Gladman Developments Ltd Nuneaton & Bedworth Examination Matter 4 – Settlement Hierarchy (Spatial Strategy), Development P
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nuneaton & Bedworth Examination in Public Gladman Developments Gladman Developments Ltd Nuneaton & Bedworth Examination Matter 4 – Settlement Hierarchy (Spatial Strategy), Development Principles & Approach to the Green Belt Issue 1.2 – Development Principles – Policies DS1 and DS3 Q4.8. Is there a need for Policy DS1 ‘the presumption in favour of sustainable development’, given the extent to which it recites paragraph 14 of the NPPF? 1. Yes. Gladman support the inclusion of Policy SD SP1. SD SP1 sets out the Local Planning Authority’s commitment to making local planning decisions based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It provides assurance of a local approach to planning that is proactively seeking to improve the social, environmental and economic well‐being of the area, confirming that the process of ‘weighing up’ the relevant factors in decision making will aim to strike an appropriate ‘planning balance’ across the three pillars of sustainability. Q4.9. Is Policy DS3 justified and sufficiently flexible? How would ‘sustainable’ in the policy be decided? 2. No. As written the policy is not sufficiently flexible to allow the plan to respond to a failing housing land supply position. As Gladman outlined in our submission version representations the policy puts the plan at severe risk of failure should any of the housing allocations fail to be delivered as the Council envisage. In this regard we note the approach taken in both the Cotswolds and Harborough, both of whom have proposed policies which ensure that Local Plan policies can be sufficiently flexible to respond to changes in housing land supply. 3. The main modifications to the Cotswolds Local Plan proposes the addition of policy DS5. The policy contains the explanatory text ‘The timely delivery of housing is a key objective of the NPPF. To boost significantly the supply of housing, NPPF 47 requires local planning authorities to produce robust evidence to ensure that Local Plans meet the full, objectively assessed, needs for market and affordable housing, and identify and update annually a supply of specific, deliverable sites. Sufficient land should be identified to demonstrate five years’ worth of deliverable land supply against housing requirements. Failure to demonstrate a five‐year supply of deliverable housing land means that relevant policies for 1 Nuneaton & Bedworth Examination in Public Gladman Developments the supply of housing can no longer be considered up‐to‐date, irrespective of the age of the Plan. In that situation, NPPF 49 requires applications for housing development to be considered in the context of the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. For decision‐taking, this means that NPPF 14 would be engaged. In these circumstances, the practical reality is that housing proposals should be approved ‐ even if they do not conform with the Local Plan’s housing policies – unless any adverse impacts of doing so would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” or if specific NPPF policies indicate that development should be restricted. To avert this risk, Policy DS5 seeks to manage the delivery of housing by addressing any emerging housing supply shortfall before it reaches the point where NPPF 14 would be engaged. The policy directs any resulting additional development towards the periphery of the most sustainable settlements, adjacent to Development Boundaries.’ An extract of the policy from the proposed main modifications is included as Appendix 1. 4. Similarly the submission version of the Harborough Local Plan contains policy GD2, a copy of the policy is contained as Appendix 2 to this statement. It effectively states ‘In addition to sites allocated by this Local Plan and neighbourhood plans, development within or contiguous with the existing or committed built up area of Market Harborough, Key Centres, the Leicester Principal Urban Area (PUA), Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages will be permitted where….’ a series of criteria then follow. 5. Clearly the policies here would need to reflect the local circumstances of Nuneaton and Bedworth, but they are examples of Local Authorities taking a proactive approach to guiding development, and ensuring that they can meet their housing targets and can plan for approaches if and when problems arise over the course of a plan with the delivery of allocated sites. 6. Gladman contend that the policies above would help build in additional flexibility into the Local Plan. They would also further allow for a policy framework to allow the Council to maintain the plan led system, should they consider that sites are failing to deliver and that as such the delivery of the plan as a whole or the ability of the plan to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply is in jeopardy. The alternative is to allow for the appeal system to remedy any problems in supply, which both takes control out of the hands of the Council and would have a negative impact on the timeline for the delivery of sites needed to make up any shortfalls accrued. Issue 3 –Whether the approach to the Green Belt is justified and consistent with the local evidence base and national planning policy. Q4.10. Is there a robust evidence base that demonstrates that all other reasonable options for development land have been examined fully prior to the consideration of alteration of Green Belt boundaries? 7. No. Gladman have raised this issue through both our publication representations and the representation made at the stage 1 hearings and again in our response to the Councils Housing Topic Paper (NBC/033). 2 Nuneaton & Bedworth Examination in Public Gladman Developments It was our understanding that NBC/033 would be an opportunity for the Council to respond to issues raised, such as this one, prior to the stage 2 hearings commencing. Gladman note that the Council did not take the opportunity to address a number of the points raised by Gladman and other respondents during the stage 1 hearings. Crucially the way in which the failings of the SHLAA have implications for all documents which flow from it, notably the SA and the selection and assessment of site options has not been addressed by the Council. The SHLAA was the key document underpinning the Councils previously arrived at conclusion that it could not meet the unmet housing needs of Coventry, a conclusion that the SA used to arrive at the decision that assessing the plans ability to meet this unmet housing need was not a reasonable option1. The SHLAA has not been updated, it is unknown therefore how the SHLAA can be considered by the Council to be robust given that it justified a position, which the Council is now itself not promoting, and underpins an SA assessment which will presumably need to be updated to account for the plans new overall housing requirement. It is the context of these continually unaddressed points that Gladman consider the questions raised by the Inspector. 8. In this context Gladman consider that should the SA be significantly changed to reflect proposed changes to the housing requirement, this could have significant knock on impacts for the assessment of other policies within the plan. As Gladman contend a new SHLAA should be foremost in this process, but once revised it is likely that changes to the SA will be significant, and may need to be subject of further hearings. 9. The cause of the problem remains, as outlined previously, that the SHLAA assessment used to underpin the selection of sites, and crucially the rejection of sites, was flawed and is not fit for purpose. The SHLAAs assessment of the site Gladman are promoting is an example of the flawed approach taken and is a continuation of the failings of document B29 – Assessing Options for Strategic Housing Sites Overarching Principles Background Paper (2013). This document arrived at the flawed conclusion that the site covered by SHLAA parcels NUN130 and NUN308 (referred to as NB 10 in that document, see Appendix A to NBC/033) met 4 of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt, it is thus removed from further assessment at stage 1. This is patently nonsensical and our publication version representations rebut this assessment of the site as some quasi Green Belt location. The inherent illogical inconsistencies in the document are apparent in that parcel NB8(a) within document B29 passes Stage 1 despite this parcel being entirely located within the Green Belt albeit the site is removed at Stage 2. Thus the parcel is removed for the same reasons as NB10, but at the stage after. 10. Even if the Council’s assessment were correct/robust the site in question still sits outside of the Green Belt, and the Council are seeking to remove a number of sites from the Green Belt which meet 4 or more of the tests of Green Belt outlined in the NPPF, according to the Councils own Green Belt review – notably sites HSG2, HSG3, HSG5, HSG7 and HSG9. Allocation HSG8 actually meets all 5 of the purposes 1 D6.1 Sustainability Appraisal 2017 – Para 4.1.32 3 Nuneaton & Bedworth Examination in Public Gladman Developments of Green Belt according to the review, but is still proposed for removal. The assessment is inconsistent to the point of irrationality. These sites in totality include the release of Green Belt land for more than 4,000 dwellings. 11. Gladman have previously outlined again some of the reasoning behind the rejection of site NUN130/NUN308 which is now the subject of a planning application. This site was in effect ruled out because the Council took issue with issues such as the separation between Nuneaton and Hinckley and that in effect they considered the site should form part of the Green Belt (as noted above), despite the fact that the Council have not proposed to include it within new area of Green Belt.