Technical Annex
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk SA for the Broadland part of the Norwich Policy Area following the High Court ruling of 24 February 2012 Technical Annex December 2012 Prepared for: Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) CONTENTS Page Appendix Contents Prepared by No. The full judgment handed down in the case Heard v Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council and Norwich District Mr. Justice 1 Appendix A: Judgment of the High Court Council. Ouseley Mr. Justice 23 Appendix B: Order of the High Court Contains the Court Order, schedule of remitted text and Mr Justice Ouseley’s narrative. Ouseley 40 Appendix C: 2007 SA Scoping report 2007 Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report GNDP Contains an explanation of why it is not possible to deliver 9,000 homes in an individual or combination sector within the Plan Period i.e. to 2026. There is an explanation of why 7,000 homes is the realistic maximum that could be delivered in any individual or 177 Appendix D: Housing Delivery Implications GNDP combination sector. Finally, there is an explanation of why 10,000 homes are needed in any individual or combination large scale strategic growth sector overall, even if outside the plan period, in order to secure the long term viability of a new Secondary School. Appendix E: Norwich Housing Allocations Contains an explanation of why the Norwich City Area does not have the capacity to accommodate development in excess of the Norwich City 183 in Relation to the Joint Core Strategy levels already specified within the adopted Joint Core Strategy. Council Housing requirement Appendix F: The Potential Allocation of Land in the South Norwich District Part of Contains an explanation of how South Norfolk expects to deliver the 1,800 homes Small Sites Allowance as set out within the adopted South Norfolk 207 the Norwich Policy Area (NPA) to Joint Core Strategy. It also explains why there is no scope to increase the Small Sites Allowance within South Norfolk beyond the District Council Accommodate the 1800 Dwellings Smaller 1,800 set out within the adopted Joint Core Strategy. Sites Allowance. Appendix G: Assessment of Dispersal URS based on 212 Contains an explanation of the impact of possible dispersal options within the Broadland Norwich Policy Area. Options GNDP information. Contains an explanation of the relative merits and disadvantages of a strategy which includes larger or smaller amounts of Appendix H: Assessment of Small Sites URS based on 237 development in the form of a “Small Sites Allowance” in the Broadland NPA. Specifically, consideration is given to three different Allowance GNDP information scales for the “Small Sites Allowance” within the Broadland NPA: 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 dwellings. Appendix I: Evaluation of Zero Small Sites Contains an evaluation of the spatial planning implications of pursuing a strategy which allows for none of the 9,000 homes, which are URS based on 244 Allowance subject to remittal, to be delivered as small scale sites GNDP information Appendix J: Identification of Suitable Contains an explanation of the rationale behind the consideration of combination of individual potential strategic growth sectors. It also URS based on 248 Combination Sectors explains the reasons for selecting and discounting potential combination sectors for evaluation. GNDP information Contains a justification of the three different scales of strategic growth that individual and combination sectors were evaluated against, Appendix K: Analysis of Scale of Strategic URS based on 253 including why certain scales of development were discounted from assessment. Specifically, these three scales were: Small (1,000 to Growth GNDP information 1,500), Medium (1,500 to 3,000) & Large (7,000 to 10,000). Appendix L: Evaluation of the Suitability of Contains the evaluation of the individual and combination sectors for Strategic Scale Growth. This evaluation has been undertaken in URS based on 257 Individual and Combination Sectors for reference to the objectives of the adopted Joint Core Strategy, which remain the relevant objectives in relation to this plan. GNDP information Strategic Scale Growth Appendix M: Updated Review of Relevant URS based on 373 Local Plans, Programmes and Strategies Contains an update to the Literature Review undertaken as part of the initial Sustainability Appraisal Scoping undertaken in 2007. GNDP information for Sustainable Development Appendix N: 2010/11 Sustainability URS based on data 390 Contains 2010/11 Sustainability Baseline Data. Baseline Data supplied by GNDP 401 Appendix O: Background Documents Contains background documents of relevance to the SA. GNDP APPENDIX A – JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT Author: Mr. Justice Ouseley Preface: The full judgment handed down in the case Heard v Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council and Norwich District Council. 1 Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin) Case No: CO/3983/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 24/02/2012 Before : MR JUSTICE OUSELEY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between HEARD Claimant - and - BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL Defendants NORWICH CITY COUNCIL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr R Harwood (instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors) for the Claimant Mr W Upton (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard Solicitors) for the Defendants Hearing dates: 6th and 7th December 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment 2 Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Heard v Broadland DC MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: 1. The Claimant, Mr Heard, challenges the adoption by the Defendants of their Joint Core Strategy on 22 March 2011, a development plan document created under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for their areas. The challenge is brought under s113 of that Act, on the grounds that the Joint Core Strategy, JCS, was not within the powers of the Act, or there had been a procedural failing which had prejudiced the Claimant. 2. The three Defendants are district councils: Broadland DC and South Norfolk DC which surround Norwich City Council’s area to the north and south respectively. The three have co-operated to produce a Joint Core Strategy for their areas. This includes the Norwich Policy Area, NPA, which covers the whole of the City Council’s area and, putting it very broadly, the parts of the other two Councils’ areas which lie closer to the City. 3. Part of the JCS involves meeting the growth requirements for the NPA laid down in the Regional Spatial Strategy, RSS, as adopted in 2008; it is now the Regional Strategy. The JCS, in order to meet its statutory obligation to conform generally to the RSS, had to provide for the stipulated levels of growth; but it was for the JCS to decide where that should take place. The JCS includes, as part of its provision for the RSS requirement, major growth in an area to the north east of Norwich known as the North East Growth Triangle, predictably, NEGT. 4. Mr Heard is a resident in that area north east of Norwich which is earmarked for major growth in the JCS. He is the chairman of an action group, Stop Norwich Urbanisation, SNUB. Although opposed to urbanisation generally, Mr Heard contends that the JCS is unlawful because the Strategic Environmental Assessment, SEA, which the Councils had undertaken, did not comply with two requirements: first, that it explain which reasonable alternatives to urban growth in the North East Growth Triangle they had selected to examine and why, and second, that it examine reasonable alternatives in the same depth as the preferred option which emerged. It was not said that the examination of the preferred option was itself inadequate, nor that changes in circumstance required a further examination of previously discarded alternatives. The Defendants contended that the work they had done was sufficient for these purposes. 5. His second ground was that the Strategic Environmental Assessment was further unlawful since it did not assess the impact of a proposed new highway, the Northern Distributor Road, the NDR, or of alternatives to it. The NDR was fundamental to the achievement of the full development of the North Eastern Growth Triangle, though there was a case for it even without that development. The Defendants contended that the NDR had been adequately assessed in documents prepared by the highway authority, Norfolk County Council, and that although the JCS supported and in some ways promoted the NDR, it was not for it to assess it or to consider alternatives to it. The County Council was part of the informal Greater Norwich Development Partnership, GNDP, with the three District Councils. 3 Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Heard v Broadland DC The legislative framework 6. A plan such as the JCS has to be subject to what is called Strategic Environment Assessment, by virtue of Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.” This has been transposed into domestic law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 SI no.1633. Regulation 8 prohibits a plan being adopted until regulation 12, amongst others, has been complied with. Regulation 13 requires the plan, when in draft, and its accompanying environmental report to be subject to public consultation. Regulation 8 prohibits