CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY CPRE KENT & CANTERBURY DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF CPRE KENT
Matter 11: Development in the Countryside (Policies HD4, HD5, EMP12 to EMP15, TV6 to TV8, OS8) Main issue - Whether the Local Plan is consistent with national policy relating to the countryside. a) Does the Local Plan take a positive approach to sustainable new development in rural areas?
The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Housing and Planning Act 2016 (c. 22) Part 1 — New homes in England Chapter 1 — Starter homes) makes the following statement:
5. Planning permission: provision of starter homes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an English planning authority may only grant planning permission for a residential development of a specified description if the starter homes requirement is met.
(2) Where the Secretary of State makes regulations under this section, the regulations must give an English planning authority power to dispense with the condition requiring the starter homes requirement to be met where— (a) an application is made for planning permission in respect of a rural exception site, and (b) the application falls to be determined wholly or partly on the basis of a policy contained in a development plan for the provision of housing on rural exception sites.
The Council’s Rural Exception Sites Policy HD3 fails to use powers to dispense with the starter homes requirement on rural exception sites to the detriment of local people in housing need. We object to the Council failure to exclude Starter Homes from rural exception sites. Other forms of tenure, maintained as affordable units in perpetuity for the local community are more likely to meet local needs of rural communities in the Canterbury District. This was the intention of the change to the Housing and Planning Bill. We believe that the change to the Housing and Planning Bill may have occurred after the Potential Main Modifications were published and ask that the Inspector amends the Policy to discard the potential main modification to this policy.
We object to the Potential Main Modification to policy HD3 g. which now reads ‘Market housing will be acceptable as an element of the scheme …’ as this is likely to result in more private market housing on rural affordable sites.` b) Is Policy HD4 relating to housing in the countryside consistent with national policy?
NPPF para 54 sets out that in rural areas the local planning authority should be responsive to local circumstances and plan new housing to reflect local needs; and
1 CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY CPRE KENT & CANTERBURY DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF CPRE KENT
NPPF para 55 states that ‘housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities’. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless: essential for rural worker; represent optimal viable use of a heritage asset or secure its future; re-use redundant or disused buildings; of exceptional quality or innovative nature if the design.
It is difficult to find evidence of need for rural housing, including affordable housing, in the evidence base. There is also no evidence that the Council has liaised with Parish Councils about rural housing needs. It is therefore not possible to say whether the plan’s approach to sustainable new development in the countryside is adequate.
Whilst Policy HD4 reflects the NPPF it is not consistent with recent judgements on the setting of listed buildings. This includes the High Court Judgement on Forest of Dean District Council and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gladman Developments Limited. 4 March 2016 which at paragraph 38 states: … that when a development will harm a listed building or its setting, the decision-maker must give that harm considerable importance and weight. That harm alone gives rise to a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.” The importance of assessing the contribution made by the setting of a listed building was a key factor in the Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited Judgement of 18 February 2014 and Forge Field Judgement of 12 June 2014. c) Is Policy HD5 on the conversion of rural buildings consistent with national policy?
We consider that bullet a) should not require the owner to wait for two years before converting the building into residential, especially if there is a proven need via the parish council/other amenity organisation for housing. Housing in isolated positions might be more acceptable than tourism or business buildings which might generate more traffic. Conversion to a community asset is acceptable, but 2 years is unduly long, as the locals could say within 6 months if they were interested. d) Is Policy EMP12 on agricultural land consistent with national policy?
The policy as it applies to land not allocated in the Plan reflects the NPFF.
However, with regard to sites allocated for housing a number of the strategic allocation sites include significant amounts of the best and most versatile agricultural land. For example: SP3 H1 South Canterbury - the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification Map for England identifies the 233 ha site as being Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, of which the majority is Grade 1.
2 CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY CPRE KENT & CANTERBURY DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF CPRE KENT
SP3 H8 Land north of Hersden the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification Map for England identifies part of the site as Grade 2, a point reiterated in the SHLAA. SP3 H10 Land at Ridlands Farm and Langton Field. The SHLAA states that the site is likely to be Grade 2. SP3 H11 Land at and adjacent to Cockering Farm, Thannington the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification Map for England identifies most of the site as Grade 1 and 2.
Whilst not referred to in the NPPF securing / preserving national food security is an important issue. e) Does the Local Plan promote the development and diversification of agriculture and land-based businesses? Are Policies EMP1, EMP14 and EMP15 consistent with this approach?
See comment in question b) on the setting of listed buildings.
With regard to Policy EMP15 the policy does not require the restoration of land used for stables and tack rooms etc. should the horse-related use no longer be viable or required. Horse-related developments are of a rural nature both in terms of use and the scale of facilities provided. The restoration of a rural site is necessary to avoid the inappropriate re-use / redevelopment for uses that are inappropriate in a rural location. f) Does the Local Plan support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments?
See comment in question b) on the setting of listed buildings.
New tourism and leisure facilities in the countryside can result in additional traffic, lighting and noise into tranquil areas, and change a peaceful rural area. These factors need to be included in the policy. g) Is Policy OS8 on sports and recreation in the countryside consistent with national policy?
Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required.’
It is difficult to find whether evidence of need / demand for sports and recreation facilities in the countryside has been provided. It is
3 CANTERBURY DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY CPRE KENT & CANTERBURY DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF CPRE KENT therefore not possible to say whether the plan is consistent with national policy.
See comment in question b) on the setting of listed buildings.
The plan should be consistent with recent judgements on the setting of listed buildings.
4