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (S.I. 2010/948) which came into force on 6 April 2010, with amendments introduced through the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 (S.I. 2011/987, 2012/2975, 2013/982 and 2014/385) . 5.1.2 The regulations scale back the use of S106 obligations. The policy tests of Circular 05/2005 are now made statutory by CIL regulation 122; such that S106 contributions can only be used to mitigate direct impacts of development, not fund general infrastructure requirements. 5.1.3 Furthermore, from April 2015 there have been restrictions on the pooling of S106 contributions such that no more than five contributions can fund a ‘project or type of infrastructure’ (regulation 123(3)). 5.1.4 The amendment regulations 2013 require the CIL Charging Authority (in
Page 15 this case the District Council) to pass 25% of CIL revenues to town and parish councils with a Neighbourhood Development Plan and up to 15% of receipts to those communities without such a plan, subject to a limit of £100 per dwelling. 5.2 Financial 5.2.1 The CIL regime is a new approach to raising finance from development to pay for infrastructure requirements. The CIL may be costly to introduce, but the regulations enable the costs of implementing CIL to be recovered from monies raised. 5.2.2 It is estimated that CIL receipts over the life of the Core Strategy, could amount to some £61 million. 5.2.3 When in place, the CIL will enable contributions to be levied on a much greater share of development than was formerly the case under the previous S106 regime as the cost of drafting legal agreements tended to restrict S106 agreements to relatively large developments. 5.2.4 The District Council is the charging authority for CIL. It will decide how the money is spent to meet the District’s infrastructure needs, in line with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, the ‘Regulation 123’ List and other relevant sources that become available over the life of the plan. The Council will publish its priorities for CIL on its website on an ongoing basis (the ‘Regulation 123’ list). It will be expected to pass money to other providers of infrastructure, in particular Warwickshire County Council and the town and parish councils. 5.3 Environmental 5.3.1 The Core Strategy policy which supports the CIL has been subject to Sustainability Appraisal alongside other policies in the plan. 5.3.2 Raising money through CIL will help the District Council to achieve the environmental policies within the Core Strategy, for example those relating to the provision of Green Infrastructure and Healthy Communities. 5.4 Corporate Strategy 5.4.1 The money raised through CIL would help to finance those aims of the Corporate Strategy that concern or are linked to the provision of local infrastructure and services. 5.5 Analysis of the effects on Equality 5.5.1 A key aspect of the planning process is to provide appropriate infrastructure in tandem with new development and to mitigate the impacts of such development on the existing population. These proposals will assist the District Council in raising finance to deal with these impacts. 5.5.2 In addition, the parent policies set out in the Core Strategy have been subject to a full Equality Impact Assessment.
6. Risk Assessment 6.1 Since April 2015 there have been new restrictions on the pooling of developer contributions. As a result there is an increased risk that certain infrastructure contributions may be more difficult to secure. The
Page 16 introduction of the new CIL regime needs to be brought about as soon as reasonably possible. The prospects of this being achieved are increased by a decision to proceed to seek representations on the Submission Draft Charging Schedule, albeit that as outlined above this in itself carries an element of risk. 6.2 Publication of the Draft Charging Schedule is contingent upon endorsement of the evidence base that underpins it. Without this, preparation of the schedule will be delayed. The Submission Draft Charging Schedule must be supported by evidence from a reputable source, without which there would be a significant risk that it would be found unsound at examination. That would be likely to have considerable implications for the application of the Community Infrastructure Levy to a number of large scale development proposals that are in the pipeline.
7. Conclusion 7.1 The CIL Submission Draft Charging Schedule is presented for approval for public consultation. The ‘CIL Economic Viability Study: Submission Charging Schedule’ report, Peter Brett Associates, August 2015 will inform the Core Strategy and is presented for receipt as evidence.
Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Background Papers None
Page 17 This page has been left intentionally blank Proposal GLH LMA Total Units 3000 3500 S106 Cost per unit £12,377 £23,683
Stratford South Western Relief Road £44,000,000 M40 Junction 12 northbound on slip lane Estimated contribution £1,000,000 n/a Off-site highways junction improvements £3,700,000 £7,200,000 Contingency for traffic impact on local roads and villages £3,000,000 £1,500,000 Bus Subsidy £5,000,000 £2,800,000 Kineton High School Home to School Bus Estimate tbc £1,000,000 n/a Primary Education £7,200,000 £10,000,000 Secondary Education £6,650,000 £11,700,000 Community Hub £909,032 £950,000 Page 19 Page Police Contribution £200,000 £200,000 GP Surgery £2,300,000 £2,464,000 Off-site indoor sport Kineton High School pool £3,100,000 CIL On-site indoor sport £523,000 n/a On-site sports pavilions £798,469 £800,000 Primary School MUGA £134,400 n/a Off-site outdoor sport Improvements to existing £250,000 n/a Ecological Reserve - Maintenance Estimate tbc £1,000,000 n/a Off-site walking and cycling contribution £300,000 £1,200,000 Library Service contribution £65,664 £76,524
Grand Total £37,130,565 £82,890,524
Appendix 1: Comparison of infrastructure costs associated with the new settlement proposals at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and Long Marston Airfield Item 4 Appendix 1 This page has been left intentionally blank Item 5
THE CABINET 28 SEPTEMBER 2015
Subject: Progress Report on Housing Activity in Rural Areas Lead Officers: Renata Mosz/Sarah Brooke-Taylor Contact on (01789) 260842/842182 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor C Saint
Summary This report accompanies the associated “Progress of Housing Activity Analysis” report (see Appendix 1) produced by the Rural Housing Enabler in July 2015. The Traffic Light Analysis highlights the progress in delivering rural housing that has been made since the Analysis was last updated in December 2013.
Recommendation
That the approach to delivering homes for local people in rural areas is endorsed, and the focus continues to be to: Convert the ‘Amber’ communities set out in the July 2015 Traffic Light Analysis to a ‘Green’ classification; Ensure the proposals for development in communities with a ‘Green’ classification in the July 2015 Traffic Light Analysis continue to make progress; and Make further attempts to engage ‘Red’ communities where S106 funding is available.
1 Introduction 1.1 Aim 1 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Housing Strategy 2015 to 2020 is “To support communities including increasing the supply and choice of good quality affordable homes for local people”. The Rural Housing Enabler’s work focuses on two actions under this Aim about encouraging and enabling rural communities to meet their local housing needs, and establishing and delivering an on-going rural development programme. 1.2 The report titled “Progress of Housing Activity: Traffic Light Analysis” (31 July 2015) details the progress that has been made in rural settlements as regards the development of housing to meet local needs. The Analysis has been produced since 2006 and was previously last updated in December 2013, at that time being considered by the Enterprise, Planning and Housing Policy Advisory Panel in February 2014. 1.3 The new Analysis has been produced by the Rural Housing Enabler for Warwickshire Rural Community Council with assistance from the Housing Policy and Development Team at Stratford-on-Avon District Council.
Page 21 1.4 The Analysis employs the following system of classifying communities:- ‘Green’ communities, where progress is being made and a proposal for new homes is present or likely to be forthcoming. ‘Amber’ communities, where uncertain progress is being made or where a community requires significant assistance. ‘Red’ communities, where no progress or very limited progress is being made. ‘Grey’ communities, where canvassing for development sites is either not applicable or unnecessary.
2 Engagement Strategy 2.1 Stratford-on-Avon District is characterised by its widely-dispersed pattern of rural settlements. The Rural Housing Enabler is available as a resource and source of advice to all local communities. However, it is neither practicable – nor would it represent an efficient use of time – to seek to engage with every local community on an equal basis. Instead, and in line with the approach endorsed by the former Panel, the Enabler prioritises engagement with communities where involvement is more likely to yield results in terms of facilitating the delivery of housing schemes.
3 What the rural housing enabling project has delivered 3.1 Three schemes have been completed since the last report; a scheme in Harbury was completed in October 2014 (10 affordable and 17 local market homes), a scheme was completed in Ilmington in October 2014 (10 affordable and 4 local market homes) and a scheme in Stockton was completed in June 2015 (12 affordable and 5 local market homes).
3.2 The number of new homes enabled in rural areas under policies in the adopted Local Plan i.e. COM.1 (affordable homes and local market homes in Main Rural Centres and Local Service Villages) and CTY.5 (affordable homes only in smaller villages) is as follows:
Homes built 216 Brailes (18) Fenny Compton (12) Harbury (49) Ilmington (14) Lighthorne Heath (22) Little Compton (4) Long Compton (8) Long Itchington (10) Norton Lindsey / Claverdon parish (12) Priors Marston (8) Shipston on Stour (26) Snitterfield (10) Stockton (17) Stretton-on-Fosse (4) Tysoe (2)
Page 22 Homes in the pipeline (indicative) 257 Alcester (47) Bidford on Avon (29) Bishops Itchington (11) Brailes (18) Broom (8) Great Alne (7) Long Compton (9) Napton (20) Southam (27) Stretton-on-Fosse (5) Studley (47) Tysoe (3) Welford on Avon (12) Wootton Wawen (14)
Potential homes where site canvassing is ongoing 33 Alderminster (3) Bearley (3) Cherington & Stourton (8) Preston on Stour (9) Ratley & Upton (3) Snitterfield (7)
3.3 In summary, to date 216 new homes have been built. There are 14 developments in the pipeline, which could provide another 257 homes. Site canvassing is ongoing in 6 communities, which could result in an additional 33 homes. In addition, 3 settlements are about to undertake housing needs surveys and a number of other settlements are considering whether or not to do so.
3.4 According to the traffic light analysis outlined in paragraph 1.4 above, there are currently: 49 ‘Green’ communities; 3 ‘Amber’ communities; 26 ‘Red’ communities; 10 ‘Grey’ communities.
3.5 Since December 2013, the following changes have occurred:
Henley in Arden, Coughton and Preston on Stour have changed from ‘Grey’ to ‘Green’. Alveston, Great Wolford, Mappleborough Green, Oxhill, Sambourne and Tiddington have changed from ‘Red’ to ‘Green’. Aston Cantlow is new and ‘Green’. Bearley, Tanworth-in-Arden and Wilmcote have changed from ‘Amber’ to ‘Green’. Ettington and Hampton Lucy have changed from ‘Green’ to ‘Grey’. Gaydon and Halford have changed from ‘Amber’ to ‘Red’. Lighthorne and Little Compton have changed from ‘Green’ to ‘Red’. Whatcote and Wolverton have changed from ‘Amber’ to ‘Grey’.
3.8 Owing to the cross over between Parish Plans and Neighbourhood Plans with Housing Needs Surveys the Rural Housing Enabler is often asked
Page 23 about Parish Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. The Rural Housing Enabler therefore gives basic advice and signposts Parish Councils to other sources of information. There are 42 completed Parish Plans across the District and 27 Neighbourhood Plan Area Designations. 3.9 The Rural Housing Enabler responds to housing policies within emerging Neighbourhood Plans as and when requested to do so by either the District Council or the relevant Parish Council. 4 Issues associated with identifying suitable development sites 4.1 The reason for producing the original Analysis in 2006 was to explain the challenges involved with canvassing for ‘Local Choice’ and ‘Rural Exception’ development sites. The challenges involved with canvassing for development sites remain essentially unchanged and entail: A tension within communities between residents opposed to new housing development and residents who recognise the need for more affordable housing. A lack of volunteer capacity to carry out site canvassing within some communities. Sites identified as suitable for development by parishes are at times not deemed suitable for planning reasons. A lack of commitment in some Parish Plans towards addressing identified housing issues.
4.2 More recently the uncertainty about the likely impact of the emerging Core Strategy proposals for individual settlements has led to a number of parish councils adopting a wait and see approach. Consequently, some potential schemes have either stalled or been taken forward by private developers rather than as CTY.5 or COM.1 schemes.
4.3 The need to identify sites is accentuated by the availability of funding arising from developer contributions made to enable the off-site provision of affordable housing. Such contributions have to date been relatively rare, but may become more common as a result of the approach set out in emerging policy CS.17. There is a particular priority to engage with communities where funding exists but no schemes are being progressed.
5 Options available to The Cabinet 5.1 Members can decide to endorse the current approach to rural housing activity i.e. concentrating on converting ‘amber’ communities to ‘green’, and ensuring that ‘green’ communities continue to make progress. The data in section 3 above demonstrates that such an approach has been very successful. The Enabler also makes regular contact with parishes where there are commuted sums for affordable housing. 5.2 Members could choose to support an alternative approach to rural housing activity. However, there is no other identified and tested approach that is considered likely to deliver more affordable homes in rural areas.
6 Evidence Base 6.1 The ‘Progress of Housing Activity Analysis’ (the ‘Traffic Light Analysis’) summarises the current position in all rural settlements.
Page 24 7 Implications of the proposal 7.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 7.1.1 There are no legal or human rights implications. 7.2 Financial 7.2.1 The recommendations are contained within existing resources. 7.3 Environmental 7.3.1 There are no environmental implications. 7.4 Corporate Strategy 7.4.1 The work detailed in this report directly supports the Council’s Corporate Strategy 2015–2019 and Key Objective 2: People and their environment, concerned with activities to improve the health and well-being of local communities. Priorities include facilitating the delivery of housing targets. 7.5 Analysis of the effects of Equality 7.5.1 There are no equality issues identified in this report and therefore an Equality Impact Assessment is not required.
8 Risk Assessment 8.1 This report sets out the most effective way of deploying resources to enable local communities to progress housing activities in their areas. Failure to endorse the current approach could affect further progress, as it could mean spreading resources too thinly.
9 Conclusion 9.1 Rural housing is an identified priority in the Council’s Corporate Strategy and in the District Housing Strategy. Progressing housing activities in local communities is heavily reliant upon the support and guidance of the Rural Housing Enabler and the Housing Policy and Development Team. 9.2 Owing to time constraints and the number of parishes in this District, the focus of the Rural Housing Enabler continues to be to work with those parishes that are keen to progress schemes. The completion of 216 affordable homes in rural areas, together with at least another 250 new homes in the pipeline, demonstrates that the approach to delivering additional homes for local people in rural areas is the right one.
Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Page 25 This page has been left intentionally blank Appendix 1: Progress of Housing Activity 31 July 2015
Key Green Progress being made / proposals for new homes present Amber Uncertain progress / communities requiring significant assistance Red No progress / very limited progress Grey Site canvassing not applicable / not needed COM1 and CTY5 refer to policies in the adopted Local Plan PP = Parish Plan. The date given is the date the parish plan was adopted. NP = Neighbourhood Plan. NPAD = Neighbourhood Plan Area Designation. Main Rural Centres (8) Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan
PP 2008. 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 34 affordable homes and 13 local market homes. Alcester 6,273 (includes Yes (2012) NPAD Potential development site identified for combined COM.1 scheme and supported accommodation. Green King's Coughton) Page 27 Page approved. Developer contribution available for deployment.
2012 Housing Needs Survey identified need for 3 homes in Barton, 29 homes in Bidford, 4 homes in PP 2003. Bidford on Avon Yes (2005/ Broom and 1 home in Marcliff. Parish Council supports draft layout of proposed 8 home scheme as 5,350 NPAD Green 2012) "village cluster" in Broom to meet needs of Barton, Broom and Marlcliff. Public Consultation Event to approved. be held Autumn 2015. Henley in Arden PP 2005. Yes 2014 Housing Needs Survey identified 7 affordable homes and 9 local market homes. Site canvassing including Beaudesert 3,064 NPAD (2006/2014) exercise undertaken and Parish Council will include preferred sites within Neighbourhood Plan. Green approved.
PP 2003. 2013 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 10 affordable homes and 6 local market homes. Site Kineton NP formal 2,337 Yes (2013) canvassing exercise undertaken and Parish Council will include preferred sites within Neighbourhood Green consultation Plan. commenced.
PP 2008. 26 affordable homes completed on London Road site in 2010 under Policy COM.1. 2014 Housing Shipston-on-Stour Yes (2005, 5,038 NPAD Needs Survey identified a need for 26 affordable homes and 24 local market homes. Sites to be Green 2014) approved. considered within Neighbourhood Plan. PP 2007. Southam 2009 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 27 affordable homes. Planning application approved 6,567 Yes (2009) NPAD Green for a housing scheme on a greenfield site for 165 homes including affordable homes as identified. approved. Item 5 Appendix 1
Page 1 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 25 affordable homes and 4 local market homes. 2014 PP 2007. Studley Yes (2011, Local Market Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 22 local market homes. Parish Council 5,879 2015 PP in Green 2014) supports proposed mixed tenure scheme on land owned by Studley Parish Council. Ongoing Parish progress. Council Working Party meetings to investigate proposals. Page 28 Page
Page 2 Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 37 affordable homes and 10 local market homes. PP 2011. Outline planning permission granted for up to 175 homes plus an Extra Care scheme of up to 50 units, Wellesbourne 5,849 Yes (2011) NPAD of which around 70 will be affordable with normal local connection and cascade arrangements. As this Green approved. exceeds local housing need identified in Housing Needs Survey 2011 no further action to be taken for COM.1 scheme.
Local Service Villages (45) as proposed in Core Strategy June 2015 - submitted September 2014 but showing subsequent proposed modifications. Categories of Local Service Villages as per Core Strategy.
Alderminster Stalled due 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 2 affordable homes and 1 local market home. Parish (Category 4) 491 Yes (2011) to lack of Council wish to postpone this project until the Core Strategy is finalised. Green interest. Alveston Part of Alveston is included in the proposed Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Plan. Discussions are
Page 29 Page (Category 4) N/A No Stratford NP. ongoing regarding a Housing Needs Survey as part of the Neighbourhood Plan. Green
Aston Cantlow PP in Parish Council wishes to undertake a Housing Needs Survey as part of their Parish Plan work, which (Category 4) 437 No progress. may commence September 2015. Green
Bearley PP 2013. Yes 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 3 affordable homes. Potential Neighbourhood Plan (Category 4) 724 NPAD (2005/2012) allocated site. Green approved.
Bishop's Itchington PP 2008. Numerous committed sites so updated Housing Needs Survey is not required as any need will be (Category 1) 2,082 Yes (2007) NPAD fulfilled by current development. Green approved.
10 affordable homes at Blake's Close completed under Policy COM.1 in 2005. 8 affordable homes in Brailes PP 2012. Sutton Lane completed under Policy COM.1 in 2012. Planning granted April 2015 for COM.1 scheme to (Category 2) 1,149 Yes (2006) NPAD provide 14 affordable homes and 4 local market homes based on 2013 Report of Local Housing Needs Green approved. using data gathered through the Parish Plan.
Claverdon Completed. 12 affordable homes in Curlieu Lane (Norton Lindsey) completed under Policy CTY.5 in 2011. Due to (Category 3) 1,261 Yes (2002) NPAD the physical location of the site the 12 homes meet the needs of three parishes across two local Green approved. authorities: Claverdon, Norton Lindsey (Warwick District) and Wolverton.
Page 3 Clifford Chambers 2009 Housing Needs Survey identified no need for new affordable homes. Parish Council have been (Category 4) 432 Yes (2009) No progress invited to undertake a new Housing Needs Survey - awaiting response. Grey Page 30 Page
Page 4 Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan Earlswood 3,104 (includes Met Earlswood Residents' Association in December 2011 to discuss undertaking Housing Needs NPAD (Category 3) Tanworth & Wood No Survey. Met Tanworth in Arden Parish Council in December 2013 to discuss undertaking a Housing approved. Amber End) Needs Survey. NP Survey included housing questions and possible need identified. Ettington Yes NPAD 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 5 affordable homes and 4 local market homes. Parish (Category 3) 1,171 (2006/2011) approved. Council withdrew support for proposal for new homes on Parish Council land. No other sites identified. Grey Fenny Compton 10 affordable homes and 2 local market homes at Station Road completed under Policy COM.1 in (Category 2) 808 Yes (2008) PP 2009. 2011. Parish Council commissioned a new Housing Needs Survey in 2012 but would not distribute Green forms. Investigations into alternative delivery arrangements proved fruitless. Gaydon Possible site brought forward by landowner. Parish Council decided not to undertake Housing Needs (Category 4) 446 Yes (2006) PP 2013. Survey until Gaydon new settlement proposals are clarified. Red
Commuted sum available for provision of affordable housing in Alcester and adjoining parishes. 2010 Great Alne
Page 31 Page Yes (2010, Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 7 affordable homes. 2014 Local Market Housing Needs (Category 3) 570 PP 2009. 2014) Survey identified a need for 10 local market homes. Parish Council supports proposed scheme off Green Spernall Lane. Public Consultation Event should progress Autumn 2015. Halford 2007 Housing Needs Survey now out of date. Met Parish Council in 2013 to discuss undertaking a new (Category 4) 341 Yes (2007) No progress Housing Needs Survey but decision taken in 2014 not to progress. Red Hampton Lucy 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 4 affordable homes. Planning permissin granted on NPAD (Category 4) 566 Yes (2011) appeal by Charles Church for 25 homes including 9 affordable homes for local people. Parish Council approved. Grey do not wish to pursue own scheme. A mixture of 22 affordable and local market homes in Bush Heath Lane completed under Policy COM.1 Harbury PP 2012. Yes in 2011 (Phase 1). 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 61 affordable and local market (Category 1) 2,420 NPAD (2004/2011) homes. Bush Heath Lane (Phase 2) completed October 2014 - 10 affordable and 17 local market Green approved. homes. Ilmington Planning Permission granted for 10 affordable homes and 4 local market homes under Policy COM.1 (Category 3) 712 Yes (2006) PP 2006. on Armscote Road. Completed October 2014. Green Ladbroke 2008 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for only 1 affordable home which is financially not viable (Category 4) 268 Yes (2008) PP 2010. to develop. Parish Council has not responded to several offers to undertake a new Housing Needs Grey Survey. Lighthorne 2009 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 2 affordable homes and 2 local market homes. No (Category 4) 361 Yes (2013) PP 2014. progress as Parish Council are now focussing on "fighting" proposed new settlement. Red
Page 5 Lighthorne Heath PP 2005. Vulcan Way and Village Shop sites identified. 12 affordable homes completed under Policy COM.1 in (Category 2) 898 Yes (2004) NPAD 2007. Second phase of a further 10 new affordable homes and a new village shop completed 2009. Green approved. Page 32 Page
Page 6 Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan
PP 2005. NP 4 affordable homes completed at King Stone Farm in 2005. A further 4 affordable homes completed at Long Compton Yes independent Weston Court in 2009. 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 5 affordable homes and 4 (Category 3) 764 (2009/2012) examination local market homes. Submission Draft of Neighbourhood Development Plan identifies preferred site for Green (Aug 2015) COM.1 scheme. Public Consultation Event for new housing scheme takes place September 2015.
Long Itchington PP 2009. Stockton Road site identified and 10 affordable homes completed under Policy COM.1 in December (Category 1) 2,013 Yes (2007) NPAD 2013. Parish Council invited to undertake new Housing Needs Survey but no response yet. Green approved. Long Marston PP 2007. 2010 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 4 affordable homes. 2014 Housing Needs Survey Yes (2010, (Category 3) 436 NPAD identified a need for 1 affordable and 6 local market homes. Parish Council advised that need will be 2014) Green approved. fulfilled by various planning applications so don't wish to pursue own scheme. Loxley Some progress. 2014 Housing Needs Survey identified 2 affordable homes and 1 local market home. (Category 4) 399 Yes (2014) PP 2007. Suitable exception site identified but landowner unwilling to sell. Amber
Page 33 Page Mappleborough Green Parish Council has expressed interest in undertaking a Housing Needs Survey and requested RHE's (Category 4) 857 No No progress attendance at October 2015 Parish Council meeting. Green Moreton Morrell No progress. The Parish Plan Survey had a poor response rate and suggested that almost no housing (Category 4) 850 No PP 2007. need was present in the village. The Parish Council has not responded to several offers to undertake a Red Housing Needs Survey. Good progress. 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 27 new affordable and local market Napton on the Hill PP 2011. Yes homes. Planning application approved in 2014 for scheme to provide 8 affordable homes and 12 local (Category 2) 1,144 NPAD (2004/2012) market homes under Policy COM.1. at Priors Marston Road site. Completion expected November Green approved. 2016. Newbold on Stour Good progress. 2013 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 7 affordable homes and 5 local 1,422 (includes (Category 3) Yes (2013) Progressing. market homes in parish (Tredington). Parish Council's approach is to meet need within several Tredington) Green developer-led schemes within parish. Some progress. Burton Dassett Parish Housing Needs Survey 2010 identified a need for 2 affordable 1,322 (includes Northend homes but unable to identify potential development sites. Parish Council expressed an interest in Burton Dassett & (Category 4) Yes (2010) No progress updating the Housing Needs Survey during 2015 but have now agreed to undertake a Neighbourhood Temple Red Plan and will include it as part of this process. Application for 94 homes in Temple Herdewyke will Herdewyke) absorb any expected need. Oxhill Parish Council has invited RHE to attend September 2015 Parish Council meeting to discuss (Category 4) 305 No PP 2014. undertaking a Housing Needs Survey. Green
Page 7 Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan
Pillerton Priors Met Parish Council in July 2010 but Parish Council did not wish to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. NPAD (Category 4) 294 No Parish Council has not responded to offer in June 2015 to undertake a Housing Needs Survey approved. Red alongside their Neighbourhood Plan work.
Priors Marston Construction of 8 new affordable homes under Policy CTY.5 in 2007. Parish Council currently (Category 4) 579 Yes (2004) PP 2005. considering survey form and covering letter prior to undertaking Housing Needs Survey during Autumn Green 2015.
Stilemans Close site identified and proposal to build 8 new affordable homes worked up under Policy Quinton NPAD COM.1. Public consultation undertaken. However, landowner granted planning permission for 8 open (Category 1) 1,968 Yes (2007) approved. market homes and no affordable homes. Parish Council has not responded to offer in June 2015 to Red undertake a Housing Needs Survey in light of their Neighbourhood Plan work. PP 2005. No progress. Tothall Lane site identified. Planning application submitted to build 6 affordable homes Salford Priors NA pre under Policy COM.1. Planning application withdrawn after Parish Council withdrew earlier support and (Category 2) 1,546 Yes (2008) submission Page 34 Page formally opposed application. Sites to be allocated through Neighbourhood Plan. Station Road Red consultation application will cover any local need. commenced. Snitterfield PP 2005. Completed. 10 affordable homes completed under Policy COM.1 in December 2013 on Bearley Road Yes (2006, (Category 3) 1,226 NPAD site. 2014 Housing Needs Survey identified 5 affordable and 2 local market homes. Parish Council 2014) Green approved. will consider sites through Neighbourhood Plan process. Stockton Good progress. 12 affordable homes and 5 local market homes completed under Policy COM.1 in (Category 2) 1,347 Yes (2006) PP 2006. June 2015 at site off Glebe Close. Parish Council considered updating Housing Needs Survey but feel Green CEMEX application will cover any outstanding need.
Tanworth-in-Arden 3,104 (includes Some progress. Parish Council declined offer of Housing Needs Survey but included some housing NPAD (Category 4) Earlswood & No questions as part of Neighbourhood Plan survey. Possible need but formal Housing Needs Survey approved. Green Wood End) would be required. Parish Council have not yet responded to offer.
Some progress. Burton Dassett Parish Housing Needs Survey 2010 identified a need for 2 new Temple Herdewyke 1,322 (includes affordable homes but unable to identify potential development sites. Parish Council expressed an (Category 3) Burton Dassett & Yes (2010) No progress interest in updating the Housing Needs Survey during 2015 but have now agreed to undertake a Red Northend) Neighbourhood Plan and will include it as part of this process. Application for 94 homes in Temple Herdewyke will absorb any expected need. Tiddington No progress. Tiddington to be included within Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Plan. Discussions (Category 1) N/A Yes (2005) No progress are ongoing regarding a Housing Needs Survey as part of the Neighbourhood Plan. Green
Page 8 Tredington Good progress. 2013 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 7 affordable homes and 5 local 1,422 (includes (Category 3) Yes (2013) Progressing. market homes. Parish Council's most likely approach is to meet need within several developer-led Newbold on Stour) Green schemes. Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan
Good progress. 2 affordable homes were completed at Back Lane in 2008 under Policy COM.1. 2012 Tysoe PP 2010. Housing Needs Survey identified need for 3 affordable homes and 2 local market homes. 2015 (Category 2) 1,143 Yes (2012) NPAD planning application from landowner to provide 6 open market homes and 3 affordable homes. Green approved. Completion expected Autumn 2017. Welford on Avon PP 2004. Good progress. Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 17 new affordable homes and 4 new local (Category 2) 1,420 Yes (2008) NPAD market homes. Planning application submitted 2014 to build 8 new affordable homes and 4 new local Green approved. market homes under Policy COM.1 on Barton Road site. Wilmcote PP 2007. Good progress. Parish Council have agreed to undertake a Housing Needs Survey during Autumn (Category 2) 1,299 No NPAD 2015 and are currently considering amendments to survey form and covering letter. Green approved. Wood End Page 35 Page 3,104 (includes Some progress. Parish Council declined offer of Housing Needs Survey but included some housing NPAD (Category 4) Earlswood & No questions as part of Neighbourhood Plan survey. Possible need but formal Housing Needs Survey approved. Amber Tanworth) would be required. Parish Council have not yet responded to offer.
Good progress. 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 14 affordable homes. Public Wootton Wawen PP 2010. Consultation Event identified preferred site of 2 available sites supported by SDC Planners. Proposals (Category 2) 1,318 Yes (2011) NPAD for COM.1 scheme being developed. Residents concerns re vehicle speeds. Possible planning Green approved. applciation during Autumn 2015.
Page 9 Other villages Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan Arrow Commuted sum available for provision of affordable housing in Alcester and adjoining Parishes. Parish 226 No No progress Red Council has not responded to offers to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. Avon Dassett 2007 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 3 new affordable homes, but all possible sites have 210 Yes (2007) PP 2007. Red been discounted. 2013 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 1 new affordable home and 3 new local market Binton 311 Yes (2013) Progressing. homes. Parish Council declined to adopt the Report. Parish Plan work suggests affordable homes are Green required. PP 2003 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified need for 3 homes in Barton, 29 homes in Bidford, 4 homes in (part of Broom Yes Broom and 1 new home in Marcliff. Parish Council supports draft layout of proposed 8 home scheme N/A Bidford's Green (2005/2012) as "village cluster" in Broom to meet needs of Barton, Broom and Marlcliff. Public Consultation Event Plan). NPAD to be held Autumn 2015. approved.
Page 36 Page Butlers Marston 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for only 1 affordable home which would not be financially 232 Yes (2011) No progress Grey viable to develop. 2010 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 8 affordable homes in Cherington & Stourton. Site Cherington 373 Yes (2010) No progress canvassing undertaken in February 2013. Potential development sites being considered by Parish Green Council Action Group. No progress from Action Group.
Both 2009 and 2012 Housing Needs Surveys identified a need for only 1 affordable home which would Coughton Yes 157 PP 2010. not be financially viable to develop. Potential development site has emerged. Parish Council invited to Green (2009/2012) update Housing Needs Survey. Possible cluster solution with neighbouring parishes.
No progress. 2009 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 5 affordable homes. Parish Council not interested in Dorsington NA 150 Yes (2009) site canvassing exercise. Parish Council have been approached with regard to undertaking a new Red designation Housing Needs Survey - awaiting response. rejected.
Commuted sum available for provision of affordable housing in Alcester and adjoining Parishes. Exhall Contacted Parish Council on several occasions to offers to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. Parish 203 No PP 2007. Red Council does not wish to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. Parish Council has not responded to further offers to undertake a Housing Needs Survey.
Farnborough Housing Needs Survey now out of date. Discussion in 2014 re undertaking Housing Needs Survey as 265 Yes (2000) No progress Red part of Parish Plan but Parish Council has not responded to offers to undertake a new survey.
Great Wolford 2015 Housing Needs Survey identified need for 2 affordable homes which would not be financially 278 Yes (2015) No progress Green viable to develop.
Page 10 Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan No progress. Commuted sum available for provision of affordable housing in Alcester and adjoining Haselor Parishes. Contacted Parish Council in 2012 but Parish Council does not wish to undertake a Housing 218 No No progress Red Needs Survey. Parish Council has not responded to further offers to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 34 affordable homes and 13 local market homes for King's Coughton 6,273 (includes Yes (2012) PP 2008. Alcester Parish. Potential development site in Alcester identified for combined COM.1 scheme and Green Alcester) supported accommodation. Developer contribution available for deployment. Commuted sum available for provision of affordable housing in Alcester and adjoining Parishes. Kinwarton 1,082 No Completed Attended Parish Council in 2012 but Parish Council does not want to undertake a Housing Needs Red Survey. Langley Met Parish Council in November 2010 but Parish Council does not wish to undertake a Housing Needs 162 No PP 2013. Red Survey.
Little Compton 4 affordable homes completed at Jordan's Orchard in 2007. 2009 Housing Needs Survey showed a Page 37 Page 365 Yes (2009) No progress Red need for 6 affordable homes. Parish Council not interested in site canvassing exercise.
2007 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 5 affordable homes. Possible development sites Luddington 475 Yes (2007) PP 2006. discounted. Parish Council have been approached to undertake a new Housing Needs Survey - Red awaiting response. Morton Bagot N/A No No progress No response from Parish Council to offers to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. Red Newbold Pacey & Ashorne 267 No PP 2007. Housing Needs Survey to be undertaken in early 2011 cancelled by Parish Council. Red Oldberrow No response from Parish Council to offers in October 2009 and January 2013 to undertake a Housing N/A No No progress Red Needs Survey. Pillerton Hersey Meeting with Parish Council in 2010 to discuss undertaking a Housing Needs Survey but advised they 170 No No progress Red don't with to proceed. 2010 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for only 1 affordable home which would not be financially Preston on Stour viable to develop. 2015 Housing Needs Survey identified 4 affordable homes and 5 local market 244 Yes (2010) PP 2014. Green homes. Parish Council in the process of writing to all local landowners to try to identify suitable development site. PP 2008. Good progress. New Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 3 affordable homes. Potential site Ratley and Upton Yes 327 NAPD subject to proposals by landowner to provide open market homes and affordable homes. Issues Green (2005/2011) approved. surrounding landowners poof of title to land have slowed progress.
Page 11 Parish / Parish Neigh- Settlement Population HNS Status of site canvassing bourhood (Census 2011) Plan
Sambourne 2014 Housing Needs Survey identified need for 7 affordable homes. The Sambourne Trust is bringing 844 Yes (2014) Ongoing Green forward a scheme for two affordable dwellings using a commuted sum..
Spernall N/A No No progress No progress. No response from Parish Council to offers to undertake a Housing Needs Survey. Red
Good progress. 2010 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 8 affordable homes in Cherington & Stourton 373 Yes (2010) No progress Stourton. Site canvassing undertaken in February 2013. Potential development sites to be considered Green by Parish Council Action Group. No progress re formation of Action Group.
Completed and good progress. 4 affordable homes completed on Harold's Orchard site in 2010 under Stretton on Fosse Yes Policy CTY.5. 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 5 affordable homes. Planning 439 PP 2010. Green (2006/2011) permission granted for scheme to provide 5 affordable homes under Policy CTY.5 as off-site contribution for housing scheme at Dudfields Nursey, Shottery. To be completed 2017.
Page 38 Page Temple Grafton No progress. Parish Council undertook informal housing survey within the village in 2014. Parish 462 No PP 2007. Red Council doesn't feel the need to conduct a formal Housing Needs Survey.
Ufton 2012 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for only 1 affordable home which would not be financially 319 Yes (2012) No progress Grey viable to develop. Ullenhall No progress. Met Parish Council in 2010 but Parish Council decided not to pursue a Housing Needs 673 No No progress Red Survey. Warmington 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for only 1 affordable home which would not be financially 304 Yes (2011) Ongoing Grey viable to develop. Whatcote 2014 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for only 1 local market home which would not be 143 Yes (2014) No progress Grey financially viable to develop. Whichford Good progress. 2011 Housing Needs Survey identified a need for 1 affordable home. Potential "cluster" 336 Yes (2011) PP 2010. Green scheme with Cherington & Stourton. Wixford Commuted sum available for provision of affordable housing in Alcester and adjoining Parishes. 2012 155 Yes (2012) No progress Grey Housing Needs Survey identified no need. Wolverton Yes (2005, 2014 Housing Needs Suvey identified a need for 1 local market home which would not be financially 212 No progress Grey 2014) viable to develop.
Page 12 Homes Built (216) Brailes 18 COM.1 (2 schemes) Claverdon 12 CTY.5 Fenny Compton 12 COM.1 (including 2 Local Market homes) Harbury 49 COM.1 (including 26 Local Market homes, over 2 schemes) Ilmington 14 COM.1 (including 4 Local Market homes) Lighthorne Heath 22 COM.1 Little Compton 4 CTY.5 Long Compton 8 COM.1 (2 schemes) Long Itchington 10 COM.1 Priors Marston 8 CTY.5 Shipston on Stour 26 COM.1 Snitterfield 10 COM.1 Stockton 17 COM.1 (including 5 Local Market homes) Stretton-on-Fosse 4 CTY.5 Tysoe 2 COM.1
In the Pipeline (257 indicative) Alcester 47 COM.1 (including 13 Local Market homes) Bidford on Avon 29 COM.1 (including 9 Local Market homes) Page 39 Page Bishop's Itchington 11 NPPF Brailes 18 COM.1 (including 4 Local Market homes) Broom 8 CTY.5 (including 4 Local Market homes) Great Alne 7 CTY.5 Long Compton 9 COM.1 (including 4 Local Market homes) Napton 20 COM.1 (including 12 Local Market homes) Southam 27 NPPF Stretton-on-Fosse 5 CTY.5 Studley 47 COM.1 (including 10 Local Market homes) Tysoe 3 NPPF Welford on Avon 12 COM.1 (including 4 Local Market homes) Wootton Wawen 14 COM.1
Site Canvassing (33 indicative) Alderminster 3 CTY.5 (including 1 Local Market home) Bearley 3 COM.1 Cherington & Stourton 8 CTY.5 Preston on Stour 9 Ratley & Upton 3 CTY.5 Snitterfield 7 COM.1 (including 2 Local Market homes)
Page 13 This page has been left intentionally blank Item 6
THE CABINET 28 September 2015
Subject: Tredington Parish Plan Lead Officer: Matthew Neal Contact on 01789 260320 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor C Saint
Summary This report sets out an assessment of the Tredington Parish Plan 2015. Recommendation That the Tredington Parish Plan set out at Appendix 4 be adopted as a material consideration when determining planning applications, in accordance with the saved provisions of the Local Plan Review and the policies of the emerging Core Strategy, and as an important source of local information.
Note: Appendix 4 circulated as an electronic supplement to this agenda.
1 Background/Information 1.1 Parish Plans are community-led projects that involve identifying and surveying the assets, needs, opportunities, problems and solutions of a community. Through a process of capacity and consensus building they provide communities with a framework to take stock of the present and plan for the future. 1.2 Parish Plans continue to be produced by communities in the District, in many instances via a process involving the review of existing Parish Plans and their associated recommendations/action plans. Further background information on the process is included in Appendix 1. 2 Background to the submitted Tredington Parish Plan 2.1 At the Parish Council Annual General meeting of 13 May 2013, Tredington Parish Council agreed to set up a Steering Group to develop a Parish Plan informed by a Village Survey, together with an Action Plan identifying the aspirations of the residents of the five villages located within the Parish (Armscote, Blackwell, Darlingscott, Newbold-on-Stour and Tredington). To this end, a household survey was carried out in September and October 2014. 2.2 In total, the survey questionnaire was distributed to 640 households across the five communities. 489 completed surveys were returned, equating to an excellent 76% response rate. Comments and responses in the returns represent the opinions of 1,127 people, including 60 children under the age of 17 who completed a separate survey.
Page 41 2.3 The results of the surveys were used to develop a draft Parish Plan. The Plan was developed by the Parish Plan Steering Committee in conjunction with two nominated Parish Councillors acting in a liaison role through the constitution approved by the Parish Council. The Parish Council representatives were therefore party to the survey results and contributed toward the preparation of the Parish Plan. 2.4 The original draft Tredington Parish Plan was endorsed by the Parish Council on 20 July 2015 and passed to the Local Planning Authority for comment. Subsequent to the implementation of changes discussed with the Local Planning Authority following consultation on the document, the revised Plan and Action Plan was endorsed by the delegated Parish Councillor on the Steering Group. 2.5 The SDC Consultation and Customer Insight Manager considers that an appropriate consultation methodology has been used. It has resulted in an excellent response rate from residents, producing meaningful data for analysis and informing an effective commentary within the Plan to explain the results for each question. 3 Tredington Parish Plan – Findings and Action Plan 3.1 The findings of the Parish Plan have been used to inform the development of an Action Plan. The scope of the Plan is wide-ranging (see the document in full at Appendix 4). 3.2 The recommended responses to the Action Plan are provided in Appendix 2. 3.3 The Parish Plan was originally submitted to the District Council in draft on 27 July 2015. The Plan included an Action Plan, in which proposed outcomes were listed that were meant to align to survey outcomes set out in the main body of the Plan. However, as originally drafted, the two elements of the Plan had very few clear linkages with one another since it was difficult to cross-reference outcomes and associated actions. 3.4 The Plan and associated Action Plan were subsequently amended by the Parish Council to ensure that the proposed actions matched one another. It is this final version of the Plan attached for consideration. 3.5 It is not considered there are any elements within the Plan which could be deemed to be contrary to the provisions of the Core Strategy. 3.6 The District Council and County Council may offer advice and support in undertaking some of the proposed actions. For example, certain projects may be eligible for County Council Community Development Funding, which is administered by the Stratford Area Team. 3.7 Appendix 3 of this report sets out the criteria used to assess the Tredington Parish Plan, together with the details of the responses available to the action plan. 4 Options available to The Cabinet 4.1 The following options are available: To adopt the Parish Plan fully; To suggest amendments to the Plan, if there is concern about certain aspects of the Parish Plan; or Not adopt the Parish Plan.
Page 42 5 Ward Members’ Comments 5.1 At the time of writing, no comments had been received from Councillor Chris Saint. 6 Implications of the Proposal 6.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 6.1.1 If adopted, the Parish Plan will become a material consideration to be taken into account by the District Council when determining planning applications. The Parish Plan does not conflict with the District Council’s current Local Plan or the emerging Core Strategy and consultation is in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. 6.1.2 When considering adopting the Parish Plan The Cabinet must have regard to the following: The Human Rights Act 1998 (in particular, Article 6 - Right to a Fair Trial, Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination); and The Race Relations Act 1996 as amended by the Race Relations Act (Amendments) Act 2000 (“the Act”), in particular sections 19A (where it is unlawful for a planning authority to discriminate against a person in carrying out their planning functions) and 19B of the Act (where it is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination). 6.2 Financial 6.2.1 Projects developed through the Parish Plan may need funding to take them forward. The County Council funds a community development grants scheme aimed at funding these types of projects. It is hoped that the Parish Council and local residents will consider and pursue funding in order to develop their identified actions. There are no financial implications for the District Council. 6.3 Environmental 6.3.1 None identified. 6.4 Corporate Strategy 6.4.1 The production of the Tredington Parish Plan supports two of the three aims of the District Council’s Corporate Strategy 2015-2019; namely Key Objective 2: People and their Environment and Key Objective 3: Responsible Community Leadership. 6.5 Analysis of the effects on Equality 6.5.1 None identified. 7 Risk Assessment 7.1 Choosing not to adopt the Parish Plan would risk losing the chance to adopt a valuable source of local information and a useful material consideration to aid planning decision-making.
Page 43 8 Conclusion 8.1 The Tredington Parish Plan is a good example of how a community can prepare a Plan with guidance and assistance from the Local Planning Authority, which will provide both a good source of local information and a sound basis, through the associated Action Plan, to address the needs and aspirations of the community. It is considered that the Value Statements set out in the Action Plan are consistent and in general conformity with the policy framework established by the current Local Plan Review 1996-2011, the Proposed Submission Core Strategy June 2014 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Supporting papers: Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 2006. Core Strategy (as submitted September 2014 showing subsequent proposed modifications) June 2015 National Planning Policy Framework
Background papers:
None
Page 44 Item 6 Appendix 1
Further Background Information
1.1 Communities produce Parish Plans for a number of reasons: To increase the awareness of community issues, foster community spirit and encourage a sense of pride; To act as a strong basis for local action (the Action Plan); To collectively represent the views of residents, to positively influence others to the benefit of the community. 1.2 In the 1980s the concept and practice of Village Appraisals first emanated nationally from the Rural Development Commission in conjunction with the Countryside Commission. 1.3 Nationally, Parish Plans have a role to play within the 'modernising Local Government' agenda, for example, shaping local services, public participation, decision-making and greater democratic legitimacy. 1.4 One of the aims within Chapter 12 of the Rural White Paper (Our Countryside: the future – A fair deal for rural England) includes involving people living in rural areas in developing their community, safeguarding its valued features and shaping the decisions that affect them – developing a vision for the future. Parish Plans are a recognised method of achieving this aim. 1.5 In line with guidance from the Countryside Agency issued in August 2000 (‘Planning tomorrow’s countryside’, advice to local planning authorities, government and developers on how the planning system should operate and evolve), Parish Plans are a recognised community planning method to help achieve key objectives. In March 2003 the Countryside Agency produced detailed guidance for parish and town councils on the preparation of Parish and Town Plans. 1.6 Stratford-on-Avon District Council is committed to the encouragement of Parish Plans as a means of identifying local issues and will respond to them positively. Much faith has been placed by the Government, the County Council and the District Council on local appraisals and their role in assisting the formulation of strategic policy. 1.7 Parish Plans can now play a broader role within the production of the statutory Community Plan for Stratford District. 1.8 The recommendations and Action Plans can both inform and help deliver the Rural Strategy for the Stratford-on-Avon District. 1.9 Policy COM.1 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan 2006 states: “The views of the local community as expressed preferably in a Parish Plan (or equivalent) or in its absence an alternative source of reliable evidence will be fully taken into account in the planning process. In particular they will be used: To help assess the merits of schemes promoted by communities to meet needs which they have identified; As a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and to assist in identifying the scope and nature of associated planning obligations which might be sought; and To identify opportunities for environmental and other forms of enhancement. In the case of Main Rural Centres and Local Centre Villages only, as defined in Policy STR1, small scale schemes which meet housing (particularly affordable housing) and employment needs will be encouraged in this way…”
Page 45 1.10 Nationally, Parish Plans are broad, holistic documents addressing local issues at a local level. Whilst in this District ‘appraisals’ have had a close association with planning, they are no longer 'planning-led'. Parish Plans address both planning and non-planning related matters and this is reflected in their assessment at Committee. 1.11 Parish Plans can and do act as a tool to assist in giving many of the services provided by the District Council greater community focus. In the same way, many of the services provided by the District Council can and do feed into the Parish Plan process creating more informed Action Plans.
Page 46 Item 6 Appendix 2
Summary of key action points
Abbreviations SDC= Stratford District Council WCC= Warwickshire County Council WRCC= Warwickshire Rural Community Council PC = Parish Council
Appendix 3 gives an explanation of what is meant by each recommendation.
Parish Plan Actions Recommendation
Housing Support PC to investigate the updating of the 2013 Housing Needs Survey Following adoption, PC and SDC to recognise Parish Plan as a material Consideration when assessing planning applications PC to form a steering group to initiate Neighbourhood Development Plan process Local Economy Support PC to explore ways of encouraging and supporting new and established businesses Essential Services Support PC to investigate re-introducing the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme PC to make representations on residents’ behalf to ascertain feasibility and cost to connect households to mains gas PC to approach BT to investigate upgrading broadband access for parishioners PC to undertake work to clarify the locations, nature, extent and causes of flooding in collaboration with other appropriate agencies PC to notify appropriate agencies in order to rectify defects relating to roads and footways Transport Support PC to carry out feasibility study into maintenance of existing footpaths and the creation of new pathways and cycle routes
Parking and Traffic Support . PC to work with the police to ensure speed limits are enforced . PC to look to improve recognition of dangerous and inconsiderate parking of vehicles in the villages . PC to liaise with WCC to investigate the installation of traffic calming measures and better road markings
Page 47 Health, Social & Local Services Support . In association with healthcare providers, PC to look to raise awareness of available medical services and patient forums . PC to publish information on the location of every defibrillator in the Parish and arrange courses on their usage Education Support . PC to investigate courses to improve adult IT skills . PC to liaise with education and recreation providers to investigate the creation of new education opportunities for parishioners Community Matters Support . PC to review/investigate expanding use of the Parish Council website and consider launch of a community website to improve communication with parishioners Living in the Countryside Support PC to investigate road safety issues with appropriate agencies Local Government Support . PC, SDC and WCC to consider improvements to communication to promote decisions and activities being carried out at all Council levels . PC to investigate ways to improve communication and generate interest in PC activities through improved media channels Needs of Younger People Support . PC to investigate provision of affordable bus services/transport opportunities for younger people in order to participate in activities outside the Parish . PC to investigate support for a local youth club and/or transport to Shipston-on-Stour youth club . PC to investigate provision of electronic communication facility via social media for younger parishioners
Page 48 Item 6 Appendix 3
Guidance for the Assessment of Parish/Town Plans
In assessing Parish Plans, the following considerations should be taken into account: Evidence and extent of research work to justify conclusions. Evidence and extent of analysis related to conclusions. Public involvement and endorsement at local level. Level of implementation available to District and County Council services, (e.g. the District Council Planning Authority, Community Services etc.). Conformity with District and County Council's policies, (e.g. Planning policies etc.). The above five criteria will enable the production of recommendations regarding the acceptance of each of the Parish Plan’s detailed conclusions and Action Points. A response to each of the detailed conclusions and Action Points will be one of the following: (A) ENDORSE The specific recommendation will be accepted and taken into account in the decision making of the District Council. (For example, "Small scale development with a 'craft' emphasis should be looked at sympathetically"). (B) ACTION The specific recommendation will be accepted in principle and, subject to financial, procedural and legal constraints, implemented by or with the support of the District or County Council. (For example, "A social housing scheme of ten units on land next to the Green should be provided"). (C) INVESTIGATE Further information to be obtained by the Parish/Town Council or other agency may be required in order that the District or County Council may establish if the specific recommendation can be supported. (For example, "An existing Conservation Area should be extended"). (D) SUPPORT The specific recommendation relates to a matter which is not the responsibility of the District or County Council. However, the proposal is supported and will be forwarded to the appropriate authority, where necessary. (For example, “The Water Authority should be asked to upgrade the drains and reduce the risk of flooding”.) (E) NOT SUPPORTED The specific recommendation relates to a matter which is in contrary to the policy of the District or County Council, or is beyond the powers of the authority or that insufficient and/or unsatisfactory information has been submitted to substantiate their recommendation. (For example, "No development of any kind should take place within the settlement").
Page 49 This page has been left intentionally blank Item 7
THE CABINET 28 September 2015
Subject: Salford Priors Neighbourhood Plan Pre-submission consultation responses Lead Officer: Matthew Neal Contact on 01789 260320 Lead Member Portfolio Holder: Councillor C Saint
Summary This report and associated schedule of comments at Appendix 1 provides the basis for the District Council’s corporate response to the pre-submission consultation undertaken by Salford Priors Parish Council in respect of the Salford Seven Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). The Cabinet is asked to endorse the comments set out in the Appendix in order to inform the Parish Council (as Qualifying Body) of the District Council’s formal reply to the draft Plan. Recommendation That the schedule of comments at Appendix 1 be endorsed and published by the Council as the formal response to the pre-submission consultation process associated with the Salford Seven draft Neighbourhood Development Plan.
1. Background/Information 1.1 The District Council approved the area application submitted by Salford Priors Parish Council for the formal designation of the Salford Priors Neighbourhood Area on 23 June 2014. The Neighbourhood Plan Area comprises the parish of Salford Priors. 1.2 Since that time, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group under the direction of the Parish Council (as the Qualifying Body as set out in section 38A(12) of the 2004 Act) has been working toward the production of a draft NDP through evidence gathering and the drafting of a suite of policies based on the vision and objectives of the local community. 1.3 Prior to formal submission of the NDP to the District Council with a view to its Independent Examination, the Qualifying Body must first publicise it, in a manner that is likely to bring it to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area; consult any consultation body referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) whose interests may be affected by the proposals for a neighbourhood plan; and send a copy to the Local Planning Authority. Details of the proposals for the NDP together with details of how and when to make representations on the NDP must also be published. This is known as the pre-submission consultation. 1.4 The pre-submission consultation has to be carried out in accordance with Regulation 14 of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) ‘Pre-submission consultation and publicity’.
Page 51 1.5 The Parish Council commenced the statutory minimum 6 week pre- submission consultation/publicity period associated with their draft NDP on Monday 29 June 2015 with an end date for comments of Monday 10 August 2015. 1.6 Under the constitution, there is a requirement to report the Authority’s corporate response to Members for endorsement. For workload reasons it has not been possible to report to The Cabinet until now. However, the Parish Council (as Qualifying Body) has been made aware of the date of The Cabinet meeting at which the Council’s response is to be discussed. 1.7 Since the Parish Council is responsible for administering this pre- submission consultation process, the District Council is merely a consultee on the draft NDP at this stage. 1.8 Once received at the District Council, the draft NDP was circulated to the Housing Policy & Development Team; the Policy Team; Development Management Service; Leisure Services; Business, Housing & Revenues Service and Enterprise, Housing and Revenues Service for comment. 1.9 This is the one opportunity in the NDP process where all interested parties can submit general comments on all aspects of the Plan to the Qualifying Body for consideration and possible inclusion in a further iteration of the document prior to formal submission in readiness for Independent Examination. It is therefore a very important stage in the overall process. 1.10 The comments received from the various Council Services are set out in the attached Appendix. 2. Options available to The Cabinet 2.1 The following options are available: Option 1: To endorse the responses to the pre-submission consultation process, either as drafted or subject to minor changes and forward to the Qualifying Body for consideration. Option 2: To request that further work be done to revise the formal responses to the pre-submission consultation process prior to them being reported back to The Cabinet for endorsement. Option 3: To decide that it would be inappropriate to submit the responses to the Qualifying Body. 3. Implications of the Proposal 3.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 3.1.1 The Localism Act 2011 places a legal requirement on the District Council to assist and support local communities in the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. 3.1.2 Neighbourhood Plans must be compatible with EU obligations and Human Rights requirements together with such plans having regard to national planning policy and be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan for the area. 3.1.3 The consideration, endorsement and publication of the responses to the pre-submission consultation process would constitute one element of the
Page 52 work being carried out by the District Council to fulfil its legal requirement to support local communities in the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. 3.2 Financial 3.2.1 There are no direct costs arising from the recommendation within this report. 3.3 Environmental 3.3.1 Neighbourhood Plans are not required to carry out the type of sustainability appraisal necessary for a Development Plan Document as required by the Town and Country Planning Act 2004. The need to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) on the content of the Salford Seven Neighbourhood Plan has been dealt with outside this specific consultation process and is therefore not relevant to this report. 3.4 Corporate Strategy 3.4.1 The consultation responses will help the Qualifying Body produce robust and appropriate policies in their NDP, which itself will contribute towards two of the three main objectives of the Stratford-on-Avon District Council Corporate Strategy 2015-2019. Key Objective 2 (People and their Environment) relates, amongst other things, to the delivery of housing targets and landscape/environmental protection when considering new development. Key Objective 3 (Responsible Community Leadership) encourages, amongst other things, joint working between SDC and local communities to achieve benefits for residents. 3.5 Analysis of the effects on Equality 3.5.1 No issues identified. 4. Risk Assessment 4.1 There is a risk that, without informing the Qualifying Body of potential areas of conflict with the strategic policies of the Core Strategy, the Neighbourhood Plan may not meet one of the ‘basic conditions’ that will be tested at the Neighbourhood Plan examination. The Council could therefore find itself in a position whereby it could not endorse the Neighbourhood Plan. The responses set out in the schedule at Appendix 1 look to provide assistance to the Qualifying Body in order to help prevent the scenario whereby a Neighbourhood Plan would fail to meet the basic conditions at Independent Examination. 5. Conclusion 5.1 The consultation responses as set out in the schedule at Appendix 1 will provide the Qualifying Body with information and guidance to aid them in consideration of any potential amendments to their Neighbourhood Plan prior to formal submission to the Local Planning Authority. It is recommended that The Cabinet receives and endorses this schedule of responses which will help inform the further development of the Salford Seven Neighbourhood Plan.
Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Page 53 This page has been left intentionally blank Salford Priors Neighbourhood Development Plan
Salford Priors Parish Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 14 Consultation (Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations, 2012
Appendix 1 - comments from Stratford-on-Avon District Council
This analysis contains a number of initial general comments about the Neighbourhood Plan, followed by a schedule of more detailed policy related points.
General Comments:
The plan is well presented and written with clarity and purpose. The policies are generally written ‘positively’ which is welcomed. However, some of the
Page 55 Page text in chapter 6 should be placed before the relevant policies rather than after them. This enables them to provide a useful context explanation for the policies that follow under each objective. Similarly, any tables and maps should sit alongside the relevant policy.
Policies SP5 and SP19 in the Salford Seven NDP are welcomed. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clearly states that addressing climate change is one of the core land use planning principles and is expected to underpin plan making and decision making. It emphasises that responding to climate change is central to the achievement of the economic, social and environment dimensions of sustainable development. The inclusion of the policies will help to demonstrate one of the basic conditions for NDPs, such that they will contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development.
More detailed comments on the policies are included in the table, below: Item 7 Appendix 1 Policy related comments:
Section Reference/page Comment
National & Local Paragraph 3.12, p.12 Version of Policy CS.15 referred to does not include proposed modification at beginning of Planning Policy Context Local Needs Schemes section. Reference to Policy CS.16 is consistent with the proposed modified approach to LSVs. Salford Priors is a category 2 LSV for which the policy now states that no more than around 12% of an overall figure of 700 dwellings should be provided in an individual settlement, i.e. no more than around 84 dwellings. Objectives Objectives 2 and 5 Objective 2 ‘To ensure all new development is of suitable, high quality, sustainable design’ and Objective 5 ‘To promote sustainable design and reduced energy use and consumption’ appear to be repetitive. Would it be more appropriate for them to be combined? Vision and Objectives Paragraph 5.1, p.15 Suggest in the Vision that ‘population’ is replaced with ‘homes’ as some of the adjectives that follow are not applicable to people in this context. 3.0 National and Local Paragraph 3.12, p.12-13 SDC agreed further amendments to Policies CS.15 and CS.16 on 20th July 2015. Although the Planning Policy Context NDP was published prior to publication of these amendments, it needs to take them into account as appropriate. In particular, the proposed changes to the indicative amount of Page 56 Page housing required in each of the Local Service Villages in Policy CS.16 may affect the content of the NDP. Section 6 – Objective 1 Policies SP1 and SP2, There is some degree of overlap, e.g. the first part of each policy uses pretty much the same p.16-17 wording. Section 6 – Objective 1 Policy SP1, p.16-17 Criterion (a) - It would be helpful for those particular elements or features that contribute to “distinctive character” to be identified. Otherwise, this Policy would appear to contribute little in the way of “added value” to emerging Core Strategy policies.
Criterion (a) looks to maintain the character of the settlements of the Parish, including their settings, spaces and built form. How would the allocation of 66 new dwellings as set out in Policy SP9 achieve this?
Criterion (d) The provision of roads and footpaths are covered by other legislation for provision by statutory undertakers and cannot be controlled through a NDP. Much domestic hardstanding is covered by permitted development rights. This requires re-wording or deleting.
Criterion (f) looks to control signage but many signs are ‘deemed consent’ and cannot be controlled via policy in a NDP. This requires re-wording or deleting.
Criterion (g) asks for the design and placement of signs to be restrained. Many signs are ‘deemed consent’. For those that require planning permission, what does ‘restrained’ mean? What measurement can officers use to ascertain whether a scheme meets the policy? Criterion (h) - This criterion is too specific. In any case, the placing of benches and flower boxes are not deemed ‘permanent structures’ and do not require planning consent. As such, this cannot be controlled via the NDP and should be deleted.
Criterion (i) - Do not disagree with the objective of creating new footpaths, cycleways and bridleways, but is this aspect of this criterion relevant to this policy? Could it be better placed elsewhere in the NDP?
Criterion (j) - Would query the use of the word “increased”. Would the following be more appropriate and achieve the same aim: “Existing verges, hedgerows and trees should be preserved and maintained and new verges, hedgerows and trees provided, so as to encourage wildflowers and wildlife, helping to maintain the rural setting”.
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 1 Policy SP2, p.17 Does this policy add anything further than national or District policy? Could it be better incorporated into Policy SP1 either as introductory text or the second paragraph as a new Page 57 Page criterion?
Similar comments to Policy SP1 (criterion a) above in respect of Policy SP2 (criterion a). Indeed, there appears to be considerable overlap between SP1, SP2 and SP4.
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Would it be beneficial for paragraphs 6.6 to 6.9 to be inserted here? Section 6 – Objective 1 Policy SP3 and Table 1, Are the Buildings of Local Importance identified/officially recognised as being such? If not, the p.17-19 basis of this policy is questionable.
This policy provides a useful local perspective that can be used to shape development proposals. However, you may want to satisfy yourselves that the criteria listed are fully in conformity with the NPPF.
It would be helpful to show these sites on a map to avoid any potential confusion as to which sites/buildings are being referred to. Whilst the justification may not need to be included in the NDP itself, you will need to ensure that the buildings have been identified through a consistent and robust methodology in a supporting document. Reasons should be given as to why each particular building has been included – why is it locally important?
It may be helpful to include a definition of ‘locally important’ at the beginning of this policy to provide some context for the subsequent list. This could include local historic connection, fine examples of local vernacular/use of local material, important contribution to character/setting etc.
Page 58 Page What is meant by ‘inappropriate development’? This needs to be expanded and explained.
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 1 Policy SP4, p.19 What is meant by “in a manner that is appropriate”? How can this be measured or assessed? Consider re-wording: “The rural character of the Parish will be preserved by ensuring all new development minimises and where appropriate, mitigates its impact”
Criterion c) looks to restore the landscape. Development cannot be used to restore other parcels of land not associated with the proposal and the very nature of developing a site could not itself be classified as ‘restoration’ given its physical impact on the land. Consider re- wording: “Include suitable features to protect and where possible enhance the landscape character of the parish”
Criterion e) delete the word ‘should’
Criterion f) delete the words ‘proposals should’ Section 6 – Objective 1 Paragraph 6.5, p.20 This paragraph refers to buildings of local importance, which are listed at Table 1 at Policy SP3. Would it be more appropriate for this paragraph to be part of the justification/explanatory text to accompany SP3? Section 6 – Objective 1 Paragraph 6.9, p.22 The final part relating to development in Conservation Areas reads like a policy and should perhaps be included in Policy SP2. Section 6 – Objective 2 Policy SP5, p.25 The requirement to exceed national standards may be contrary to national planning policy and the imposition of national standards. There is also some duplication with Policy SP19 – could the two policies be merged? (See also comments in respect of the Objectives).
The Policy repeats policies in the Core Strategy relating to climate change and does not add a local perspective.
Criterion (a) includes a reference to ‘suitable measures’ to reduce and adapt to the impacts of climate change. A definition of suitable measure is needed, either in the policy or in its explanation. This will enable the applicant to understand how to comply with the policy.
Criterion c) How would a proposal demonstrate how it has been designed to cope with ‘extreme’ temperatures? What criteria/standards are they being assessed against? Why is this necessary/appropriate? Page 59 Page Criterion (d) seeks to include measures to reduce energy consumption or provide energy from renewable or low carbon sources. Following the Government’s Housing Standards Review, these issues will not be covered by planning, but will be dealt with by Building Regulations. In March this year, the Government announced new housing standards which will deal with energy, water and access. This is in order to streamline the approach to housing sustainability standards, by replacing the numerous voluntary imposed by LPA across the country. As a result, it has phased out sustainability standards for housing such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and Life time Homes. This also includes Merton Rule style policies, which required a percentage of energy to be generated on-site. Energy and water efficiency measures and access will be covered by Building Regulations, in line with the Government’s Zero Homes approach. From 2016, all new homes will have to be built to zero carbon standards. To achieve this requirement, homes will have to be built using higher energy efficiency standards and renewable energy technologies on site, such as solar PV and ground source heat pump. Where it is not possible to achieve all the carbon emissions savings on-site, for development of 10 homes or more, the remaining carbon emission savings may be offset through the Government’s allowable solutions. Building Control Part L ‘ Conservation of Fuel and Power in new dwellings relates to regulated carbon emissions only, i.e. heating and lighting; not unregulated which includes white goods. The policy should be amended to reflect this change.
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 2 Policy SP6, p.25 Policy pretty much repeats Policy CS.9 in the Core Strategy – it would be helpful to incorporate a local perspective.
Criterion (b) May be inappropriate for a NDP to require use of traditional or reclaimed materials on all sites as opposed to sites affecting a heritage asset. May be more appropriate for this criterion to seek to “encourage the use of…”. Need to be vary of unintended misinterpretation – suggest rewording: “use traditional and/or reclaimed materials such as tiles, slates, bricks and stone that are appropriate to the local context”.
Criterion c) as written is potentially preventing innovative design, which may be appropriate in the right location…
Criterion i) What is meant by the need to ensure that proposals include ‘a good standard of space’? What is a ‘good standard’? What would be an appropriate definition? Are there regulations to refer to? To what does it refer (i.e. garden land)? If so, there are existing space standards. What would be the justification to insist on higher standards? The Policy as written is too ambiguous and requires further consideration and re-drafting, if it is to be retained. Page 60 Page
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP7, p.26 Core Strategy approach does not provide for dwellings in Rushford/Pitchill and Abbots Salford other than to meet a local need. A NDP can propose development in other locations to that specified by a Local Plan/Core Strategy but there should be clear justification for doing so based on local circumstances.
With 60 dwellings already committed in Salford Priors, it is uncertain why a further large site on School Road for 66 units is being promoted in the NP as this would exceed significantly the scale of housing expected in the LSV according to Policy CS.16 as proposed to be modified, ie. no more than around 84 dwellings. Having said that, it is a matter of local choice if the community seeks to plan for a scale of development above that given in the Core Strategy.
There is no reference to a settlement boundary for Salford Priors. Should this be defined and indicated on a map? Outside such a boundary, there will only be scope for “rural exception housing” (i.e. local needs schemes) falling within Part 6 of Core Strategy Policy CS.15.
Replace the word ‘permitted’ with ‘supported’.
Each allocated site quotes a number of dwellings. Should each state ‘up to…’ or approximately…’ since the sites may be able to accommodate more than the quoted figure. General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Is there evidence to show that the quoted sites are deliverable?
Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP8, p.27-28 Replace ‘permitted’ with ‘supported’.
Criterion a) What is the ‘Jack Thompson Croft’ style site layout referred to? Does this need to be quoted?
Criterion b) A minimum of 40% affordable housing is not consistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS.17 which states 35%.
Criterion d) What is the reasoning/justification for providing parking for some existing dwellings?
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP9, p.28-29 Replace ‘permitted’ with ‘supported’. Page 61 Page Criterion a) Not sure what is meant by ‘single properties and terraces’ in this context. Requires re-drafting or explanation.
Criterion b) A minimum of 40% affordable housing is not consistent with Core Strategy. The phasing plan is very prescriptive although it is reasonable to expect development of the site and off-site works to take place concurrently. It is unclear whether points 3 and 5 of Phase One of the Phasing Plan can be achieved within public highway or on land controlled by site owner.
Criterion e) 5 hectares is a large area for a village green. Is this correct? What is the justification for such a large tract of land to be put to this use? What land does it refer to (i.e. is there a preferred site in/adjacent to the village)? Does it need to be mapped?
Criterion f) is very prescriptive. Is it really required?
Suggest the final paragraph of the Policy is amended as follows: “Development will only be supported permitted when a planning application is submitted with a master-plan for the whole site together with a delivery statement and when legal and funding agreements are in place to ensure both open space and housing elements of the scheme are can be delivered in tandem over an appropriate timescale”. Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP10, p.29 There could be difficulties in identifying certain sites in hamlets that are not restricted to meeting a local need (see comment on Policy SP7 above) but restricting all other sites in this way. There needs to be clear evidence put forward to justify this approach.
Whilst welcoming the possibility of rural ‘exception’ schemes, over and above whatever site- specific allocations may be included in this Plan, There is a need identified in the 2008 Housing Needs Survey commissioned by the Parish Council which remains unmet. In order to gain the confidence of Registered Providers, there will need to be an express commitment to support specific schemes on named sites. Is a more up-to-date Housing Needs Survey required to underpin evidence for such proposals?
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP11, p.30 Setting a maximum of 20 dwellings per hectare (dph) is a very low density and does not necessarily reflect rural character. There needs to be clear evidence put forward to justify this approach.
This Policy should clarify whether this is a gross or net figure. Accompanying text may be
Page 62 Page required to justify why 20 dph is the appropriate figure. Is it intended that this policy would apply to replacement or single dwellings? Is the figure appropriate in such circumstances? Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP12, p.31 Policy SP12 seeks 40% affordable housing which is a higher requirement than set by the Core Strategy at 35%. NDP may need to justify this figure, particularly in viability terms to demonstrate that it is achievable and does not unduly affect the viability of schemes – including the allocated sites – coming forward for development.
The threshold of 11 homes is also different from that proposed in the Core Strategy. It is unclear as to whether a NDP can depart from strategic policy in this regard.
It is assumed this Policy will only apply in the case of market-led schemes mixed tenure promoted under Policy SP6 and thus will, by definition, only apply to Salford Priors village. For the avoidance of doubt, this Policy should clearly state whether it requires on-site provision. The reference to “exceptional circumstances” is unhelpful, but could be easily rectified by deleting the words “unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated” from the second line. Section 6 – Objective 3 Policy SP13, p.31 The level of detail provided in this policy would seem to be extremely detailed.
Is Policy SP13 unduly strict and would it have the unintended consequence of seeing applications for demolition and rebuild as opposed to conversion? As such, if Policy SP13 remains in its current form, does the NDP need to include a policy against the demolition of existing buildings?
Paragraphs 6.25 & 6.26 appear to set policy requirements. As such, they may need to be included within Policy SP13 itself. Section 6 – Objective 4 Policy SP14, p.34 The wording of this policy may need to be clarified or strengthened to prevent circumstances where a tree/hedgerow was substantially cut down but left in situ, which would comply with the letter of this policy but not its overriding objective.
Is it reasonable to require replacement if there are genuine safety reasons for removal? There is no obligation to replace trees/hedgerows unless they are protected.
Can this policy legally be implemented? How will suitable alternative locations be found, Page 63 Page particularly if the trees cannot be replaced elsewhere onsite, and additional land is in third party ownership? How would this policy be enforced to ensure replacement trees/hedgerows were planted?
Is Table 5 necessary if Policy SP14 applies to all trees? What additional protection does a locally important identification bring? Perhaps Policy SP14 could encourage the protection of all trees/hedgerows where appropriate and actively prevent loss of those locally important trees listed in Table 5. Section 6 – Objective 4 Policy SP14, Table 5 These trees need to be shown on a map to avoid any potential confusion as to which trees are p.35 being referred to. It may also be necessary to provide some context as to why these particular trees have been identified (e.g. local character, rare species locally etc) and to ensure that a consistent methodology has been applied to their identification. Section 6 – Objective 4 Policy SP15, p.36 National policy is not framed in this way (see para. 112 in NPPF). Is there a detailed assessment of agricultural land quality for the NP area in any case?
It would be helpful to map this classification. Is Grade 3a data available? Notwithstanding this, the implication of this policy is that development on Grade 3b, 4 and 5 land would be acceptable in principle. Would this result in development in locations that may otherwise be unsustainable? Would more appropriate wording be: “the loss of Grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land will be resisted, as appropriate, to ensure that the best and most versatile land is retained for agricultural uses”? Section 6 – Objective 4 Policy SP16, p.36 The protection of large tracts of agricultural land in this way is not considered to be lawful. The areas are too far from the communities they serve, they are not demonstrably special or local in character (in accordance with NPPF para 77 – Local Green Space designation).
The term ‘open space’ usually refers to land actively used for leisure and recreation e.g. parks and playing fields. It appears that this policy is seeking to designate land better termed ‘areas of restraint’ in order to protect the character of each individual settlement. As such, it may be more appropriate to move this policy under Objective 1.
This policy may require justification to ensure that the land has been identified through a consistent and robust methodology in a supporting document. Reasons should be given as to why each particular site has been included – why is it important that this particular land is protected from development? Section 6 – Objective 4 Policy SP17, p.39 This policy would be stronger if it used the wording of, and complied with, paragraphs 76 and 77 of the NPPF regarding Local Green Space. The evidence supporting the claims about local wildlife provided in Appendix 3 should be referenced (has this come from WCC records?).
Page 64 Page The Pool by Worcester Meadows Special Area of Protection (SAoP) lies within a Protected Open Space in Policy SP16 (Area A) so has duplicative protection. Also, part of pasture land (Area B) in Gerrard Close Pond SAoP has planning permission for residential development (see 14/01126/OUT).
Again, this policy may require justification to ensure that the land has been identified through a consistent and robust methodology in a supporting document. Section 6 – Objective 5 Policy SP19, p.41-42 There appears to be some duplication of Policy SP19 with SP5. Perhaps they could be combined or would it be more appropriate to move some criteria listed under Policy SP19 to Policy SP5? (see also comments in respect of the Objectives).
The NPPF recommends that development plans are positively framed. Development plans are to include positive strategy for low carbon and renewable energy schemes. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states that policies should be designed to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, whilst ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.
Policy Criterion (h) – The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Part 14 makes provision for permitted rights to erect small scale renewable energy schemes on dwelling houses. Under certain circumstances, this includes homes within Conservation Areas. For example, under Part 14, A.1(c) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, a solar PV or solar thermal panel may be installed on a dwelling house in a Conservation Area, provided it is not installed on a wall that fronts the highway. It is recommended that the policy criterion is amended to reflect the permitted development rights.
Policy Criterion (i) states ‘Larger scale renewable energy installations, such as full –sized wind and solar farms should not be supported…’. It is unclear what is meant by full sized or larger. The size of commercial scale wind and solar energy schemes may vary in size. Recommend that the term is deleted and the text is amended to read ‘Large scale commercial renewable energy installations, such as wind and solar farms….’
Bullet point (i) This could be strengthened further by amending text to include reference to landscape i.e. ‘The visual impact is minimal and does not adversely affect the rural and historic character and landscape of the parish’.
There are a number of other issues such as cumulative impact, residential amenity, shadow flicker, direct and reflected light relation to commercial scale wind and solar energy schemes that could be helpfully included in the policy. These are set out in Section 3 ‘District Resources’ Page 65 Page Policy CS .3 ,part B and D of the Proposed Core Strategy. Furthermore, the policy could be strengthened by including reference to the Stratford District Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2014). The study was produced to assist decision makers in determining applications for the commercial wind and solar energy in our district.
Bullet Point (iii) does not comply with Paragraph 98 of the NPPF paragraph, which states that ‘when determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy’. It does not require the need for renewable energy schemes to be justified.
Bullet Point (iv) is equally onerous and unreasonable. There is nothing in the NPPF that precludes the development of energy generation for the applicant and not the UK Grid; in the same way that an applicant is not restricted to erect a dwelling for their own purposes and not to meet the needs of the UK housing requirements.
It is therefore recommended that policy criteria iii) and iv) are omitted.
Bullet Point (vii) – It would be helpful to specify what special area is referred to. If it relates to Policy SP17 ‘Special Area of Protection’, there should be a clear reference. Section 6 – Objective 6 Policy SP20, p.43 The second sentence needs more consideration as accessibility for all users will not always be appropriate. Suggested amended wording: “Where proposals include new routes these should provide direct, legible connections to the existing network of routes, with clear signposting when necessary, and full appropriate levels of accessibility for all users”. Section 6 – Objective 6 Policy SP21, p.44 This Policy requires discussion with WCC Highways to ensure it is appropriate and deliverable.
Criterion (a) – This may not be appropriate as the speed limit could be changed to accommodate the new development. Section 6 – Objective 6 Policy SP22, p.45 The car parking standards specified within the Policy are too prescriptive and are unlikely to be enforceable. Any policy on car parking should be consistent with Core Strategy policy CS.25C.
Section 6 – Objective 6 Policy SP23, p.46 The policy itself does not say anything specific to the area. Some points made in the explanation could usefully be included in the policy itself (i.e. point 6.54). Section 6 – Objective 7 Policy SP24, p.47 A 12 month marketing period to demonstrate a site is no longer viable as an employment site may be unreasonably long in some circumstances. This might be overcome by replacing ‘and’
Page 66 Page with ‘unless’ in that sentence.
Typically, the term ‘employment’ refers to Class B Uses in the Use Classes Order. However, retailing and leisure uses, for example, also generate employment. For clarity and the avoidance of doubt, it may be useful to clarify which employment uses this policy applies to.
Second paragraph – amend to read “Small-scale proposals for new employment opportunities…”. Consideration should be given to what is meant by ‘small-scale’ in terms of assessing appropriateness of overall scale of development. This definition should be included within the Policy.
General – There is no justification or explanation for the Policy. Section 6 – Objective 7 Policy SP26, p.48 This policy doesn’t add much to Policy CS.21 in the Core Strategy. Also, there is a policy distinction between sites within a Local Service Village and other locations, in that new build dwellings are acceptable in the former so there isn’t a policy preference towards conversion of existing buildings.
There is a difference between live/work units and homeworking, in that live/work units will invariably require planning permission for either conversion or new build, whereas homeworking can be operating a business out of a room in an existing dwelling, not necessarily triggering the need for ‘change of use’. Does homeworking need to be mentioned? Section 6 – Objective 7 Policy SP27, p.48 The approach of this policy is similar to that taken in the Vale of Evesham Control Zone in Policy COM.11A in District Local Plan and Policy CS.14 in emerging Core Strategy. Only land south of A46 in the Neighbourhood Plan area lies within the Control Zone and there is no justification for applying this approach over the rest of NP area, particularly as various A and B class roads run through it.
Criterion b) An existing business should not have to demonstrate that they have looked at the possibility of wholly relocating before having the opportunity to expand on their existing site. Section 6 – Objective 7 Policy SP28, p.49 Criterion c) encourages formal recreation proposals that would not require new buildings. However, new investment/facilities may require a small/discrete building (such as a pavilion) that may be deemed acceptable in the right location and constructed from appropriate materials. Is this policy too restrictive as drafted? Should consideration be given to the possibility of new infrastructure in appropriate circumstances? Section 6 – Objective 8 Policy SP30, p.50 The aim of Policy SP30 is acknowledged although it is queried how the second half of this policy would work in practice. In a physical sense, allocated site SP7/8 will unite the two halves of the village and resolve this policy objective. How could other sites, unless they too
Page 67 Page were located in the same vicinity achieve this objective? Would deleting “to unite the two halves of the village” be more appropriate?
As written, this is not a ‘land use’ based policy and is more aspirational in nature. Therefore, it will need to be put in a separate section of the Plan, since non-land use based policies are not examined against the Basic Conditions. Section 6 – Objective 8 Policy SP31, p.51 Slight contradiction in criterion (a), suggest inserting “level of” between “current” and “facilities”.
The policy heading is ‘new and improved community buildings’ but the policy itself refers to possible replacement facilities or the renovation/improvement of existing facilities only. Should the policy be expanded to include potential provision of new (i.e. additional) facilities? Section 6 – Objective 8 Policy SP32, p.53 The community should seek protection of these buildings under the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, as set out in part 5 of the Localism Act 2011.
This policy may wish to include the ability for the loss of an existing community asset site provided the asset can be relocated elsewhere on an appropriately located site and provided that the replacement provision is of the same or better quantity or quality (akin to Policy SP35(a)).
It would also be helpful to map these assets.
Suggest adding ‘community’ between the words ‘alternative’ and ‘use’ for clarity and avoidance of doubt. Section 6 – Objective 8 Policy SP33, p.53 Is Policy SP33 necessary given criterion (h) in Policy SP6? If it is necessary, it may need to define what community safety measures are. Notwithstanding the above, the requirement that a development, where possible, improve the safety of the whole parish may be unduly onerous and unable to be implemented and enforced.
Page 68 Page There is no explanatory text. However, paragraphs 6.75 and 6.76 listed under Policy SP34 appear to refer to community safety issues. Section 6 – Objective 8 Policy SP34, p.54 It is assumed this policy refers to the collection of CIL receipts? Does the policy need to be more prescriptive, with mention of the CIL regime and the possible local infrastructure schemes the receipts could help fund?
The explanatory paragraphs 6.75 and 6.76 do not appear to relate to the Policy. As such, there is no explanatory text to justify Policy SP34. Appendix 2 p.67-70 The list of design principles are prescriptive and numerous. As such, these guidelines may be too onerous if the building in question is not a listed building.
Criterion e) requires previous alterations to the building deemed ‘unacceptable’ (by whom?) to be removed and replaced through the current proposal. It is not reasonable to insist upon this.
Criterion r) states that any sub-division of a large internal space will not be appropriate. However, there may be circumstances where this is appropriate (i.e. in order to create bedrooms at first floor level in a barn). It would be worth talking this through with a Conservation Officer to ascertain whether this criterion is acceptable.
Criterion s) assumes there were original rainwater goods, but does not consider the scenario where there were none originally. Criterion z) indicates that there is a presumption against the erection of new ancillary structures within the curtilage of a converted agricultural building and criterion aa) states that garaging must be met within the original building. This is onerous and impractical. By looking to comply with all other design criterion (relating to use of existing openings for example) there may not be opportunity to include a garage within the original structure. Attempting to ‘shoehorn’ a garage into a traditional barn may appear incongruous and destroy the character and appearance of the building, thus failing to uphold many of the other design criterion listed. The most appropriate solution may be the construction of a ‘cart shed’ style garage/storage building within the designated curtilage, which would complement the building. As such, these two criteria require re-thinking.
General – the lettering system for the criteria appears unnecessarily complicated. Could they be bullet points or numbered? Appendix 3 p.71-74 The maps included are poor. They are difficult to interpret due to lack of detail/helpful features in order to confirm where they are (i.e. no buildings shown). There are many areas of different coloured shading on each map with no key to explain their significance. Page 69 Page There is no explanation as to why these particular sites are of importance and are included within the Plan. Have they been chosen from a shortlist? If so, what is the list and who has provided it? What were the criteria for choosing these sites? Have WCC Ecology been contacted to provide advice/justification for including them? This section needs to be considered in more detail and provide both evidence/justification and better maps.
This page has been left intentionally blank Item 8
THE CABINET
28 SEPTEMBER 2015
Subject: Member Development Working Group Work Programme Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor Stephen Thirlwell Deputy Leader: Partnerships
Summary
To consider the six monthly Work Programme for the Member Development Working Group (MDWG).
Recommendation
That Work Programme, as presented, be approved.
1. Background/Information
In accordance with the approved Terms of Reference, the Member Development Working Group at its meeting on 23 July 2015 considered its six monthly programme.
Following a request at the meeting it was requested that, a review of licensing training hour requirements be added for the October meeting.
Accordingly, it was
RECOMMENDED to The Cabinet:
That the Work Programme be approved.
2. Options open to The Cabinet
Having had the item referred to it, the following options are open to The Cabinet:-
a) To agree the Plan as presented; or
b) To refer the Plan back to the MDWG for further consideration.
Councillor S Thirlwell Chairman of Member Development Working Group
Page 71 This page has been left intentionally blank Member Development Working Group – Forward Plan Items
Date of Meeting: Item: Report Lead Officer: being referred to Cabinet? October 2015 To consider 2nd quarter evaluations No Belinda Saunders Members Attendance (Standing item) No Darren Whitney Heads of Service Proposals for training No Belinda Saunders Review PDPs No Darren Whitney Review of Licensing training hours No Darren Whitney
Page 73 Page January 2016 To consider 3rd quarter evaluations No Belinda Saunders Members Attendance (Standing item) No Darren Whitney Training Programme 2016/17 No Darren Whitney Evaluate PDP’s No Darren Whitney
April 2016 To consider 4th quarter evaluations No Belinda Saunders Members Attendance (Standing item) No Darren Whitney Item 8 Appendix 1 This page has been left intentionally blank Item 12 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 75 This page has been left intentionally blank