Local Plan by Consultation Point Foreword Person ID 1224143 Full Name Land and Partners ID 5919 Order 1 Number Title Foreword Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID 1224130 Full Name Alex Dalton Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Non-Compliant Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please The Plan is not consistent with national policy as it conflicts with give details of why you the National Planning Policy Framework (ªthe NPPFº), which is national policy and advice that the consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, Councils must have regard to when preparing their Plan (Section 19(2) of the Planning and Compulsory including references to Purchase Act 2004). The Plan is not consistent with the NPPF in the following ways: relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. · It does not deliver sustainable development, which is the NPPF's core concept and is set out in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the NPPF, particularly in terms of providing sufficient numbers of homes and sufficient land of the right type and in the right place. · It does not meet NPPF paragraphs 136-138 that alteration of Green Belt boundaries are not fully evidenced and justified (having regard to their intended permanence in the long term so they can endure beyond the Plan period) and in terms of promoting sustainable patterns of development, particularly in relation to the town of Slough and transport nodes into London and Heathrow. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do No you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? 1 Soundness mods - Please 1.1. The Local Plan does not comply with Section 20(5)a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act give details of why you 2004 (the Act). Specifically, the Plan does not have regard to the National Policy issued by the Secretary consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including of State as required by Section 19(2)a of the Act. references to relevant legislation, policies and/or 1.2. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF states that effective and on-going joint working is integral to plan making. regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as The Plan is not based on effective and on-going joint working with Slough Borough Council (BC), where possible. there is a strategic cross-border issue that the Plan does not address. The unmet housing need within Slough BC has been brought to the attention of Chiltern and South Bucks throughout the Plan-making process, but has not been taken into account in the spatial strategy. 1.3. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF states that in order to demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, strategic policy- making authorities should prepare and maintain one or more statements of common ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in co-operating to address these. There is no statement of common ground with Slough BC supporting this Plan. 1.4. The Plan has not had regard to paragraph 136 of the NPPF which states: ªStrategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period.º 1.5. At paragraph 3.5.7 the Plan refers to a review of the Plan which considers further the Green Belt Boundary north of Slough. The new boundaries' endurance beyond 2036 is conditional on this potential further consideration. The Plan is therefore in conflict with the NPPF as the proposed new boundaries are not permanent in the long term without further consideration. 1.6. These matters also relate to the duty to co-operate and the tests of soundness of the Plan. They are explained in greater detail in the relevant sections. 2.2. The Plan is not positively prepared for the following reasons: · The Plan is not sufficiently informed by agreements with other authorities so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development. Specifically, it should have accommodated the unmet needs of Slough - a large town directly on the border of the plan area. · The Plan should have reviewed Green Belt to consider the longer term requirements of Slough rather than defer this decision to a future plan. · The Plan does not provide a strategy which meets area's objectively assessed needs due to errors in its calculation of housing land supply. 2.6. Table LPb on page 53 of the Plan is incorrect. The Total Supply in (K) sets out the housing requirement for the Plan area of 11,099. This is derived from (O) Overall supply needed minus (Q) Requirement needed from Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. However, the components of supply are 682 homes short as only 10,417 is identified: (B) Completions (1,217) (D-F) Commitments (1,759) (H) Other HELAA sites (1,791) (I) Windfalls (450) (J) Site Allocations (5,200) 2.7. Also completions should actually be 1,217 according to Table LPa on page 51 of the Plan, giving a requirement for a further 46. 2.8. Therefore, the Plan does not provide a strategy which meets the area's objectively assessed needs due to errors in its calculation of 2 housing land supply. This means that its strategy is not deliverable over the Plan period. By not providing sufficient numbers of homes, the Plan will not deliver sustainable development as required by Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the NPPF. The South Bucks and Chiltern Plan preparation has proceeded on the basis of only addressing the housing needs of Buckinghamshire and to ignore those in Berkshire. They were clearly aware of the all the evidence of Slough's unmet need throughout 2017 and RBWM's stated inability to accommodate it, yet did not factor this in to their planmaking process at all. Slough BC had formally requested that South Bucks accommodate some of its unmet need in 2016, as set out in the Duty to Co-operate section below, but there was no political will to do so. · The approach of the Councils has been to assume the export of unmet need to Aylesbury Vale despite agreeing that the need would only be exported if it were impossible to accommodate within the Plan area. · The Plan does not accommodate housing need from Slough, despite Slough's request for it to do so. · The Plan does not demonstrate that the development sites, and thus the overall spatial strategy, has been selected for inclusion in the Plan on a robust, consistent and objective basis. Potential sites have been rejected and sites have been selected without adequate evidence and reasoning. · The influence of the town of Slough, adjoining the southern border of the Plan area, has not sufficiently influenced the spatial strategy. In particular, sustainable settlements close to Slough are not given sufficient consideration for growth, based on this proximity. · The influence of the transport nodes into London has not sufficiently influenced the spatial strategy. In particular, the new Crossrail/Elizabeth Line into London is not given sufficient recognition in terms of opportunities for growth. · Heathrow and its planned expansion has not sufficiently influenced the spatial strategy. The new Crossrail/Elizabeth Line link to this major employment location has not been considered. · The errors in the Plan's calculation of housing land supply in the Plan means that its strategy is not deliverable over the Plan period. · The Plan is not based upon adequate joint working on a critical cross-boundary strategic matter. The development needs of Slough is a cross-boundary strategic matter and a request from Slough BC to assist with meeting this need has been rebuffed. A joint `Wider Area Growth Study' has recently been commenced but this is not taken account of in the Publication Plan. It defers the housing needs of Slough BC and the associated Green Belt implications. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan©s ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify 1.1. In order to demonstrate the Plan has had regard to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the NPPF, it needs to how you would modify this be based upon effective joint working on cross-border issues. The cross-border issue of Slough's policy to improve its alignment to this test of housing needs should be addressed within the Plan period and a statement of common ground between soundness. Please be as the neighbouring authorities should be produced. precise and succinct as possible. 1.2. In order to demonstrate that regard has been had to paragraph 136 of the NPPF, the Plan cannot rely on a review to ensure Green Belt Boundaries can endure beyond the Plan period. Therefore, the Green 3 Belt Part Two Assessment, Green Belt Development Options Appraisal and associated allocations require rewriting based upon ensuring that the revised Green Belt boundary will endure beyond the Plan period. 1.3.