NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME AND STOKE-ON-TRENT CORE SPATIAL STRATEGY EXAMINATION DOCUMENT CCD3 Response to Planning Inspector’s Question (ICD3) Question 1 1.1 Have there been any changes made to the content of the CS document since it was published, for example updating of references to more recent policy documents or correction of typos? Do the Councils wish to make any such changes? If so they should start to prepare a schedule. 1.2 No changes have been made to the content of the Core Spatial Strategy since it was published. The Councils believe the updating, formatting, factual and grammatical corrections in the schedule of amendments (see CCD3 Appendix 3) could help improve the document, subject to approval from the Inspector. The Councils would welcome the opportunity to add to the schedule, subject to approval from the Inspector, should the need arise. Question 2 2.1 Explain the reasons underlying the Addendum to the CS, the evidence on which it is based, whether it has been the subject of public consultation (and if so what was the response) and whether it raises any issues regarding sustainability appraisal or Appropriate Assessment. 2.2 In accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/184) a ‘screening’ assessment was carried out to determine whether it was likely that the policies and proposals in the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on- Trent Core Spatial Strategy would have any significant effect upon any European site. 2.3 The Screening Report for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy set out the methodology and the outcomes of the screening process. The report concluded that the Core Spatial Strategy would not have any significant impact upon any European site and therefore it would not be necessary to carry out a full Appropriate Assessment. 2.4 In accordance with the Habitats Regulations 2006 85B (2), consultation with Natural England on the process and outcomes of the Screening 1 Report took place in May 2008. Natural England’s comments are included in CCD3 Appendix 2 of this paper. 2.5 Following this, the final Screening Report (SUB/008) was produced taking into account the improvements suggested by Natural England and re-submitted to Natural England for further consultation in July 2008. 2.6 Natural England confirmed in August 2008 (see CCD3 Appendix 2) that they were satisfied that the Screening Report presented a robust case for not having to undertake a full Appropriate Assessment, subject to a strengthening of the Core Spatial Strategy Policy CSP4 – Natural Assets to address the possibility of significant effects upon Black Firs and Cranberry Bog Ramsar site due to waste water from any additional development within the water catchment area of the site. 2.7 The Core Spatial Strategy Submission Draft was finally cleared for publication in May 2008. Officers were also authorised to make any minor textual changes necessary to improve the accuracy and quality of the Strategy. Following this, bulk copies of the Strategy were printed for consultation purposes. 2.8 As the decision to incorporate Natural England’s additions to CSP4 into the Submission Draft was made after printing, it was necessary for them to be included as an addendum. 2.9 The addendum was subject to the full 8 week publication period. There were no specific comments/objections regarding the additional text included in the addendum. 2.10 It was considered that because the addendum only added local detail to the original policy aims of protecting and enhancing important natural assets, which had been subject to a full Sustainability Appraisal, it was not considered to have any fundamental impact on sustainability principles. Therefore it was not necessary to undertake further work, especially since the Core Spatial Strategy does not propose any major development within the area encompassing the Balterley Heath Settlement. Question 3 3.1 The Councils’ response CCD 1 explains the relationship of Staffordshire County Council’s Community Strategy to the Core Strategy (CS) and the Sustainable Community Strategy for Newcastle. Wording should be prepared to add a sentence to Para 2.15 to show that regard has been had to the County Council’s Community Strategy. 3.2 The following sentence should be added to paragraph 2.15. This addition has been included in the schedule of amendments (see CCD3 Appendix 3):- 2 ‘The preparation of the Core Spatial Strategy has also had regard to the vision and aims of the Staffordshire Community Strategy 2005-2010 undertaken by the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Strategic Partnership. The revision of this Strategy, published in September 2008, is also closely aligned with the Borough’s Sustainable Community Strategy, adopted February 2008.’ Question 4 4.1 In Para 6.34 of the CS, an Appropriate Assessment is mentioned. Does this mean the Screening Report SUB/008? 4.2 Yes, the Appropriate Assessment mentioned in Para 6.34 is the Screening Report (SUB/008). A minor textual amendment to this paragraph would improve the clarity and accuracy of the Core Spatial Strategy. 4.3 It is suggested that the second sentence of paragraph 6.34 should read:- “A screening exercise was carried out to identify any potential significant effects and therefore the need to carry out a full Appropriate Assessment of the Core Spatial Strategy. As a result of this exercise, it was determined, in consultation with Natural England, that a full Appropriate Assessment of the Core Spatial Strategy was not necessary. The process and outcomes of this exercise are set out in the ‘Screening Report for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy (July 2008).” 4.4 This proposed amendment will be included in the schedule of amendments referred to in CCD3 Appendix 3. Question 5 5.1 The Appendices are missing from both Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (please provide). Has the Environment Agency confirmed it is satisfied with both SFRAs? 5.2 The appendices for both Strategic Flood Risk Assessments have been added to the end of Core Documents EB/021 and EB/060a. The SFRA maps have also been added to the Core Documents (see CCD3 Appendix 1 for details). 5.3 The ‘sign-off’ letter from the Environment Agency (EB/086), confirming their satisfaction with the SFRA, has been added to the Core Documents (see CCD3 Appendix 1 for details). 3 Question 6 6.1 Do the Councils intend to produce a brief schedule responding to the main points raised in the representations? If so when? 6.2 Yes. The Councils will produce a schedule responding to the main points identified by ICD3a. This will be completed by the 26th February 2009. Question 7 7.1 A brief response to the Highways Agency representations is requested at this stage. This should include a bullet point explanation of the situation as regards park and ride, including whether any services are already in operation, where they are situated, when they operate and by whom. Future proposals should be listed in terms of location, date and who would operate them. 7.2 The Core Spatial Strategy along with associated evidence has been produced in accordance with appropriate guidance and is considered to be at an appropriate level for a strategic document. Highway Agency Representation 76/273 7.3 Arrangement for monitoring delivery of the transportation elements of the document are set out section 8 of the Core Spatial Strategy. Additional monitoring of the North Staffordshire transportation system will be carried as part of the Local Transport Plan (EB/052) monitoring regime. 7.4 Details regarding delivery of core strategic infrastructure planning are provided (EB/061). 7.5 Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy identifies the North Staffordshire Conurbation as the focus for strategic urban renaissance. The Regional Spatial Strategy review continues the emphasis on Major Urban Area Renaissance and strategic development targets are being brought forward to that effect. At the strategic planning level there are no known ‘show stoppers’ to delivery of the Core Spatial Strategy or revised Regional Spatial Strategy. Indeed the preferred strategy based on rejuvenation of the inner urban core of the conurbation and maximising use of sustainable transportation systems will assist reduction in the demand for travel when compared with more dispersed patterns of development. Preliminary investigations have been carried out regarding the transportation impacts of the proposed development (EB/028). Further detailed, iterative modelling is required to determine detailed site allocations having regard to capacity constraints together with associated determination of mitigation measures and apportionment of costs. Delivery does not rely on the Highways 4 Agency making additional investment to the transport network although we would not rule out co-operative initiatives if they were found to be of mutual benefit. Highway Agency Representation 76/274 7.6 Maintaining the strategic function of the trunk road network and securing the sustained regeneration of the North Staffordshire Major Urban area are both national objectives. Delivery of those objectives are interrelated and securing development of the conurbation is likely to give rise to additional traffic generation which will undoubtedly have an impact of the network. PPS12, paragraph 5.4 indicates that Area Action Plans should attempt to resolve conflicting objectives. It is at this stage that appropriate remedial measures should be considered to deliver appropriate levels of service on the trunk road. Paragraph 5.56 attempts to apply the same principle to the preparation of the Core Spatial Strategy. The Councils contend that paragraph 5.56 is sound although remain open to consideration of alternative text which the Highways Agency may find less offensive. Highway Agency Representation 76/275 7.7 The approved Local Transport Plan (EB/052) supports the Core Spatial Strategy.