NOTICE OF MEETING
Meeting: Cabinet
Date and Time: Thursday, 5 March 2020 at 7pm
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Telephone Enquiries to: 01252 774141 (Mrs Gill Chapman) [email protected]
Members: Ambler, Bailey, Cockarill, Kinnell, Neighbour (Chairman), Oliver, Quarterman, Radley
Joint Chief Executive CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY FLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE
AGENDA
COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT AND BRAILLE ON REQUEST
1 At the start of the meeting, the Lead Officer will confirm the Fire Evacuation Procedure.
2 The Chairman will announce that this meeting may be recorded and that anyone remaining at the meeting has provided their consent to any such recording – please see our protocol on Attending and Reporting Meetings.
1 1 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting of 6 February 2020 are attached to be confirmed and signed as a correct record. Paper A
2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
3 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To declare disclosable pecuniary or any other interests.
5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA)
6 CIVIC REGENERATION WORKING GROUP
To note the minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2020, and endorse recommendations. Paper B
7 SHAPLEY HEATH GARDEN COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY BOARD
To note the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2020, and endorse recommendations. Paper C
8 2019-20 BUDGET MONITORING – TO END OF DECEMBER
To advise Cabinet of the position on revenue and capital expenditure at the end of December 2019. The forecast is that £631k will be transferred to Reserves at the end of the 2019/2020 financial year. Paper D
RECOMMENDATION
1 To note the revised projections and reasons for the main revenue variations highlighted in Paragraph 4 and analysed in Appendix 1.
2 To note the current spending position for Capital shown in Paragraph 5 and Appendix 2 which includes project details.
9 CRONDALL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - REFERENDUM
To ask Cabinet to agree to proceed to referendum on the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan following the independent examination of the Neighbourhood Plan. Paper E
RECOMMENDATION
1 That the changes proposed to the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan, as set out in the “Decision Statement” in Appendix 2 be agreed, and that subject to those changes the Plan meets the ‘basic conditions’;
2 2 That a factual update be inserted into the Neighbourhood Plan regarding the Broden Stables appeal decision which grants planning permission for 30 homes at the edge of Crondall Village;
3 That the amended Crondall Neighbourhood Plan proceeds to a local referendum based on the geographic boundary of Crondall Parish consistent with the defined Neighbourhood Plan Area.
10 ADOPTION OF THE HART LOCAL PLAN (STRATEGY & SITES) 2032
To ask Cabinet to recommend to Council that the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 is adopted in line with the Inspector’s recommendations (including the Inspector’s Main Modifications). Paper F
RECOMMENDATION to Council
That Cabinet recommends to Council the following:
1 Adopt the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 [Proposed Submission Version incorporating the Inspector’s recommended Main Modifications attached at Appendix 1];
2 Agree the content of the Sustainability Appraisal Adoption Statement at Appendix 2;
3 Adopt a new Policies Map for Hart that incorporates the Policies Map changes associated with adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032;
4 Authorise the Head of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place to make minor alterations and corrections to the Local Plan and the updated Policies Map.
11 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Cabinet Work Programme is attached for consideration and amendment. Paper G
Date of Despatch: 25 February 2020
3 Paper A
CABINET
Date and Time: Thursday, 6 February 2020 at 7pm
Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Present:
COUNCILLORS
Ambler, Bailey, Cockarill, Kinnell, Neighbour (Chairman), Oliver, Quarterman, Radley
In attendance: Axam, Farmer, Forster, Kennett, Smith, Wheale
Officers: Patricia Hughes Joint Chief Executive Mark Jaggard Head of Place John Elson Head of Environment and Technical Services Andrew Vallance Head of Corporate Services Gill Chapman Committee Services Martina Duffin Committee Services Dympna Sanders Environmental Health Team Leader Peter Summersell Waste and Recycling Officer
88 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
With the addition of the Councillor Quarterman as present, the Minutes of the meeting of 2 January 2020 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.
89 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None.
90 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
91 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Cllr Forster declared an interest in item 96 regarding his involvement with Engenie Cllr Quarterman declared an interest in item 101 as the Five Councils contract involves South Oxfordshire District Council and he is related to a Cabinet Member at that Council
92 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA)
None.
CAB.34
Paper A
93 CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP
The minutes of the meetings of 17 December 2019 and 7 January 2020 were noted.
94 CIVIC CAMPUS REGENERATION WORKING GROUP
The minutes of the meeting of 16 January 2020 were noted. It was confirmed that Councillor Dorn had been present and that Fleet Town Council meeting did take place.
Members had questions about the existing tenancy agreements, overall liability of cost for regeneration and the initial draft. It was confirmed that the initial draft was to be discussed. It was confirmed that the meeting with HCC had not yet taken place.
The minutes were then noted.
95 DOG FOULING PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER
Cabinet were asked to adopt a new order for a District-wide Dog Fouling Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
The proposal and the report were explained. It was confirmed that the current order is up for renewal. A new Order needs to be in place to start on June 1st 2020.
Members considered the report and discussed:
• Difficulty of enforcement. • East Hants Enforcement Contract • Education and public awareness would also be addressed as much as possible. • Impact of using single use plastic bags and introduction of biodegradable bags.
DECISION
1 That a new Dog Fouling Public Spaces Protection Order be adopted in accordance with the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to include the following restrictions:
District-wide (any place to which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission):
a) Persons in charge of a dog must have with them appropriate means to pick up dog faeces deposited by that dog; and b) Persons in charge of a dog must remove the faeces and for it to be disposed of in an appropriate receptacle.
2 That the Dog Fouling PSPO comes into force on 1 June 2020.
96 CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN
Approval was sought for the Draft Climate Change: Carbon Reduction Action Plan.
CAB.35
Paper A
Members considered:
• Business cases for each action, eg cost, carbon benefit, societal benefits • Net zero emissions actions and timelines to minimalize impact of emissions on the environment • Progress of Hampshire as a whole • The intention for the Working Group to continue meeting quarterly • The need to address targets on Climate Change to be included in future HDC development standards and building standards. • Setting future policies for categories under HDC influence and control: licensing, building controls, etc. • The opportunity to go beyond on basic government standards regarding Climate Change with regard to future development • The need to distinguish between what is the Local Plan and what is the Neighbourhood Plan and the guidance available for Parishes. • That there would be further review in 6 months
Councillor Kinnell left the chamber at the beginning of this item and then returned.
DECISION
1 That the draft Climate Change: Carbon Reduction Action Plan be approved
2 That a 2020/21 budget growth bid be approved to comprise:
a An initial £55k to fund the first stage of the delivery of the action plan.
b £45k to fund consultants to produce a fully costed plan to setup a building insulation grants scheme for residents on low income as proposed in action E3.
97 BUDGET 2020/2021
Cabinet received a summary of the revenue and capital budget proposals for 2020/2021. The report also included the statutory statement of the Head of Corporate Services (Section 151 Officer) to Council on the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves. Overview and Scrutiny considered this report at its January meeting.
Members were advised that this time next year will be more challenging as very serious decisions would need to be made at that time. This budget focused on efficiency savings preparing for next year.
Members considered:
CAB.36
Paper A
• Budget pressures including o Climate change o Committee services system o HR business partner • The prudent approach • Progress on commercialisation
RECOMMENDATION to Council
1 That the level of Council Tax for 2020/21 be increased by £5 (2.9%) and set at £176.84
2 That the summary revenue budget for 2020/2021 as set out (in Paragraph 12 of the report) be approved.
3 That the revised capital programme for 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 as detailed in Appendix 2 be approved.
4 That no changes be made to the Council Tax Support Scheme for 2020/21.
98 CAPITAL STRATEGY, TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT, AND ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Members received the Capital Strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2020/21, which incorporated the Annual Investment Strategy and Prudential and Treasury Indicators, and the Asset Management Plan. This report had been considered at the January meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.
Members considered the issues and agreed the recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION to Council
1 The Capital Strategy be approved
2 The Treasury Management Strategy Statement be approved, noting the increase in the Capital Financing Requirement (Paragraph 2.2 in appendix 2), the Minimum Revenue Provision statement (Paragraph 2.3 in appendix 2) and the increase of limits to borrowing activity (Paragraph 3.3 of appendix 2)
3 The Asset Management Plan be approved.
99 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Cabinet Work Programme considered and amended.
100 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
The following item contained exempt information. Members considered whether the public interest in maintaining an exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
CAB.37
Paper A
DECISION
Members agreed that, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded during the discussion of the matters referred to, on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
Councillor Kinnell left the chamber and returned during Item 101
101 FIVE COUNCILS CORPORATE SERVICES CONTRACTS
Cabinet were invited to consider the current position with regard to the contract for corporate services entered into with the Five Councils’ Partnership.
Members considered the paper and agreed the recommendations.
The meeting closed at 9.06pm
CAB.38
PAPER B
Civic Campus Regeneration Working Group Minutes of meeting on 13 February 2020 10:00 – Committee Room 2
Attendees
Cllr Richard Quarterman Cllr Anne Crampton Cllr Chris Dorn Cllr Wendy Makepeace-Browne Glyn Lloyd Patricia Hughes
Apologies: Cllr David Neighbour; Cllr James Radley; Andrew Vallance
Items
1. Introduction (RQ / all) • The minutes from the last meeting were approved. 2. Actions arising from last meeting The WG discussed: • Ground floor Civic office refurbishment • GL advised a quote of £28,000 has been received • The merits of spending the money in order to prepare the offices for lease. • Assess what the demand is first by marketing unrefurbished. • The WG considered that regeneration will take some time and it would be prudent to use the Apex Centre as an income producing asset until that time.
Actions: • GL to source a couple more refurbishment quotes for comparison and keep the WG updated.
3. Update on stakeholder engagement The WG discussed:
• GL and RQ have met with Fleet Town Council and due to meet with HCC on 1/4/20.
Actions: • GL and RQ will update WG after the meeting with HCC
1
PAPER B
4. Letter received from Fleet Town Council dated 10th February 2020 The WG discussed:
• RQ informed the WG that HDC have requested a copy of the recent survey of the Harlington from FTC and it will be sent to HDC when available. • GL explained the meaning of Tenancy at Will to members whom needed clarity of the legal implications.
Proposed Decision: • GL and RQ to draft a response to FTC taking on board all of the discussion points from WG.
5. Group to discuss confidential Cabinet minute from 11th January 2018
The WG discussed:
• RQ confirmed the Cabinet minute remains confidential. • WG discussed the historic suggestion of granting a 99 year lease. • The proposal in the minutes was designed to demonstrate support to FTC in the then current scenario that FTC would invest a significant amount of money on the redevelopment of the Harlington.
Decisions: • The circumstances have changed, which makes the detail of the minutes no longer applicable • WG confirmed that the principle of showing support and wanting to work collaboratively still held.
5. Regeneration briefing document The WG discussed:
• GL provided overview of the draft brief document, its purpose and the core services required by the WG for this project. • WG requested amendment to the proposed timescales.
Actions: • GL to amend document and recirculate to WG over email for approval
5.a. Verbal update of identity of companies
The WG discussed: 2
PAPER B
• WG agreed that it would be useful for GL to produce comparison form and table for easier consideration once the interest by companies has been indicated. • Any regeneration scheme must be commercially viable and to produce a maximum return for the Council • WMB suggested a key representative from each appointed organisation attends every project meeting. • FTC has asked to view the briefing document & HCC will be advised of document at 1/4/20 meeting
Actions: • None
6. AOB • RQ advised that the WG is only scheduled to meet until April and asked that the group should continue to meet on the second Tuesday of every month beyond that date.
3
PAPER C THE SHAPLEY HEATH GARDEN COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY BOARD MINUTES
DATE OF MEETING: 17 FEBRUARY 2020
1. ATTENDEES AND ABSENCES
In attendance: Cabinet Member for Place (Chairman): Cllr Cockarill Cabinet Member for Housing: Cllr Bailey Group Leaders: Cllr Radley (Community Campaign Hart) Cllr Crampton (Conservative) A Ward Councillor representing: Hartley Wintney Cllr Farmer Hook Cllr Smith Strategic Lead for Hampshire County Council: Stuart Jarvis Enterprise M3 Local Partnership representative: Kathy Slack Officers: Patricia Hughes Christine Tetlow Apologies: Group Leader: Cllr Neighbour (Liberal Democrats) Homes England representative: Ian Collinson
2. SHORT PRESENTATION ON THE GARDEN VILLAGE OPPORTUNITY
The Officers provided an overview of MHCLG Garden Community program and the opportunity to investigate a new garden community in Shapley Heath.
3. ADOPT BOARD GOVERNANCE
The Board discussed: • That the meeting is one held in public but is not a public meeting. • That the Board is accountable to Cabinet at Hart District Council who will make all decisions, unless delegated to the Shapley Heath Opportunity Board. • External representatives have their own governance requirements, so cannot make decisions on behalf of their representative organisations but can advocate on behalf of the Board within their organisations and advise accordingly. • The strategic/steering nature of the Board, rather than day to day management.
Actions: • The Terms of Reference to state at the beginning that the Opportunity Board is accountable to the Council’s Cabinet (and not just within the body of the Terms of Reference). • Correct reference to ‘Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership’
1 PAPER C
Decision
Subject to the above actions, the Board adopted the governance (including Terms of Reference)
4. HOMES ENGLAND INTRODUCTION
This item was deferred until the next meeting. The Board requested that any presentation from Homes England be emailed to them in advance of the next meeting.
5. ENDORSE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND TIMETABLING FOR THE LAND OWNERS FORUM AND THE STAKEHOLDER FORUM
The Board discussed: • That the Terms of Reference for the Landowners Forum was appropriate and the purpose of the forum was clear. • That the Stakeholder Forum should be the place to ensure engagement methodology is appropriate and feeds back to the Board on any findings, rather than a single source of engagement. • That the purpose of the Stakeholders Forum was not as clear and the membership list was long. Would this extensive membership be practical? • Recognising the extensive membership list, that that the Stakeholders Forum would discuss need to discuss how it would be managed and how core membership would work. • That the agenda’s set by the Shapley Heath Opportunity Board could be used to create a framework for themes to be considered by the forums. In other words, the forums would take their lead from the Opportunity Board. • That the Terms of Reference for both forums could be considered by each of the forums and then changed by the Opportunity Board if the forums requested such changes.
Actions: • The Terms of Reference state that the Stakeholder Forum is the place to ensure engagement methodology is appropriate and feeds back to the Board on any findings.
Decision
Subject to the above actions, the Board adopted the Terms of Reference and Membership for the Shapley Heath Garden Community Landowners and Stakeholders Forum.
6. ENDORSE THE SHAPLEY HEATH PROSPECTUS
The Board discussed: • Whether ‘prospectus’ is the right name for the document(s). • What the prospectus would look like. • How the baseline survey and strategy reports would inform the prospectus.
2 PAPER C
• Whether climate change, model shift and biodiversity are explicitly referenced in the description of the documents. • HCC and LEP have information that could contribute to the evidence base.
Actions: • The description of the documents in the prospectus should include explicit reference to climate change, model shift and biodiversity.
Decision
Subject to the above actions, the Board endorsed the Shapley Heath Garden Community Prospectus.
7. ENDORSE THE FUNDING/PROCUREMENT OF THE EVIDENCE BASE
The Board discussed: • The potential funding streams. • Whether members of the Board can assist in identifying other funding streams. • How the baseline surveys procured and funded by the promoters will meet the Council’s standards and will stand up to external scrutiny. • How much the baseline surveys and strategy reports will cost.
Decision
The Board endorsed the method to procure and fund an evidence base required in order to explore the opportunity for a new garden community as part of the MHCLG Garden Community Programme.
8. ENDORSE THE STRATEGIC PROJECT PLAN AND ASSOCIATED COSTS
The Board discussed: • Whether a more detailed cost plan could be presented to the next Opportunity Board.
Actions: • A more detailed cost plan will be presented to the next Opportunity Board.
Decision
The Board endorsed the high level project plan and the associated cost plan.
9. ENDORSE PROCEDURES INCLUDING USE OF THE RAG SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION (UNRESTRICTED TO CONFIDENTIAL)
The Board discussed: • Whether the colour green to identify a low level of confidentially was misleading. • That this Board must be open and transparent therefore the use of the RAG system must be rigorously scrutinised and applied.
3 PAPER C
Actions: • The colour system to be changed to remove green.
Decision
Subject to the above actions, the Board endorsed the use of the RAG system to identify confidential/commercially sensitive information.
10. AOB
None.
11. DATES OF NEXT MEETINGS
Potential dates to be agreed between the members of the Board.
4 PAPER D
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING: 5 MARCH 2020
TITLE OF REPORT: 2019-20 BUDGET MONITORING – TO END OF DECEMBER
Report of: Head of Corporate Services
Cabinet Member: Councillor James Radley, Deputy Leader and Finance
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To advise Cabinet of the position on revenue and capital expenditure at the end of December 2019. The forecast is that £631k will be transferred to Reserves at the end of the 2019/2020 financial year.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
2.1 To note the revised projections and reasons for the main revenue variations highlighted in Paragraph 4 and analysed in Appendix 1.
2.2 To note the current spending position for Capital shown in Paragraph 5 and Appendix 2 which includes project details.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Regular monitoring of budgets is undertaken to ensure financial targets set by the Council are being met and to make any necessary changes to approved budgets.
4 REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING
4.1 The Council approved total 2019/2020 service expenditure of £9,826k and a net expenditure budget of £8,000k.
4.2 Forecast position for expenditure is a £631k favourable variance to Budget
Service Budget Forecast Variance £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 Corporate Services 4,899 4,061 (838) Customer Services 990 1,025 35 Place 1,610 1,842 232 Environment & Technical 2,327 2,267 (60) Net Service Expenditure 9,826 9,195 (631) Minimum Revenue Provision 445 445 0 Debt Interest 12 12 0 New Homes Bonus (2,283) (2,283) 0 Net Expenditure 8,000 7,369 (631)
4.3 Appendix 1 provides additional information by service and activity
1
PAPER D
4.4 Major Variances identified include: Savings; income changes; Cost pressures. The nature of the variance and future financial implications are shown below
Ongoing variances (Savings £950k; Pressure £377k) all variances have been examined and financial implications included in the 2020/21 Budget.
A. New Settlement - £787k to be returned to reserves (Cabinet decision 7th November 2019 refers).
B. Customer services (£26k saving) have introduced voice recognition in the call centre; saving staff time and costs.
C. Income Changes (£9k saving; £310k Pressure) based on volume and verified as part of a trend are incorporated into the Fees and charges review on an annual basis. Planning fees (£168k Pressure) are being tracked in respect of major applications which have reduced following the introduction of the Local Plan. Recycling income (Pressure £117k) continues to be monitored but prices for most materials is purely market led.
D. Cost changes (£128k saving; £67k Pressure) which are structural are incorporated into the expenditure budget. Waste contract charges (£125k saving) primarily offset the reduction in income from recycling. Capita contractual inflation has been added to the 2020/21 budget.
One off variances (Savings £572k; Pressure £514k): these are in year only and have no ongoing impact on the expenditure budget in 2020/21.
1. Housing Benefit subsidy adjustment (£133k saving) is based on the current claimant files and will change in each financial year. The migration to Universal credit will be continually monitored as movements in overpayment debts will need to be managed together with the Subsidy level changes as they occur.
2. Interest on cash balances (£85k saving) is due to higher levels of cash balances than estimated in the budget. The introduction of Commercialisation and the associated acquisition programme will deplete these balances over the medium term.
3. Vacancy savings (£159k saving) equate to approximately 2.9% of Staff costs. Annual Budget is set at 100% of the projected staff cost without a vacancy factor.
4. Additional costs (Savings £130k; Pressure £475k) are subject to management actions during the year and approval for expenditure has been sought where the cost is unavoidable, equivalent savings are available in the service, and/or actions contribute to the objectives of the council.
5 Main variances: Homelessness costs (£46k pressure) are unavoidable but use of the flexible homelessness grant is being examined, as this may be able to mitigate the expenditure. Increased Capita charges (£103k Pressure) were contractual and unavoidable. The planning service (Pressure £57k) incurred additional costs in respect of public inquiries associated with the local plan. Waste contract costs (£73k pressure) increased mainly due to staff costs setting up revised rounds. Business support (Pressure £40k) are managing various initiatives 2
PAPER D
requiring additional staff which are financed from other departmental savings on external costs (£82k). Legal Fees (£64k pressure) are increasing due to commercialisation activities and an environmental health enforcement action. Planning policy (Pressure £40k; saving £46k) staff used to carry out activities normally outsourced.
4.5 Funding is forecast in line with the Budget requirement of £8,000k and work is in progress on the Collection Fund to determine Business Rates and council tax out turn positions. Based on the 2018/19 year end out turn it is likely that additional income will be available from Business Rates, which, if confirmed, will be transferred to an earmarked reserve for medium term income smoothing.
4.6 Movements in earmarked reserves are being analysed and the final reserve position will be included in the out turn report for the year.
5 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE MONITORING
5.1 Total approved Budget is £4,637k.
New projects in year included in the Budget: Frogmore Leisure Centre refurbishment £350k; Grants for Affordable Housing Dwellings £325k; Green Corridor £159k; Replacement Printer/Photocopiers £40k; Fleet Pond Fencing £35k; replacement CEO handheld devices £7k. In addition, there is approved expenditure for the acquisition of Commercial premises £730k and the Church Road project retention £20k.
2019/20 Capital Budget – Forecast Expenditure (Under) / Carry Service Budget Forecast Over Forward £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 Corporate Services 847 315 (532) Community Services 889 840 (49) Place 52 39 (13) Environment & Technical 2,849 968 (120) (1,761) Commercialisation 730 730 0 Total Expenditure 4,637 2,892 610 (2,355)
5.2 Environment expenditure budget included a provision of £140k for a Fleet Pond access track. Scope of work and budget has been included in the Green corridor project due to commence in 2020/21. Reassignment of s106 funding will be examined as part of year-end close down activities.
3
PAPER D
5.3 Revised funding forecast is shown in the following table including the net over / (under) spend in the forecast.
2019/20 Capital Budget – Forecast Funding Budget Forecast (Under) / Carry Over Forward £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 Borrowing 1,123 1,295 750 (578) s106 Contributions 1,505 662 (140) (703) Grant 666 607 (59) Housing Capital Receipts 30 15 (15) Loan 1,313 313 (1,000) Total Funding 4,637 2,892 610 (2,355)
5.4 Appendix 2 highlights main variances and provides details of the overall programme.
6 MANAGEMENT OF RISK
6.1 The monthly budget monitoring process examines all income and expenditure against budgets in order that significant variances are highlighted immediately and to identify areas where expenditure is being incurred but where insufficient or no budgetary provision exists. This allows officers to take corrective action to maintain overall expenditure within budgets.
6.2 Specific attention is being given to the following areas:
• Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) receipts in respect of Bramshot Farm are being examined in order to identify funds available for repayment of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) loan secured from the partnership. Debt interest is also assumed to be funded from these receipts. Current forecast for Minimum Revenue Provision includes expenditure for Bramshot Farm, which should not be necessary at year-end if requisite LEP loan monies are established. Interest on balances has improved for the year but there may be a need to transfer an amount to this area for future expenditure. Overall, the forecast is secure but individual elements may change at year-end when technical exercises are complete.
• Housing Benefit changes and forecast improvements will be dependent on the level of debt associated with claimants transferring to Universal credit. Specific analyses are being prepared and monitoring will continue up to the final subsidy claim at 31 March 2020. Calculation method for the provision for doubtful / bad debts will be modified as necessary
• Homelessness costs are increasing due to the number claimants in Temporary Accommodation. Flexible homelessness grant is awarded in respect of management costs of Temporary Accommodation and an exercise is in progress to determine what level of grant can be applied in year to mitigate costs.
4
PAPER D
• Income budgets for Planning & Building control application fees will be subject to a detail monitoring exercise including volume of activity in the current year and previous years. Recycling income and specific material prices are being monitored for future financial impact.
• Business rates and the effect of the Collection fund to be determined over the next two years, which is a fixed cycle for this income. Medium term changes will be dependent on Government policy. Appeals from the 2017 list changes continue to be low while the 2010 list appeals remain open and continue to be worked on by the Valuation Office.
7 CONCLUSION
7.1 The budget remains on course to achieve the Council’s financial objectives for 2019/2020.
Contact Details: Andrew Vallance, email: [email protected]
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Revenue Budget – Main variances Appendix 2 Capital Programme main variances
5
PAPER D Appendix 1
Revenue Budget – Main Variances Service / Activity Pressure Saving Commentary One off Ongoing One off Ongoing £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 Corporate Services
New Settlement (787) To be returned to reserves. Agreed by Cabinet 7th November 2019 Housing Benefit (133) Payments reduction as claimants move to Universal Credit has been assessed Subsidy and Subsidy level forecast to improve. Investment Income (85) Interest on cash balances Customer Services (26) Introduction of IVR (Voice recognition), lower staff cost Apprentices (24) Vacancy Savings Capita Contract 103 40 (9) Indexation £85k (2 yrs.), Severance £58k, offset by lower HR Advisory (£9k) Legal Services 31 Increase in non SLA activity and additional costs from 2018/19 IT Contract 24 Additional Back-up support and other technical improvements Leisure 12 Building costs 2018/19 £9k, reduction in income £3k Commercialisation 12 Recruitment & Advertising costs HR Advisory Activity 4 Pilot exercise possible set up in 2020/21 186 40 (251) (813) Variance £838k lower than Budget
Community Services
Community Safety (11) 2018/19 estimated cost, reduction in actual charges Housing 46 Homelessness costs. Support grant being examined for potential relief at year end 46 0 (11) 0 Variance £35k higher than Budget
1
PAPER D Appendix 1
Service / Activity Pressure Saving Commentary One off Ongoing One off Ongoing £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 £ 000 Place Licensing (9) Increased income Planning / Building 57 168 Lower Fee income £168k, Public inquiries £47k Staff for appeals / inquiries Control £10k Planning Policy 40 (46) Planning Policy Staff £40k; External services (£46k) Environmental Health 33 (14) Legal fees £33k; increased income (£2k); Recovery of 2018 legal fees (£12k) Land Charges / 30 (7) Reduction in fee income £13k; increase in admin fee £17k Vacancies (£7k) Regulatory Business Support 40 (82) Additional GIS set up costs £18k, IT support ARCUS installation £22k, offset by lower Postage (£10k); Printing (£14k); Lower software purchase costs (£51k) Vacancies (£7k) Administration 15 10 (3) Staff £6k, Equipment £9k, Refreshments £4k, Water Rates £4k, Hygiene £2k, Buildings Electric (£3k) 185 208 (149) (12) Variance £232k higher than Budget
Environmental & Technical Waste contract / 73 117 (125) Lower recycling credits (MRF) £117k; staff costs for the revised rounds and Client team new contract £57k; Transport costs £2k; lower Green waste income £14k offset by lower contract charges (£125k) Environment 14 (48) Tree preservation £14k; Vacancies (£48k) protection Infrastructure (40) Highways income from Road Closures Parking 10 12 (73) Vacancy savings (£40k) off street and (£33k) on street offset by lower fixed penalty income £10k and market fees collected by the town council £12k 97 129 (161) (125) Variance £60k lower than Budget
Total 514 377 (572) (950) Variance £631k lower than Budget
2
PAPER D Appendix 1
Budget Summary by Service
Budget Out Turn Service Original Current Forecast Variance £ £ £ £ Corporate Services 1,921,220 1,943,314 1,163,974 -779,340 Corporate Services Contracts 0 576,497 710,497 134,000 Democratic Services 791,290 796,290 786,212 -10,078 Elections 777,470 794,600 808,859 14,259 Finance 61,430 -27,610 -18,144 9,466 Leisure -300,480 -300,480 -288,905 11,575 Revenue and Benefits 1,496,980 1,496,980 1,363,980 -133,000 Corporate Services 4,747,910 5,279,591 4,526,473 -753,118 Community Safety 181,850 181,850 162,771 -19,079 Private Sector Housing 223,190 223,190 225,423 2,233 Strategic Housing 245,100 224,002 223,958 -44 Homelessness 1,343,580 1,343,580 1,389,080 45,500 Social Inclusion 154,370 175,468 181,370 5,902 Community Services 2,148,090 2,148,090 2,182,602 34,512 Licences 101,070 101,070 92,414 -8,656 Environmental Health 673,020 673,020 685,299 12,279 Business Support 0 37,566 17,957 -19,609 Regulatory Services 176,780 177,380 201,105 23,725 Planning 704,460 704,460 929,157 224,697 Place 1,655,330 1,693,496 1,925,932 232,436 Countryside and Ecology 1,662,300 1,669,470 1,639,736 -29,734 Waste & Recycling 741,230 741,230 806,031 64,801 Infrastructure 295,010 295,010 255,575 -39,435 Parking -276,350 -284,050 -335,196 -51,146 Tech Services 1,287,630 1,287,630 1,283,529 -4,101 Environment and Technical 3,709,820 3,709,290 3,649,675 -59,615 Other Operating Expenditure 3,445,810 3,445,810 3,445,810 0 Financial & Investment Income -200,000 -200,000 -285,000 -85,000 Taxation & Grants -13,792,850 -13,792,850 -13,792,850 0 MiRS -1,714,110 -2,283,427 -2,283,427 0 Accounting Treatment -12,261,150 -12,830,467 -12,915,467 -85,000 Total 0 0 -630,785 -630,785 Note: Financial investment is a central corporate service and reported under that heading. 3
PAPER D Appendix 2 Capital Budget – Main Variances Main Variances £ 000 Commentary Corporate Services IT Infrastructure (497) High Level project plan approved, Roll out to commence April 2020 Frogmore LC (35) Main works complete, minor issues to manage in 2020/21 (532) Community Services CCTV (34) Project on hold awaiting policy Private sector renewal (15) Medium term activity, demand led (49) Place Dog Warden Van (13) Specification of vehicle being revised (13) Environmental & Technical Bramshot Farm (1,000) Project re-profiled in line with Funding Church Road 20 Retention fees payable to Havant for end of Improvements contract. Edenbrook Country Park (407) Project re-profiled due to delays in adoption of the Projects site until the required standard was reached by the developer. Fleet Pond Access (140) Works & Budget included in the Green Corridor Specification 2020/21 Fleet Pond various works (135) Projects re-profiled as part of the Green Corridor Project. HW Common Access (80) Projects re-profiled in line with an on-going Parish Improvements Council review. Hazeley Heath Grazing (80) Projects re-profiled whilst awaiting DEFRA Project decision. Kingsway Flood (59) Additional scope being re-profiled in line with Alleviation Scheme Environment Agency discussions (1,881) Commercialisation Acquisition programme 730 Holding deposit on first property 730 Total (1,745)
1 PAPER D Appendix 2 Capital Programme 2019/20 (Under) / Carry Scheme Budget Spend Overspend Forward Upgrade to IT infrastructure 497 0 497 Frogmore Leisure Centre Investment 350 315 35 847 315 0 532 CCTV-Rushmoor 34 0 34 Grants for Affordable Housing Dwellings 325 325 0 Private Sector Renewal - Grants 30 15 15 Disabled Facilities Grants 500 500 0 889 840 0 49 Dog Warden Van 13 0 13 Printers/Photocopier Purchase 39 39 0 52 39 0 13 Fleet pond Nature Reserve Visitor 12 0 12 Strategy (S106) Odiham Common (S106) 6 6 0 S106 Leisure Parish Funded Projects 7 7 0 Fleet Pond Access Track 140 0 (140) 0 Fleet Pond Visitor Enhancements 106 0 106 Hazeley Heath Grazing Project 80 0 80 Hazeley Heath Notice Boards 15 15 0 Hazeley Heath Access Improvements 77 77 0 HW Central Common Enhancement 17 17 0 HW Central Common Access 80 0 80 Improvements HW QEII Fields Improvements 35 35 0 Edenbrook CP Play Tree 30 0 30 Edenbrook CP History Walk 20 0 20 Bramshot Farm 1,313 313 1,000 Edenbrook CP - Skate/Bike Park 220 0 220 Edenbrook CP - Teen Health 65 0 65 Edenbrook CP - Visitor Improvements 73 0 73 Fleet Pond Fencing 35 18 17 Fleet Pond Green Corridor 159 159 0 2,490 647 (140) 1,703 S106 NEHTS Parish 3 3 0 Phoenix Green, Hartley Wintney 21 21 0 Mill Corner, North Warnborough 35 35 0 Church Road Improvements 0 20 20 0 Kingsway Flood Alleviation Scheme 110 51 59 Refuse Vehicles 183 183 0 Replacement CEO Handheld Units 8 8 0 360 321 20 59 Deposit - Initial scheme 0 730 730 0 0 730 730 0
TOTAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 4,637 2,892 610 2,355
2 PAPER E
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING: 5 MARCH 2020
TITLE OF REPORT: CRONDALL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - REFERENDUM
Report of: Head of Place
Cabinet member: Councillor Graham Cockarill, Place
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To ask Cabinet to agree to proceed to referendum on the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan following the independent examination of the Neighbourhood Plan.
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
1) That the changes proposed to the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan, as set out in the “Decision Statement” in Appendix 2 be agreed, and that subject to those changes the Plan meets the ‘basic conditions’;
2) That a factual update be inserted into the Neighbourhood Plan regarding the Broden Stables appeal decision which grants planning permission for 30 homes at the edge of Crondall Village;
3) That the amended Crondall Neighbourhood Plan proceeds to a local referendum based on the geographic boundary of Crondall Parish consistent with the defined Neighbourhood Plan Area.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Council has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of neighbourhood plans and orders and to take plans through a process of examination and referendum.
3.2 The Crondall Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared with on-going engagement with the local community. Prior to examination the Neighbourhood Plan went through the following statutory stages of preparation: - Designation as a Neighbourhood Area (September 2016) - Consultation on a Pre-Submission version (November – December 2018) - Submission to Hart District Council (June 2019) - Submission consultation (June – July 2019).
3.3 The District Council made representations to the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan at submission stage, specifically expressing concern about the suitability and sustainability of the proposed allocation of new 32 new homes at a site at Mill Lane.
3.4 Mr McGurk, an independent examiner, was appointed to undertake the examination of the Neighbourhood Plan. The purpose of the examination is to consider whether
5 PAPER E
the Neighbourhood Plan complies with the relevant legislative requirements, in particular with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended), and to consider whether the Plan meets a set of ‘Basic Conditions’.
4 CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 The examination was conducted by written representations and the Examiner’s Report was received on 8 November 2019 (attached at Appendix 1). The Examiner concluded that, subject to the recommended changes set out in his report, the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions and should proceed to referendum. There are a number of recommended changes, the headline changes are:
• new introductory text aimed at clarifying the position regarding the need for new homes in the Parish (see page 18 and 19 of the Examiner’s Report), and
• the deletion of the allocation of Mill Lane site for 32 homes under Policy 2b (see page 26 of the examiner’s Report).
4.2 Hart District Council must now decide what action to take in response to each of the report’s recommendations and take a decision on whether to send the Neighbourhood Plan to referendum. The options open to the District Council are:
1. If it is satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan, as recommended to be modified by the examiner, meets the basic conditions then it can agree the Neighbourhood Plan for referendum.
2. If it is not satisfied that the Basic Conditions are met it can decide not to send the Neighbourhood Plan to referendum, or
3. It can decide to modify the Neighbourhood Plan.
4.3 If the District Council makes a decision which differs to the Examiner (i.e. options 2 and 3 above) it must publish the decision, with its reasons, and invite representations.
4.4 In November 2019, after receipt of the Examiner’s Report, the District Council received a “letter before claim for injunctive relief” threatening a Judicial Review should the Neighbourhood Plan proceed to referendum. The letter was from solicitors, acting on behalf of Crondall Developments Limited (promoters of the Broden Stables site). The arguments raised are (in summary) that a decision to proceed to referendum would be unlawful on the grounds that:
• The decision not to recommend the allocation of a housing site at Broden Stables was made on basis of a flawed site assessment process;
• There was a failure to consider Broden Stables as a reasonable alternative within the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA);
• There was a failure of the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) to explicitly consider the effects of the Draft Crondall Neighbourhood Plan on the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Areas of Conservation or to
5 PAPER E
adequately screen out the effects on these European designations in the absence of mitigation;
• The Inspector, whilst acknowledging a need for up to 66 homes has failed to consider the implications of deleting the Mill Lane site and did not go on to consider the merits of other sites.
4.5 It was therefore agreed with Crondall Parish Council to delay progressing the Neighbourhood Plan to referendum and reflect on the matters raised.
4.6 The key concern was that the Neighbourhood Plan, and the supporting evidence, suggest a need for ‘up to 66 homes’ which could be open to interpretation and which the plan does not meet if the Mill Lane site is deleted. The risk was whether a failure to meet housing needs would mean the Plan fails to meet the basic condition of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The District Council had also raised concerns over the site scoring process.
4.7 Having researched matters further and after considering detailed representations from the Parish Council and its professional advisers, officers are satisfied that the concerns previously raised have been addressed and that the Neighbourhood Plan does meet the basic conditions. The reasons for this are set out in full in the Decision Statement and summarised below:
1. Hart’s housing needs are being met through the Local Plan 2032 which does not give Crondall a specific housing allocation; 2. The 66 figure in the Neighbourhood Plan is couched as an upper limit not a requirement; 3. The Neighbourhood Plan does allocate some land for housing which is a positive in terms of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. 4. Broden Stables granted on appeal for 30 homes (reference APP/N1730/W/17/3185513) is a windfall site which if implemented will bring the supply close to the 66 homes figure in any event. 5. In respect of site scoring, reassurance has been provided that the scoring system was appropriate and proportionate for a neighbourhood plan. Furthermore the District Council raised no concerns with those sites that remain in the Plan.
4.8 It is therefore considered that it is appropriate for the Neighbourhood Plan to progress to referendum.
4.9 It is recommended that the Broden Stables appeal decision is referred to within the Neighbourhood Plan as a factual update via a footnote. It is not considered that such a minor factual modification would require consultation.
5 PAPER E
5 FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Is the proposal identified in the service plan? Yes Is the proposed being funded from current budgets? Yes Have staffing resources already been identified and set aside for Yes the proposal?
5.1 Support for neighbourhood plans is identified in the current Planning Policy service plan. The referendum will be funded by Hart District Council. Once a date for the referendum is set, the Council can apply for a government grant of £20,000 towards the costs of the Council’s involvement in preparing the Plan (including the costs of the Examination and referendum).
6 ACTION
Referendum
6.1 Following agreement to the Modifications, and the publication of the Decision Statement, the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan can proceed to a referendum which will be organised by Hart District Council. The Examiner has recommended that the referendum should be based on the Crondall neighbourhood area and that there are no reasons to extend this area for the purpose of the referendum. There are not considered to be any circumstances which would justify an alternative approach to this.
6.2 It is anticipated that the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan referendum will be held on 7th May 2020, to coincide with the Local Elections.
6.3 At referendum if over 50% of those voting, vote in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan, then the Neighbourhood Plan must be ‘made’ by the District Council and will form part of the statutory Development Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan Regulation’s (2012) require the District Council to ‘make’ the Neighbourhood Plan within 8 weeks of the referendum, therefore it is intended for this to be agreed at the meeting of Hart District Council on 21 May 2020.
Decision making
6.4 Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must having regard to a post-examination draft neighbourhood plan, so far as it is material to an application. As the Neighbourhood Plan is now at an advanced stage, it therefore has considerable weight in decision making with regards to any planning applications to be determined within Crondall.
Contact Details: Jenny Wood [email protected]
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Crondall Neighbourhood Plan – Examiners Report Appendix 2 – Crondall Neighbourhood Plan – Decision Statement
BACKGROUND PAPERS: None
5 PAPER E Appendix 1 Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
CRONDALL NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2017-2032
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan Examination A Report to Hart District Council by Independent Examiner, Nigel McGurk BSc(Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI
November 2019
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 1 Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Contents
1, Summary
2, Introduction
3, Basic Conditions and Development Plan Status
4, Background Documents and the Crondall Neighbourhood Area
5, Public Consultation
6, The Neighbourhood Plan: Introductory Section
7, The Neighbourhood Plan: Policies
8, The Neighbourhood Plan: Other Matters
9, Referendum
2 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
1. Summary
1 Subject to the recommendations within this Report, made in respect of enabling the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan to meet the basic conditions, I confirm that:
• having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the neighbourhood plan; • the making of the neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; • the making of the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area); • the making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, European Union (EU) obligations; and • the making of the neighbourhood plan is not likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.
2 Taking the above into account, I find that the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions1 and I recommend to Hart District Council that, subject to modifications, it should proceed to Referendum.
1 It is confirmed in Chapter 3 of this Report that the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirements of Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 3
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
2. Introduction
The Neighbourhood Plan
3 This Report provides the findings of the examination into the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan (referred to as the Neighbourhood Plan) prepared by Crondall Parish Council.
4 As above, the Report recommends that the Neighbourhood Plan should go forward to a Referendum. At Referendum, should more than 50% of votes be in favour of the Neighbourhood Plan, then the Plan would be formally made by Hart District Council. The Neighbourhood Plan would then form part of the development plan and as such, it would be used to determine planning applications and guide planning decisions in the Crondall Neighbourhood Area.
5 Neighbourhood planning provides communities with the power to establish their own policies to shape future development in and around where they live and work.
“Neighbourhood planning gives communities the power to develop a shared vision for their area. Neighbourhood Plans can shape, direct and help to deliver sustainable development.” (Paragraph 29, National Planning Policy Framework)
6 As confirmed in section 1 on page 3 of the Basic Conditions Statement, submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan, Crondall Parish Council is the Qualifying Body, ultimately responsible for the Neighbourhood Plan.
7 Section 1 of the Basic Conditions Statement also confirms that the Neighbourhood Plan relates only to the designated Crondall Neighbourhood Area and that there is no other neighbourhood plan in place in the Crondall Neighbourhood Area.
8 The above meets with the aims and purposes of neighbourhood planning, as set out in the Localism Act (2011), the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Planning Practice Guidance (2014).
4 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Role of the Independent Examiner
9 I was appointed by Hart District Council, with the consent of the Qualifying Body, to conduct the examination of the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan and to provide this Report.
10 As an Independent Neighbourhood Plan Examiner, I am independent of the Qualifying Body and the Local Authority. I do not have any interest in any land that may be affected by the Neighbourhood Plan and I possess appropriate qualifications and experience.
11 I am a chartered town planner and have seven years’ direct experience as an Independent Examiner of Neighbourhood Plans and Orders. I also have thirty years’ land, planning and development experience, gained across the public, private, partnership and community sectors.
12 As the Independent Examiner, I must make one of the following recommendations:
• that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to Referendum, on the basis that it meets all legal requirements;
• that the Neighbourhood Plan, as modified, should proceed to Referendum;
• that the Neighbourhood Plan does not proceed to Referendum, on the basis that it does not meet the relevant legal requirements.
13 If recommending that the Neighbourhood Plan should go forward to Referendum, I must then consider whether the Referendum Area should extend beyond the Crondall Neighbourhood Area to which the Plan relates.
14 Where modifications are recommended, they are presented as bullet points and highlighted in bold print, with any proposed new wording in italics.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 5
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Neighbourhood Plan Period
15 A neighbourhood plan must specify the period during which it is to have effect.
16 The title of the Neighbourhood Plan provides a clear reference to the plan period, 2017-2032 and the plan period is also referred to in Section 2.1 on page 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan.
17 Taking the above into account, the Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirement in respect of specifying the period during which it is to have effect.
Public Hearing
18 According to the legislation, when the Examiner considers it necessary to ensure adequate examination of an issue, or to ensure that a person has a fair chance to put a case, then a public hearing must be held.
19 However, the legislation establishes that it is a general rule that neighbourhood plan examinations should be held without a public hearing – by written representations only.
20 Further to consideration of the information submitted, I determined not hold a public hearing as part of the examination of the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan.
21 However, in order to clarify a number of points in respect of the examination, I wrote to the Qualifying Body and to Hart District Council and this examination has taken the responses received into account.
6 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
3. Basic Conditions and Development Plan Status
Basic Conditions
22 It is the role of the Independent Examiner to consider whether a neighbourhood plan meets the “basic conditions.” These were set out in law2 following the Localism Act 2011. Effectively, the basic conditions provide the rock or foundation upon which neighbourhood plans are created. A neighbourhood plan meets the basic conditions if:
• having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the neighbourhood plan; • the making of the neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development; • the making of the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area); • the making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, European Union (EU) obligations; and • prescribed conditions are met in relation to the neighbourhood plan and prescribed matters have been complied with in connection with the proposal for the neighbourhood plan.
23 Regulations 23 and 33 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) set out two additional basic conditions to those set out in primary legislation and referred to above. Of these, the following basic condition, brought into effect on 28th December 2018, applies to neighbourhood plans:
• the making of the neighbourhood development plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.3
2 Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 3 ibid (same as above). Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 7
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
24 In examining the Plan, I am also required, as set out in sections 38A and 38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended by the Localism Act), to check whether the neighbourhood plan:
• has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body; • has been prepared for an area that has been properly designated for such plan preparation (under Section 61G of the Localism Act); • meets the requirements to i) specify the period to which it has effect; ii) not include provision about excluded development; and iii)not relate to more than one neighbourhood area and that: • its policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated Neighbourhood Area in line with the requirements of Section 38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004.
25 An independent examiner must also consider whether a neighbourhood plan is compatible with the Convention rights.4
26 I note that, in line with legislative requirements, a Basic Conditions Statement was submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan. This sets out how, in the qualifying body’s opinion, the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions.
4 The Convention rights has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998. 8 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Obligations
27 I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan has regard to fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the ECHR and complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary.
28 In the above regard, I also note that information has been submitted to demonstrate that people were provided with a range of opportunities to engage with plan-making in different places and at different times. Various comments have been received in response to active community engagement during the plan-making process. The Consultation Statement submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan provides a summary of responses to comments and to resulting changes to the Neighbourhood Plan.
European Union (EU) Obligations
29 In some limited circumstances, where a neighbourhood plan is likely to have significant environmental effects, it may require a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). In this regard, national advice states:
“Draft neighbourhood plan proposals should be assessed to determine whether the plan is likely to have significant environmental effects.” (Planning Practice Guidance5)
30 This process is often referred to as “screening”6. If likely environmental effects are identified, an environmental report must be prepared.
31 Hart District Council carried out a screening assessment of the Neighbourhood Plan and this concluded that the Neighbourhood Plan required a SEA under the SEA Directive and Environmental Assessment of Plans Programmes Regulations 2004. The SEA was prepared for Regulation 14 consultation and updated to reflect changes in the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan.
5 Planning Guidance, Paragraph 027, Ref: 11-027-20150209,. 6 The requirements for a screening assessment are set out in in Regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 9
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
32 The SEA submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan considers that the Neighbourhood Plan is likely to lead to significant long term positive effects.
33 The statutory bodies, Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency have all been consulted on the screening assessment. None of the statutory bodies disagree with its conclusions or raise any concerns in respect of the requirement for the Neighbourhood Plan to meet European obligations7.
34 In addition to SEA, a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) identifies whether a plan is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This assessment must determine whether significant effects on a European site can be ruled out on the basis of objective information8. If it is concluded that there is likely to be a significant effect on a European site, then an appropriate assessment of the implications of the plan for the site must be undertaken.
35 The initial HRA screening assessment concluded that the Neighbourhood Plan would not give rise to significant effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and that a HRA was not necessary. However, following the Sweetman ruling, or “People Over Wind” case, referred to below, this decision was rescinded and a HRA was prepared and submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan.
36 The HRA concludes that, subject to including an appropriate Policy (in this case, Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2e):
“…it is considered that an adequate policy framework will be in place to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.”
37 Again, the statutory bodies were consulted on the outcome of the screening report and none raised any concerns in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan meeting European obligations (other than that relating to Footnote 7 below).
7 Subject to taking into account a recommended alteration to the wording of Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2e. 8 Planning Guidance Paragraph 047 Reference ID: 11-047-20150209. 10 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
38 Further to the above, national guidance establishes that the ultimate responsibility for determining whether a draft neighbourhood plan meets EU obligations lies with the local planning authority:
“It is the responsibility of the local planning authority to ensure that all the regulations appropriate to the nature and scope of a neighbourhood plan proposal submitted to it have been met in order for the proposal to progress. The local planning authority must decide whether the draft neighbourhood plan is compatible with EU regulations (including obligations under the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive)” (Planning Practice Guidance9).
39 In carrying out the work that it has and in reaching the conclusions that it has, Hart District Council has not raised any concerns in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan’s compatibility with EU obligations.
40 I refer above to the People Over Wind & Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (“People over Wind”) case. In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that it is not appropriate to take account of mitigation measures when screening plans and projects for their effects on European protected habitats under the Habitats Directive. In practice this means if a likely significant effect is identified at the screening stage of a habitats assessment, an Appropriate Assessment of those effects must be undertaken.
41 In response to this judgement, the government made consequential changes to relevant regulations through the Conservation of Habitats and Species and Planning (Various Amendments) (England and Wales) Regulations 2018.
42 The changes to regulations allow neighbourhood plans and development orders in areas where there could be likely significant effects on a European protected site to be subject to an Appropriate Assessment to demonstrate how impacts will be mitigated, in the same way as would happen for a draft Local Plan or planning application. These changes came into force on 28th December 2018.
43 In this regard, I am mindful that an appropriate assessment was submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan and that, having taken all of the above into account, Hart District Council considers the Neighbourhood Plan to be compatible with European obligations.
9 ibid, Paragraph 031 Reference ID: 11-031-20150209. Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 11
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
44 Taking this and all of the evidence before me into consideration, I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan is compatible with European obligations.
12 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
4. Background Documents and the Crondall Neighbourhood Area
Background Documents
45 In undertaking this examination, I have considered various information in addition to the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan.
46 I draw attention to the fact that a replacement version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018, during the plan making process and that it is this replacement document, which was, itself, updated in 2019, that the Neighbourhood Plan must have regard to.
47 Information considered as part of this examination has included (but has not been limited to) the following main documents and information:
• National Planning Policy Framework (referred to in this Report as “the Framework”) (2019) • Planning Practice Guidance (2014, as updated) • Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) • The Localism Act (2011) • The Neighbourhood Plan Regulations (2012) (as amended) • Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) and First Alterations (2009) (referred to in this Report as the “Local Plan”) • Basic Conditions Statement • Consultation Statement • Strategic Environmental Assessment • Habitats Regulations Assessment • Evidence Document • Representations received • Other supporting evidence
48 In addition, I spent an unaccompanied day visiting the Crondall Neighbourhood Area.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 13
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
49 The emerging Hart Local Plan (2016-2032) is at an advanced stage and is likely to be adopted at some point in the near future. Whilst the basic conditions require neighbourhood plans to be in general conformity with the adopted strategic policies of the development plan, Planning Guidance advises10 that the reasoning and evidence informing the Local Plan process is likely to be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against which the Plan is tested.
50 I note that there is evidence that the plan-making process for the Neighbourhood Plan has considered information supporting this emerging District-wide document.
Crondall Neighbourhood Area
51 The boundary of the Crondall Neighbourhood Area is referred to on page 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan. However, Figure 1, provided on the same page, does not correspond with the supporting text. It does not refer to the Neighbourhood Area and rather than simply show the boundary of the Neighbourhood Area, it shows various Parish boundaries. This appears confusing.
52 For clarity, I recommend:
• Delete all Parish boundaries on Figure 1. Show the boundary of the Neighbourhood Area (which coincides with that of Crondall Parish) and label this in the key as “Neighbourhood Area”
53 Hart District Council formally designated the Crondall Neighbourhood Area on 1st September 2016.
54 This satisfies a requirement in line with the purposes of preparing a Neighbourhood Development Plan under section 61G (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
10 Planning Policy Guidance, Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 41-009-20160211. 14 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
5. Public Consultation
Introduction
55 As land use plans, the policies of neighbourhood plans form part of the basis for planning and development control decisions. Legislation requires the production of neighbourhood plans to be supported by public consultation.
56 Successful public consultation enables a neighbourhood plan to reflect the needs, views and priorities of the local community. It can create a sense of public ownership, help achieve consensus and provide the foundations for a ‘Yes’ vote at Referendum.
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan Consultation
57 A Consultation Statement was submitted to Hart District Council alongside the Neighbourhood Plan. The information within it sets out who was consulted and how, together with the outcome of the consultation, as required by the neighbourhood planning regulations11.
58 Taking the information provided into account, there is evidence to demonstrate that the Neighbourhood Plan comprises a “shared vision” for the Crondall Neighbourhood Area, having regard to Paragraph 29 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”).
59 Crondall Parish Council determined to progress a Neighbourhood Plan and established a Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group in 2016. In early 2017, a residents questionnaire was distributed throughout the Neighbourhood Area. The questionnaire process was supported by two Open Forums held in the Church Rooms and nearly 400 responses were ultimately received.
60 The responses to the questionnaire were presented at the Annual Parish Meeting in April 2017 and helped to form the basis of the emerging plan. A Call for Sites was held and a Site Exhibition Event took place in October 2017. Responses received were summarised and published along with information relating to the scoring of the sites.
11 Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 15
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
61 Pre-submission consultation took place during November and December 2018 and this was supported by two public exhibitions, attended by more than 150 residents. The responses received were considered and where the plan was updated to take submissions into account.
62 Public consultation was supported by the Parish Council website and by use of social media, posters, emails and individual notices. Articles and updates were also published in the local “Crondall Chronicles,” distributed around the Parish every six months.
63 The Consultation Statement provides evidence to demonstrate that public consultation formed part of the plan-making process. Consultation was well-publicised and matters raised were considered.
64 Taking all of the above into account, I am satisfied that the consultation process complied with the neighbourhood planning regulations referred to above.
16 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
6. The Neighbourhood Plan – Introductory Section
65 For precision, I recommend:
• Page 4, line 6, add “…applies to the Neighbourhood Area, which comprises the whole…”
• Page 4, last sentence, delete and replace with “Policies must only relate to land use planning matters.”
• Page 5, first and second sentences, change to “…cannot be addressed by land use planning policies. The Neighbourhood Plan identifies these issues and addresses them in the section on Community Aspirations.”
• Page 5, delete fourth para, which has been overtaken by events (“These requirements…for the area”)
66 The basic conditions, referred to earlier in this Report, are carefully worded and for precision, I recommend:
• Page 5, last para, change to “The Neighbourhood Plan must have regard to national policy and be in general conformity with local strategic policy. At the national…(NPPF) revised in 2018 and further updated…”
• Page 6, begin first sentence “NPPF paras 29…”
67 Much of the text on pages 6, 7 and 8 has been overtaken by events and part of it appears somewhat wordy and confusing. It includes general historic information that adds nothing in the way of clarity to the Neighbourhood Plan, as well as information which will quickly become out of date. It also includes incorrect information, in conflict with the basic conditions. I recommend revised text, as set out in the recommendations below.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 17
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
68 Also, Figure 2 is not clear and does not add to the clarity of the Neighbourhood Plan. Hart District Council, in its representations, has provided a much clearer summary in respect of the Local Plan and housing matters.
69 Taking the above into account, for precision and clarity, I recommend:
• Delete all text from “At the local level…” on page 6 to “…35% for shared ownership.” on page 8.
Replace with: “At the local level, the key documents are the ‘saved’ policies from the adopted Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and the First Alterations, and the emerging Hart District Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2016-2032. This emerging Local Plan is nearing adoption (anticipated to be early in 2020). The Neighbourhood Plan has taken into account the policies of and evidence supporting the emerging Local Plan.
Crondall is a small settlement within Hart’s rural area and consultation found that preservation of the rural nature of the Parish is a major priority for residents.
Hart District Council considers Hart’s housing requirement to be 423 homes per annum across the District. This equates to 7,614 homes over the plan period 2014 –2032. This requirement comprises: Hart’s objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) of 382 homes per annum identified in the Joint Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment for Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath, November 2016 (SHMA); plus an additional 41 homes per annum (731 homes) to address an unmet housing need in Surrey Heath under the duty to cooperate (Surrey Heath is part of the Hart, Rushmoor/ Surrey Heath Housing Market Area).
The number of houses originally allocated to Crondall Parish by Hart in their draft (Regulation 18) Local Plan published in 2017, was 66. This number was derived from a notional allocation to one registered SHLAA site. However, the emerging Hart Local Plan does not give a target for Crondall and leaves the yield decision to the Neighbourhood Plan. A Neighbourhood Plan does not need to allocate land. At its meeting on 29th January 2018 the Parish Council agreed to continue with the Neighbourhood Plan by allocating land for close to the original number (i.e. 66) but on the basis that, whilst an allocation of 66 houses might be justifiable for Crondall Parish, it should be seen as an upper limit.
18 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
In calculating Crondall’s need for housing to be met by the Neighbourhood Plan, we have allowed for permissions granted but not yet built and an allowance for expected future windfalls. The number of permissions granted since the start of the Plan period is 15 and a conservative expectation of windfall sites is 12. Details confirming the approved applications and how the windfall number was arrived are included in the Evidence Document.
The Neighbourhood Plan supports the provision of affordable housing in line with District-wide policy.”
• Delete Figure 2 on page 8 and delete footnote on page 7
• Page 8, first line of penultimate paragraph, change “established” to “informed”
• Page 9, Para 2.5, line four, change to “…Plan were reviewed…and where appropriate changes were made for…”
• Page 9, Para 2.6, second line, delete “throughout the period leading to this Submission Plan”
• Page 9, Para 2.6, last line, delete “to date”
70 Paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 contain unnecessary or confusing information and I recommend:
• Page 11, Para 2.7, first sentence, change to “The Neighbourhood Plan is supported by a SEA.”
• Page 11, delete last two paras “A screening…for submission”
• Page 12, Para 2.8, first line of second para, change to “Under the emerging Hart Local Plan…”
• Page 12, delete last para “The requirement…this document.”
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 19
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
7. The Neighbourhood Plan – Neighbourhood Plan Policies
Policy 1: Spatial Plan
71 Local Plan Policy GEN 1 (“General Policy for Development”) supports sustainable development that is in keeping with the surrounding area and which maintains the overall quality of Hart’s high quality environment. In general terms, Policy 1’s aim of supporting sustainable growth, by focusing development within Crondall and Mill Lane and having regard to the qualities of the historic and rural environment, is in general conformity with Local Plan Policy GEN 1.
72 As worded, however, the detailed requirements set out in Policy 1 do not appear concise and are not supported by appropriate evidence. National planning guidance12 requires a neighbourhood planning policy to be:
“…clear and unambiguous. It should be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications. It should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence. It should be distinct to reflect and respond to the unique characteristics and planning context of the specific neighbourhood area for which it has been prepared.”
73 Much of Policy 1 requires development to conform to other planning policies in other documents, not within the control of the Neighbourhood Plan. In addition, the Policy refers to various aspects of planning considered by other Policies in the Neighbourhood Plan. Such cross- referencing and repetition is unnecessary and results in a Policy that appears cumbersome, rather than concise or precise.
74 The policies of the development plan must be considered as a whole and there is no need for such cross-referencing.
75 The first paragraph of the Policy states that the settlements referred to are defined on a map in the Appendices. This is not the case. The map referred to does not define settlement boundaries, whilst Figures 7 and 8, set out within the Neighbourhood Plan itself, indicate the approximate boundaries of Crondall and Mill Lane.
12 Planning Guidance, Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 41-042-20140306. 20 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
76 National policy, as set out in Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”), “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment,” establishes that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. However, it does not simply require Conservation Areas and views associated with them, to be “protected.”
77 Rather than afford such blanket protection, national policy establishes a carefully nuanced approach to conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. This takes full account of the desirability of not just sustaining and enhancing their significance and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, but also of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
78 Consequently, the simplified approach to the Conservation Area referred to in Policy 1 does not have regard to national policy. Policy 7 comprises the Neighbourhood Plan’s “Conservation” Policy. Whilst this Policy is considered later in this Report, I note that, as set out, it does not have regard to national policy, but advocates an approach in significant conflict with the Framework.
79 Policy 1 requires “important views” to be preserved, protected and enhanced. This raises two main areas of concern: evidence base and deliverability.
80 In respect of the evidence base supporting the Neighbourhood Plan, there is very little detail in respect of the identified important views. Effectively, part of Policy 1 (and Policy 7) relies on Figure 26 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which includes a number of arrows, which indicate the viewpoint and general direction of more than twenty important views. There is no detailed information in respect of what these views comprise, for example: the scope and breadth of the view; the main focal points; the height of the viewpoint; how the view might change over time (seasonally, for example); the distance of the view etc.
81 Consequently, there is little to provide a decision maker with a clear and unambiguous indication of how to react to a development proposal, having regard to Paragraph 16 of the Framework.
82 Local Plan Policy CON 22 (“Setting of settlements and recreation”) seeks to prevent development from obscuring typical views of a settlement from public vantage points, or from obstructing significant views out of settlements, but this is a very different approach from simply seeking to afford blanket protection to vague views.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 21
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
83 Further to the above, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the identified important views can be “enhanced,” as required by the Policy. As a consequence, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that Policy 1 is deliverable, having regard to Paragraph 16 of the Framework, which requires plans to be deliverable.
84 The Policy goes on to set out a requirement in respect of seeking to prevent coalescence. Policy 4 seeks to address this in respect of coalescence between Crondall and Mill Lane. This is a matter considered later in this Report and it is unnecessary for Policy 1 to seek to repeat the approach.
85 Nowhere does the Neighbourhood Plan or its evidence base provide any detailed information relating to the possible impacts of coalescence between Fleet and Church Crookham, or in respect of why this is a significant issue in the Neighbourhood Area. Policy 1 seeks to prevent something without any evidence that it may be harmful. Consequently, there is nothing to lead to the conclusion that this part of Policy 1 contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
86 The settlement boundaries shown on Figures 7 and 8 appear indicative. The general location of each boundary is apparent, but it is not possible to identify the precise location of each settlement boundary from the information provided in the Neighbourhood Plan. This may make it difficult for a decision maker to implement that part of Policy 1 that refers to “creeping expansion” of settlement boundaries.
87 Whilst this term is ambiguous, it essentially seeks to establish that development inappropriate to a countryside location should not take place outside of settlements and I take account of this in the recommendations below.
88 The second objective in the supporting text would serve to prevent a significant positive impact resulting from development in the Conservation Area or its setting. This would be contrary to Paragraph 185 of the Framework, which supports the enhancement of Conservation Areas.
89 It is not clear, in the absence of any detail, what “conventional housing growth” might comprise and this results in part of the supporting text appearing ambiguous. Also, part of the supporting text reads as though it comprises a policy, which it does not and part of the supporting text refers to matters not covered by the Policy, which appears confusing. The Policy does not, for example, establish a minimum housing requirement.
22 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
90 Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy 1, change first para to “…and Mill Lane, within which development will be supported. The boundaries of each settlement are indicated on Figures 7 and 8.”
• Delete second para (“Proposals…figure 26”)
• Change third para to “Development should respect and not obstruct views out of Crondall shown on Figure 26.”
• Delete fourth para and replace with “Development outside the settlements of Crondall and Mill Lane should be appropriate to a countryside location”
• Delete fifth, sixth and last paras (“Development will not…Planning policy.”)
• Page 21, supporting text, delete second bullet point (“To minimise…Area”)
• Page 22, first para, change to “…settlement boundaries is supported by the Parish Council where proposals are in accordance with relevant national…”
• Page 22, delete second para (“In…views.”)
• Page 22, change last sentence of third para to “…settlement boundaries will be expected to be supported by clear justification…”
• Pages 22 and 23, delete last four paras of supporting text (“Development on brown…also a possibility.”)
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 23
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 2: Housing Site Selection
91 Whilst there is no requirement for a neighbourhood plan to allocate land for development, the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to allocate four sites for residential development. Policy 2 simply identifies these sites.
92 The supporting text contains unsubstantiated claims in respect of meeting objectives and delivering affordable housing.
93 Taking into account the recommendations in respect of the allocations considered later in this Report, I recommend:
• Change Policy 2 to “During the Plan period the Neighbourhood Plan supports residential development at the sites below for the development of housing: 2a CRON 27 Cross Road; 2b CRON 21 The Bungalow; and 2c CRON 22 Marsh Farm.”
• Page 24 delete the Objectives
• Page 24 second main para, delete last sentence (“The proposed sites…affordable homes.”)
• Page 25, delete third para (“The following…only.”)
• Page 25 delete 179 from Figure 8
• Page 26, delete the first half page of text, which is unnecessary and appears confusing (“The approach taken…Crondall and Mill Lane.”)
• Page 26, delete last sentence (“Any…particular.”) which reads as a Policy but is not
24 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 2a: CRON 21 St Cross Road
94 Policy 2a supports new housing on a small site and contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
95 It is not the role of the Policy to set out requirements from other policy documents not within the control of the Neighbourhood Plan and in the absence of information, it is not clear how the phrase “have regard to” should be considered by prospective developers or by decision makers.
96 I recommend:
• Policy 2a, change second bullet point to “…design should respect neighbouring…”
• Policy 2a, change third bullet point to “…off-street parking and provide garden…”
• Delete last para on page 27 which reads as a Policy requirement, but is not (“Although…required.”)
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 25
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 2b: SHLA 179 Mill Lane
97 Policy 2b proposes the allocation of land for development at Mill Lane. The site in question is located in the open countryside adjacent to Mill Lane, which comprises a small cluster of dwellings and lacks a range of community services or facilities.
98 Mill Lane comprises a very small settlement. The proposed land allocation would be of such a scale as to provide for a large number of houses relative to the size of the existing settlement. It is a requirement of the Neighbourhood Plan for development in the Neighbourhood Area to be appropriate in scale and density but there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that Policy 2b’s support for a development that would greatly extend the size of the settlement and that would be provided at a significantly greater density than that generally prevailing in Mill Lane, would result in a development that would be appropriate in scale and density.
99 As a consequence of the above, the proposed allocation appears to be in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan itself.
100 Further to the above, the very limited range of facilities or services at Mill Lane would, inevitably, require residents to travel elsewhere to meet their needs. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is likely to result in sustainable patterns of movement. In this regard, I am mindful of Hart District Council’s view that, whilst development on the edge of Crondall might support local services and facilities in that settlement, the proposed allocation at Mill Lane would be “beyond the reach of key facilities” (by sustainable patterns of movement).
101 Also, the Neighbourhood Plan states that the protection of open countryside “was a clear priority identified by respondents to the initial questionnaire.” There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the allocation of land in the open countryside for development is in accordance with this “clear priority” identified by the community. Rather, it appears to be in direct conflict with it.
26 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
102 Whilst the proposed site scored positively in respect of the potential for the provision of affordable housing, taking the above into account, it would appear to do so on the basis of providing for development in an unsustainable location. Further, Hart District Council has noted that:
“Affordable housing could, subject to viability, also be provided on site allocations at the main village, or through rural exception sites, which would be a more sustainable option than a mostly-market housing option at Mill Lane.”
103 Further, whilst the proposed site also scored positively in respect of it comprising brownfield land, evidence has been provided by Hart District Council to demonstrate that the site as a whole falls outside the definition of previously developed land.
104 Given all of the above, I am unable to conclude that the proposed allocation contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. As such, I concur with the views of Hart District Council and consider that Policy 2b does not meet the basic conditions. Whilst I note that there is an existing planning permission relating to the site for a change of use from paddock to mini golf course, this is not a matter that addresses any of the matters raised above.
105 I recommend:
• Delete Policy 2b and supporting text on pages 28 and 29
• Any other references to Policy 2b in the Neighbourhood Plan should be deleted. For clarity, this will require the re-numbering of Policies 2c-2f
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 27
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 2c: CRON 21 The Bungalow
106 Policy 2c supports the demolition of a bungalow and its replacement with two dwellings. Taking into account comments relating to Policy 2a above, I recommend:
• Policy 2c, change second bullet point to “…design should respect neighbouring…”
• Policy 2c, change third bullet point to “…off-street parking and provide garden…”
28 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 2d: CRON 22 Marsh Farm
107 Policy 2d supports the conversion of existing buildings to residential use, making effective use of land, having regard to Paragraph 117 of the Framework.
108 Taking into account comments relating to Policy 2a and 2c above, I recommend:
• Policy 2d, change fourth bullet point to “…off-street parking and provide garden…”
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 29
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 2e: Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
109 As noted earlier in this Report, the initial screening in respect of Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) concluded that the Neighbourhood Plan would not give rise to significant effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), but following the Sweetman (“People Over Wind”) ruling, that decision was rescinded and a HRA was prepared and submitted alongside the Neighbourhood Plan.
110 The HRA reached the same conclusion in respect of the Neighbourhood Plan not giving rise to significant effects:
“…an adequate policy framework will be in place to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.”
111 However, this conclusion was reached subject to the Neighbourhood Plan including a Policy affording appropriate protection to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
112 In general terms, Policy 2e sets out this protection. However, as identified through representations to the Neighbourhood Plan, the inclusion of the word “either” to introduce the two bullet points in the second paragraph, fails to have regard to national policy and could result in the Neighbourhood Plan supporting proposals that fail to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
113 The final sentence of Policy 2e comprises a general and vaguely worded statement, rather than a land use planning policy requirement. I note that the supporting text provides more informative information in respect of SANGs.
114 Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy 2e, fourth line, delete “either”
• Delete last sentence of Policy 2e (“Hart…parties”)
30 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 3: Housing Design
115 National planning policy recognises that:
“Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.” (Paragraph 124, the Framework)
116 Local Plan Policy GEN 4 (“Design Quality”) seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the quality of design in Hart.
117 In general terms, the overarching aim of Policy 3 is to support high quality design in the Neighbourhood Area and in this way, it is in general conformity with the Local Plan and has regard to national policy. I note that the Policy appears to be concerned with design as a whole, rather than just housing design.
118 As set out, Policy 3 requires all development proposals, even minor ones, including household applications – which will form the majority of planning applications in the Neighbourhood Area – to meet numerous detailed requirements. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the requirements set out are deliverable or even relevant to all development proposals and this is a matter addressed in the recommendations below.
119 The use of the word “shall” in the Policy text appears as an inflexible supposition and consequently, it fails to provide for a balanced consideration of a development proposal, running the risk of Policy 3 failing to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
120 No detail is provided in respect of how a proposal might “reflect a design reference.” As such, this appears as ambiguous language and fails to provide precise and concise policy wording. Similarly, it is not clear how in all cases, all materials used might be “in keeping with the traditional local materials.” How might such an approach apply in respect of a proposal for a conservatory on a modern house or in respect of a proposal for an ATM machine ?
121 The objective of respecting and reflecting local vernacular and materials is clear, but the Policy itself appears vague, through a lack of precision and appropriate supporting evidence.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 31
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
122 There is no indication of what a “high level” of energy efficient materials might comprise, who would judge this and on what basis. In the absence of any detail at all in the Neighbourhood Plan, it is not clear why (or how) all development must meet or exceed “Nationally Described Space Standards.”
123 There is no detailed evidence to support the requirement for all development to retain or enhance all views. Consequently, this appears as an unduly onerous requirement, without any information to demonstrate that it might be deliverable. As such, the requirement appears as an obstacle which may serve to prevent proposals from contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
124 It is not clear, given the absence of any such requirement in national or local planning policy, why all development affecting a heritage asset must demonstrate “how local distinctiveness is reinforced.” Further, there is no evidence in respect of precisely what this local distinctiveness comprises, nor of how development might viably deliver the reinforcement of it.
125 It is not clear, given the absence of any detailed evidence, why all redevelopment of redundant buildings must reflect the former use of the building. A building’s most recent use might, for example, have been for something entirely different to that which it was originally constructed for. Further, why, for example, would it always be appropriate for say a flat formed from an office, to be designed to reflect its former office use ? Policy 3 is not supported by appropriate evidence in this regard.
126 There is no evidence to demonstrate that it is deliverable for all development to be designed to “incorporate reduced carbon measures” and in the absence of baseline information, it is not clear what such a reduction might comprise.
127 It is not clear why it is appropriate for all development to “integrate” with cycle ways and pathways wherever possible. There is no indication of what form such integration might take, or for example, why it would be safe and appropriate for such integration to take place.
32 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
128 Neither national nor local planning policy requires all housing development to be “traditional in form.” Conversely, Paragraph 127 of the Framework establishes that planning policies should not discourage or prevent innovation or change. Further, all housing in Crondall is not traditional in form and it is not clear, in the absence of evidence, how a requirement for all housing to appear traditional will meet the additional requirement for all development to be well integrated with neighbouring properties.
129 In this respect, part of the first objective below Policy 3 appears in conflict with the Policy. It also conflicts with the supporting text below the Policy, which goes on to consider provisions for departing from such an approach.
130 It is not clear why the Neighbourhood Plan includes an objective suggesting that it is more important for housing intended for families to provide sufficient indoor and outside space than it is for housing intended for other occupiers. This is not something that is supported by the submitted evidence.
131 Taking the above into account, I recommend:
• Change title of Policy to “Good Design”
• Policy 3 – delete opening sentence and replace with “Development in the Neighbourhood Area should demonstrate high design quality. Development should, where appropriate, take into account the following design principles:”
• Replace all uses of the word “shall” in the Policy (unless the relevant bullet point has been recommended for deletion) with “should”
• Change second bullet point to: “Development should be locally distinctive. It should take opportunities to reflect the local vernacular, to appear in keeping with its surroundings – taking account of traditional local materials; and to reference high quality local design.”
• Delete third, fourth and fifth bullet points (“Materials…Standards”)
• Delete ninth bullet point (“Development shall address…achieved.”)
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 33
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
• Delete twelfth bullet point and replace with “All heritage assets should be conserved in accordance with their significance.”
• Delete thirteenth and fourteenth bullet points (“Development proposals must…measures”)
• Change last bullet point to “Development should not restrict access…mobility.”
• Page 35, first objective, change to “To ensure that housing design reflects the distinctive…”
• Page 36, delete bullet point at top of page
34 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 4: Crondall/Mill Lane Local Gap
132 Local Plan Policy CON 21 (“Local Gaps”) establishes a number of Local Gaps within which development should not lead to coalescence or damage the separate identity of neighbouring settlements.
133 Policy 4 seeks to establish a Local Gap between Crondall and Mill Lane, essentially to prevent coalescence and to protect the identities of the two settlements. In this way, the Policy is in general conformity with the Local Plan.
134 A representation submitted by Hart District Council notes that, whilst existing Local Gaps are not expected to be carried forward in the emerging Local Plan, “it is open for local communities to designate local gaps through neighbourhood plans.”
135 Plan-makers have provided information in justification of the purpose, scale and location of the proposed Local Gap and f the public consultation process has provided evidence to demonstrate community support for it.
136 As worded, parts of Policy 4 appear ambiguous. For example, it is not clear, in the absence of any information, how a decision maker might interpret the phrase “that would lead to.” It is difficult to know precisely what a development proposal might “lead to” over a period of time. A clearer phrase that achieves the objectives of the Policy would be “should not result in” and this is recommended below.
137 The Neighbourhood Plan does not distinguish between physical coalescence and visual coalescence. It is therefore unclear how a decision maker might interpret the difference between these two things. Further, the term “excessive development” is undefined and appears entirely subjective.
138 I also note that Crondall and Mill Lane are not “adjacent” to one another. If this were the case, there would be little if any scope for the creation of a significant Local Gap between them. Further, there is nothing to clarify what the “distinctive” identities of the two settlements comprises or why a Local Gap, which would protect the separate identities of Crondall and Mill Lane, is appropriate in respect of such distinctions.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 35
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
139 The supporting text contains subjective points of view without justification and also refers to meeting the housing “yield aspirations” of Crondall, when the Neighbourhood Plan does not contain any Policies in respect of the provision of a minimum housing requirement.
140 The Policy does not refer to Bowling Alley and the reference to this location in the Objective below the Policy appears confusing.
141 It is unnecessary to point out what the Neighbourhood Plan cannot do, as per the supporting text on page 37.
142 The final paragraph on Page 38 contains subjective information that is unjustified/unsupported by evidence. It presents a confusing reference to Local Gap Policy that bears no resemblance to Policy 4.
143 The penultimate paragraph on page 39 reads as a Policy requirement, which it is not and contains subjective information unsupported by detailed evidence.
144 Figure 13 is poor quality and does not show precise boundaries. This is inappropriate for the designation.
145 Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Policy 4, change second sentence to “Development proposals within the Local Gap should not result in coalescence or harm the separate identities of Crondall and Mill Lane.”
• Provide a new Figure 13, ensuring that the precise boundaries of the Local Gap are clearly identifiable such that they are beyond debate or doubt.
• Supporting text, delete “and the local vicinity known as Bowling Alley” from the Objective below the Policy
• Page 37, retain first sentence of Evidence and Justification but delete the rest of the para (“This…Gap”)
• Page 38, first para, change to “…Council’s emerging Local Plan does not seek to include a Gaps policy, but does support the designation of Gaps through Neighbourhood Plans. The proposed Local Gap is designated with the purpose of safeguarding the separate identities of Crondall and Mill Lane.” (delete rest of para)
36 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
• Delete last para on page 38 (“The…sites.”)
• Delete penultimate para on page 39 (“Any…considered.”)
• Delete title and last para on page 39 (“Development Pressures…area”)
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 37
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 5: Local Green Spaces
146 Local communities can identify areas of green space of particular importance to them for special protection. Paragraph 99 of the Framework states that:
“The designation of land as a Local Green Space through local and neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.”
147 The Framework requires policies for managing of development within a Local Green Space to be consistent with those for Green Belts (Paragraph 101, the Framework). A Local Green Space designation therefore provides protection that is comparable to that for Green Belt land. Consequently, Local Green Space comprises a restrictive and significant policy designation.
148 Given the importance of the designation, it is appropriate that areas of Local Green Space are clearly identified in the Neighbourhood Plan itself. The Figures identifying each Local Green Space are small and provided on a poor quality map base. This makes the detailed identification of boundaries difficult and I make a recommendation in this regard, below.
149 The designation of land for Local Green Space must meet the tests set out in Paragraph 100 of the Framework.
150 These are that the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; that it is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and that it is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
151 The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to designate five areas of land as Local Green Space. For three of these areas, there is evidence to demonstrate that each site meets the appropriate national policy tests and is appropriate for designation. However, objections have been submitted in respect of two of the proposed designations, Old Parsonage Meadow and the School Playing Fields.
152 In the case of the first of these, substantial evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Old Parsonage Meadow is of historic significance and is demonstrably special to the local community. Its designation meets the relevant national policy tests.
38 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
153 National policy requires “great weight” to be given to:
“…the need to create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications…” (Paragraph 94, the Framework)
154 Evidence has been provided to indicate that the School Playing Fields site may be required in association with the expansion or alteration of the village school. Given this, the designation of the site as Local Green Space may place an obstacle in the way of the Neighbourhood Plan contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this would not be the case.
155 Consequently, in respect of the School Playing Fields, Policy 5 does not meet the basic conditions.
156 National Policy requires that policies for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts and the recommendations below take this into account.
157 The purpose of Local Green Space is different to the Objectives set out below Policy 5.
158 I recommend:
• Policy 5, change the opening para to “The sites below, identified on Figures 16 to 19, are designated as Local Green Space. The management of development within areas of Local Green Space will be consistent with that for development within Green Belts.”
• Delete Site 5 (School Playing Fields)
• Delete last sentence (“New…circumstances”)
• Replace Figures showing each individual Local Green Space with clear, identifiable boundaries, preferably on an Ordnance Survey base. Re-number the Figures so that they are consecutive
• Delete the Objectives under Policy 5
• Change first line of Evidence to “…four Local Green…”
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 39
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
• Page 41, delete penultimate and last paras, which re-invent Green Belt policy without justification (“By…biodiversity”) and comprise a subjective and unjustified statement, respectively
• Local Green Space is a distinctive policy designation. It is not the same thing as green infrastructure. Delete the text on page 42 (“Natural…document.”), which appears confusing/does not relate directly to Policy 5 and fails to take account of the text on pages 43 to 46
• Delete contents of page 47
40 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 6: The Natural Environment
159 As worded, Policy 6 requires development to comply with numerous criteria without any evidence to demonstrate that such requirements are deliverable. In this respect, the Policy does not have regard to Paragraph 16 of the Framework, referred to earlier in this Report. The Policy also contains repetition.
160 However, the general objectives of the Policy in respect of biodiversity gains, public rights of way, and climate change and flood risk, have regard to national planning policy, as set out in the Chapter 15, “Conserving and enhancing the natural environment;” Chapter 8, “Promoting healthy and safe communities;” and Chapter 14, “Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change;” of the Framework, respectively.
161 That part of the Policy which considers flood risk and flooding includes detailed requirements unjustified by the provision of corresponding detailed evidence in respect of deliverability. For example, the Policy requires all internal areas to incorporate raised finished floor levels and under floor voids, without any indication of when or where this might be appropriate and deliverable.
162 No detailed baseline information is provided in respect of the Parish’s sewage infrastructure and it is therefore difficult to understand how a decision maker might respond to a development proposal in respect of impacts on such.
163 The flood risk section appears confused, such that it appears to set out a very confusing summary of various aspects of national policy, which itself is very clearly set out in Chapter 14 of the Framework. Further, no detailed information is provided in respect of various references, such as what a SuDS treatment train might comprise, or what the baseline qualities of all watercourses in the Neighbourhood Area might be, what an adverse effect on these would comprise and how this would be judged.
164 The Policy does not establish important views or enhance open/green spaces or establish public open spaces for residents and visitors. These Objectives do not relate to Policy 6.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 41
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
165 I recommend:
• Policy 6, change to “The protection and enhancement of wildlife areas, measures to sustain and improve biodiversity and net biodiversity gains will be supported. Development should respect important views and the distinctive local character of the Neighbourhood Area’s landscape. The enhancement of public rights of way will be supported, as will measures to mitigate the impacts of, and adapt to, climate change.
Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Where development is demonstrated to be necessary in such areas, it should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The provision of sustainable drainage systems will be supported.” (delete rest of Policy)
• Delete all Objectives except the second bullet point
• Delete para in middle of page 49 (“A key consideration…surrounding landscape.”). The Policy does not preserve views (a matter considered under Policy 1, earlier in this Report)
• Third para from bottom of page 49, change to “…areas remain, the Parish Council would like to maintain and preserve the pocket wildlife areas that remain.”
• Delete the penultimate para, which does not relate to the Policy (“Recreational…enjoy”)
• The penultimate para reads as a Policy, which it is not. Delete and replace with “Flooding is an issue in the Neighbourhood Area. National and local planning policy sets out clear requirements and a clear methodology for how development proposals must address flood risk. The Parish Council is keen to ensure that all development fully abides by this.”
42 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 7: Conservation
166 Policy 7 fails to have regard to national planning policy, as set out in Chapter 16 of the Framework, “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.” Rather, it sets out an entirely different approach to that established by national policy. This includes a set of requirements which appear onerous, unjustified and which together, fail to provide for an appropriate balanced consideration of a development proposal, as required by national policy.
167 In justification of its alternative approach, the supporting text of Policy 7 appears to, in part, upgrade general recommendations contained in a Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (CACAMP) report to planning policy requirements. Whilst the content of the CACAMP might comprise a material planning consideration, such an unusual approach in respect of the wording of Policy 1 is unsupported by detailed evidence or justification in respect of the departure from national policy.
168 There is no evidence to demonstrate that all of the Objectives set out below Policy 7 are deliverable, or can be met by a Policy that has regard to national policy, or relate directly to Policy 7.
169 The Policy includes an erroneous reference to Appendix 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan (which does not identify any “buildings of merit”).
170 I recommend:
• Policy 7, delete and replace with “Crondall Conservation Area and its setting must be conserved or enhanced in a manner appropriate to its significance. The enhancement of the Conservation Area or its setting will be supported.”
• Delete all Objectives and replace with “Conserve or enhance the Conservation Area and its setting”
• Page 51, third para, delete last line (which reads as a Policy requirement, but is not)
• Page 51, last para, change first line to “…evidence that can inform the…” and delete everything after the first sentence (“This…policies”)
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 43
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 8: Community Facilities
171 In Chapter 8 of the Framework, “Promoting healthy and safe communities,” national policy requires planning decisions to:
“…guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs…ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community;” (Paragraph 92, the Framework)
172 To some extent, Policy 8 has regard to national policy, although as set out, the Policy would serve to place an obstacle in the way of enabling valued community facilities to develop and modernise. Whilst the intent of the Policy is to prevent the unnecessary loss of facilities, it does so in a manner that proposals to further develop community facilities would be subject to onerous requirements.
173 Taking this into account, I recommend:
• Policy 8, delete sentence following bullet points and replace with “Proposals to develop key community facilities will be supported, subject to respecting local character, residential amenity and highway safety. The loss of a key community facility will not be supported unless one of the following requirements is met:”
44 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
Policy 9: Recreation Areas
174 National policy recognises that:
“Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities…” (Paragraph 96, the Framework)
175 In general terms, Policy 9 seeks to protect open spaces and support the enhancement of recreational facilities and this is an approach that has regard to national policy.
176 Whilst Policy 9 is clearly entitled “Recreation Areas,” its subsequent reference to the designation of “public open space” appears confusing and imprecise. School playgrounds do not comprise public open space and public rights of way are simply that. Further, Hook Meadow and Farnham Road Recreation Ground are already areas of public open space and it is unclear, in the absence of any information, on what basis the Neighbourhood Plan “designates” them as such.
177 Further to the above, both of these sites are designated as areas of Local Green Space and are, as a consequence, protected from inappropriate development.
178 Notwithstanding the above, no evidence is provided to demonstrate that supporting the provision of changing rooms, car parking and lighting on school playgrounds or public rights of way would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Further, there is no detailed information to justify Policy support for any form of development, so long as it provided for such things at Hook Meadow or Farnham Road Recreation Ground.
179 It may be that a large scale development – such as a major housing estate or a retail park, could indeed contribute funds to provide for changing rooms, pavilions, car parking and floodlights at say, Hook Meadow – but there is nothing in the Neighbourhood Plan or its supporting evidence to suggest that there is any intention or support to bring forward any such development. The Policy, as worded, could therefore result in unintended support for unforeseen or even unsustainable forms of development.
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 45
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
180 The final part of Policy 9 would effectively support the loss of Hook Meadow and/or Farnham Road Recreation Ground, so long as new development provided undefined “suitable mitigation.” This would conflict with Policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Further, it is not clear, in the absence of any information, how such an approach might have regard to national policy, or contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
181 Public rights of way are protected by law. Notwithstanding this, the text on page 56 of the Neighbourhood Plan is not part of any Policy and this is a matter addressed in the recommendations below.
182 Taking all of the above into account, I recommend:
• Delete the wording of Policy 9 and replace with “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on, unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreation provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.”
• Change last line of supporting text (which is not a Policy) to “The Parish Council would like to see the area being continually improved and protected for the benefit of the community.”
• Page 56, delete the last line of text (“Developments…resisted.”)
46 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
8. The Neighbourhood Plan: Other Matters
183 The recommendations made in this Report will also have a subsequent impact on the Contents page and other parts of the Neighbourhood Plan, including paragraph, Figure and page numbering.
184 I recommend:
• Update the Contents page and where necessary, other parts of the Neighbourhood Plan, including paragraph, Figure and page numbering, to take into account the recommendations contained in this Report
Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk 47
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 - Examiner’s Report
9. Referendum
185 I recommend to Hart District Council that, subject to the recommended modifications, the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to a Referendum.
Referendum Area
186 I am required to consider whether the Referendum Area should be extended beyond the Crondall Neighbourhood Area.
187 I consider the Neighbourhood Area to be appropriate and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
188 Consequently, I recommend that the Plan should proceed to a Referendum based on the Crondall Neighbourhood Area approved by Hart District Council on the 1st September 2016.
Nigel McGurk, November 2019 Erimax – Land, Planning and Communities
48 Erimax – Land, Planning & Communities www.erimaxplanning.co.uk
PAPER E Appendix 2
Hart District Council
Crondall Neighbourhood Plan
POST EXAMINATION DECISION STATEMENT
The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended)
This document is the decision statement required to be prepared under Regulation 18(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended). It sets out the Council’s response to the recommendations contained within the Report to Hart District Council of the Independent Examination of the Crondall Neighbourhood Development Plan (“the Plan”) by the Independent Examiner, Nigel McGurk, which was received by the Council on 8 November 2019.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Hart District Council (“the Council”) has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of neighbourhood (development) plans. The Localism Act 2011 (Part 6, Chapter 3) sets out the Local Planning Authority’s responsibilities under Neighbourhood Planning.
1.2 This statement confirms that the modifications proposed by the Examiner’s report have been considered and accepted, that the Plan has been altered as a result of it, and that this Plan may now be submitted to local referendum.
1.3 The Crondall Neighbourhood Plan relates to the area that was designated by the Council as a Neighbourhood Area on 1 September 2016. This area is coterminous with the Crondall Parish boundary and is entirely within the Local Planning Authority area.
1.4 Crondall Parish Council undertook pre-submission consultation on the draft Plan in accordance with Regulation 14 between November – December 2018.
1.5 Following the submission of the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan to the Council in June 2019, the Council publicised the draft Plan for a six-week period and representations were invited in accordance with Regulation 16. The publicity period ended on 29 July 2019.
2.0 INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION
2.1 The Council appointed Mr Nigel McGurk, with the consent of Crondall Parish Council, to undertake the examination of the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan and to prepare a report of the independent examination.
2.2 The Examiner’s report was received on 8 November 2019. The report concludes that subject to making the modifications recommended by the Examiner, the Plan
1
PAPER E Appendix 2
meets the basic conditions set out in the legislation and should proceed to a Neighbourhood Planning referendum. The Examiner also recommended that the referendum area was based on the Neighbourhood Area that was designated by the Council in September 2016.
2.3 Having considered each of the recommendations made in the Examiner’s report and the reasons for them, the Council has decided to make the modifications to the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan set out in Table 1 below. The Council is satisfied that subject to those changes/modifications which it considers should be made to the Plan as set out in Table 1 below, that the Plan meets the basic conditions set out in the legislation.
3.0 DECISION AND REASONS
3.1 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) requires in Regulation 18 for the local planning authority to outline what action to take in response to the recommendations of an examiner in relation to a neighbourhood plan.
3.2 Having considered each of the recommendations in the examiner’s report, and the reasons for them, the Council with the agreement of Crondall Parish Council, has decided to accept the modification to the draft Plan. This decision was made at Cabinet on 5 March 2020. These are set out in Table 1 below.
3.3 The Council is also required to consider whether to extend the area to which the referendum is to take place under Regulation 18(1e). The Examiner recommended that the Neighbourhood Plan should proceed to a referendum based on the area that was designated by Hart District Council as a Neighbourhood Area. The Council has considered this recommendation and the reasons for it, and has decided to accept it. The referendum on the Crondall Neighbourhood Plan will be based on the designated Crondall Neighbourhood Area.
2
PAPER E Appendix 2
Table 1: Examiner’s Recommended Modifications and Amendments
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Introduction and Background Fig 1 (section 2.1) 52 Delete all Parish boundaries on Figure 1. Show the Agree with the modifications for the boundary of the Neighbourhood Area (which reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. coincides with that of Crondall Parish) and label this in the key as “Neighbourhood Area” Section 2.1 page 4 65 Page 4, line 6, add “…applies to the Neighbourhood Agree with the modifications for the Area, which comprises the whole…” reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
Page 4, last sentence, delete and replace with “Policies must only relate to land use planning matters.”
Page 5, first and second sentences, change to “…cannot be addressed by land use planning policies. The Neighbourhood Plan identifies these issues and addresses them in the section on Community Aspirations.”
Page 5, delete fourth para, which has been overtaken by events (“These requirements…for the area”)
3
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Section 2.2 page 5 66 Page 5, last para, change to “The Neighbourhood Plan Agree with the modifications for the must have regard to national policy and be in general reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. conformity with local strategic policy. At the national…(NPPF) revised in 2018 and further updated…”
Section 2.2 page 6 Page 6, begin first sentence “NPPF paras 29…” Section 2.2 page 6 69 Delete all text from “At the local level…” on page 6 Agree with the modifications for the to “…35% for shared ownership.” on page 8. reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
Replace with: “At the local level, the key documents are the ‘saved’ policies from the adopted Hart District Local Following the receipt of a “letter before Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and the First Alterations, claim for injunctive relief” from Crondall and the emerging Hart District Local Plan Strategy and Developments Limited threatening a Sites 2016-2032. This emerging Local Plan is nearing Judicial Review of the Plan, the Council adoption (anticipated to be early in 2020). The carefully considered the question of Neighbourhood Plan has taken into account the policies of whether there is a need for 66 homes in and evidence supporting the emerging Local Plan. Crondall which the Neighbourhood Plan does not meet if the Inspector’s Crondall is a small settlement within Hart’s rural area and recommendation to delete the Mill Lane consultation found that preservation of the rural nature of site for 32 homes under Policy 2b is the Parish is a major priority for residents. accepted. The risk was whether a failure to meet housing needs would mean the Plan Hart District Council considers Hart’s housing requirement fails to meet the basic condition of to be 423 homes per annum across the District. This contributing to the achievement of equates to 7,614 homes over the plan period 2014 – sustainable development.
4
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference 2032. This requirement comprises: Hart’s objectively The Council is satisfied that, assessed housing need (OAHN) of notwithstanding the reference to a need 382 homes per annum identified in the Joint Strategic for ‘up to’ 66 homes in Crondall, the Plan Housing Market Area Assessment for Hart, Rushmoor does meet the basic conditions for the and Surrey Heath, November 2016 (SHMA); plus an following reasons: additional 41 homes per annum (731 homes) to address an unmet housing need in Surrey Heath under the duty to 1. Objectively assessed housing needs cooperate (Surrey Heath is part of the Hart, Rushmoor/ for Hart District are being fully Surrey Heath Housing Market Area). addressed in the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 which does The number of houses originally allocated to Crondall not allocate any specific housing figure Parish by Hart in their draft (Regulation 18) Local Plan to Crondall Parish. The Inspector’s published in 2017, was 66. This number was derived Report into that Plan was received on from a notional allocation to one registered SHLAA site. 10 February 2020 confirming that the However, the emerging Hart Local Plan Plan can be adopted subject to the does not give a target for Crondall and leaves the yield recommended Main Modifications decision to the Neighbourhood Plan. A Neighbourhood being incorporated. The Main Plan does not need to allocate land. At its meeting on Modifications do not require any 29th January 2018 the Parish Council agreed to continue housing be allocated to Crondall with the Neighbourhood Plan by allocating land for close Parish. to the original number (i.e. 66) but on the basis that, whilst an allocation of 66 houses might be justifiable for 2. The text recommended by the Crondall Parish, it should be seen as an upper limit. Neighbourhood Plan Examiner is clear that the emerging Hart Local Plan In calculating Crondall’s need for housing to be met by the does not give a target for Crondall Neighbourhood Plan, we have allowed for permissions and leaves the yield decision to the granted but not yet built and an allowance for expected Neighbourhood Plan.
5
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference future windfalls. The number of permissions granted since the start of the Plan period is 15 and a conservative expectation of windfall sites is 12. Details confirming the 3. The reference to 66 homes is couched approved applications and how the windfall number was as an upper limit, not a housing arrived are included in the Evidence Document. requirement. The Plan does not need to allocate sufficient sites to meet the The Neighbourhood Plan supports the provision of 66 homes figure. affordable housing in line with District-wide policy.” 4. The recommended text refers to the Delete Figure 2 on page 8 and delete footnote on fact that a Neighbourhood Plan does page 7 not need to allocate land at all. The fact that it does allocate land for Page 7 Page 8, first line of penultimate paragraph, change housing means it is positive in terms Fig 2 page 8 “established” to “informed” of planning for housing and meeting the basic condition of contributing to Section 2.4 Page 8 Page 9, Para 2.5, line four, change to “…Plan were the achievement of sustainable reviewed…and where appropriate changes were development. made for…” Section 2.5 page 9 5. The supply of housing in Crondall has Page 9, Para 2.6, second line, delete “throughout the been further increased through the period leading to this Submission Plan” grant of planning permission on appeal for 30 homes at Broden Stables Section 2.6 page 9 Page 9, Para 2.6, last line, delete “to date” (appeal decision received on 14 February 2020 reference [APP/N1730/W/17/3185513). This is effectively a windfall site which if implemented will bring the supply
6
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference close to the 66 homes figure in any event. A factual update has been made to the Referendum version of the Neighbourhood Plan to include reference to the Broden Stables appeal decision within the Introductory Section (see underlined text below).
In calculating Crondall’s need for housing to be met by the Neighbourhood Plan, we have allowed for permissions granted but not yet built and an allowance for expected future windfalls. The number of permissions granted since the start of the Plan period is 15 and a conservative expectation of windfall sites is 12. Details confirming the approved applications and how the windfall number was arrived are included in the Evidence Document. [footnote]
Footnote: This supply increased by 30 dwellings with the grant of planning permission on appeal in February 2020 at Broden Stables, Crondall (Reference APP/N1730/W/17/3185513).
7
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference
Section 2.7 page 11-12 70 Page 11, Para 2.7, first sentence, change to “The Agree with the modifications for the Neighbourhood Plan is supported by a SEA.” reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
Page 11, delete last two paras “A screening…for submission”
Page 12, Para 2.8, first line of second para, change to “Under the emerging Hart Local Plan…”
Page 12, delete last para “The requirement…this document.” Policy 1 : Spatial Plan Policy 1 page 21-23 90 Policy 1, change first para to “…and Mill Lane, within Agree with the modifications for the which development will be supported. The boundaries of reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. each settlement are indicated on Figures 7 and 8.”
Delete second para (“Proposals…figure 26”)
Change third para to “Development should respect and not obstruct views out of Crondall shown on Figure 26.”
Delete fourth para and replace with “Development outside the settlements of Crondall and Mill Lane should be appropriate to a countryside location”
8
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Delete fifth, sixth and last paras (“Development will not…Planning policy.”)
Page 21, supporting text, delete second bullet point (“To minimise…Area”)
Page 22, first para, change to “…settlement boundaries is supported by the Parish Council where proposals are in accordance with relevant national…”
Page 22, delete second para (“In…views.”)
Page 22, change last sentence of third para to “…settlement boundaries will be expected to be supported by clear justification…”
Pages 22 and 23, delete last four paras of supporting text (“Development on brown…also a possibility.”)
Policy 2 : Housing Site Selection Policy 2 Page 24- 26 93 Change Policy 2 to “During the Plan period the Agree with the modifications for the Neighbourhood Plan supports residential development at reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. the sites below for the development of housing: 2a CRON 27 Cross Road; 2b Following the receipt of a “letter before CRON 21 The Bungalow; and 2c CRON 22 Marsh claim for injunctive relief” from Crondall Farm.” Developments Limited threatening a
9
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Judicial Review of the Plan, the Council Page 24 delete the Objectives raised some initial concerns over the scoring of sites in the process of deciding Page 24 second main para, delete last sentence (“The which should be allocated. On further proposed sites…affordable homes.”) reflection, and having engaged with the Parish Council, the Council is satisfied that Page 25, delete third para (“The following…only.”) the approach was appropriate and proportionate for a Neighbourhood Plan. Page 25 delete 179 from Figure 8 Furthermore the Council did not raise issue through the Plan process with any of Page 26, delete the first half page of text, which is the sites recommended to remain in the unnecessary and appears confusing (“The approach Neighbourhood Plan listed at Policy 2. taken…Crondall and Mill Lane.”)
Page 26, delete last sentence (“Any…particular.”) which reads as a Policy but is not Policy 2a page 27 96 Policy 2a, change second bullet point to “…design Agree with the modifications for the should respect neighbouring…” reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
Policy 2a, change third bullet point to “…off-street parking and provide garden…”
Delete last para on page 27 which reads as a Policy requirement, but is not (“Although…required.”) Policy 2b page 28-29 105 Delete Policy 2b and supporting text on pages 28 and Therefore, the Council agrees with the 29 modifications for the reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
10
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Any other references to Policy 2b in the Neighbourhood Plan should be deleted. For clarity, this will require the re-numbering of Policies 2c-2f Policy 2c page 30 106 Policy 2c, change second bullet point to “…design Agree with the modifications for the should respect neighbouring…” reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
Policy 2c, change third bullet point to “…off-street parking and provide garden…” Policy 2d page 31-32 108 Policy 2d, change fourth bullet point to “…off-street Agree with the modifications for the parking and provide garden…” reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
Policy 2e page 33-34 114 Policy 2e, fourth line, delete “either” Agree with the modifications for the reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. Delete last sentence of Policy 2e (“Hart…parties”) Policy 3 : Housing Design Policy 3 page 35 - 36 131 Change title of Policy to “Good Design” Agree with the modifications for the reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. Policy 3 – delete opening sentence and replace with “Development in the Neighbourhood Area should demonstrate high design quality. Development should, where appropriate, take into account the following design principles:”
Replace all uses of the word “shall” in the Policy (unless the relevant bullet point has been recommended for deletion) with “should”
11
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Change second bullet point to: “Development should be locally distinctive. It should take opportunities to reflect the local vernacular, to appear in keeping with its surroundings – taking account of traditional local materials; and to reference high quality local design.”
Delete third, fourth and fifth bullet points (“Materials…Standards”)
Delete ninth bullet point (“Development shall address…achieved.”)
Delete twelfth bullet point and replace with “All heritage assets should be conserved in accordance with their significance.”
Delete thirteenth and fourteenth bullet points (“Development proposals must…measures”)
Change last bullet point to “Development should not restrict access…mobility.”
Page 35, first objective, change to “To ensure that housing design reflects the distinctive…”
Page 36, delete bullet point at top of page
12
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Policy 4 : Crondall/Mill Lane Local Gap Policy 4 page 37 - 39 145 Policy 4, change second sentence to “Development Agree with the modifications for the proposals within the Local Gap should not result in reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. coalescence or harm the separate identities of Crondall and Mill Lane.”
Provide a new Figure 13, ensuring that the precise boundaries of the Local Gap are clearly identifiable such that they are beyond debate or doubt.
Supporting text, delete “and the local vicinity known as Bowling Alley” from the Objective below the Policy
Page 37, retain first sentence of Evidence and Justification but delete the rest of the para (“This…Gap”)
Page 38, first para, change to “…Council’s emerging Local Plan does not seek to include a Gaps policy, but does support the designation of Gaps through Neighbourhood Plans. The proposed Local Gap is designated with the purpose of safeguarding the separate identities of Crondall and Mill Lane.” (delete rest of para)
Delete last para on page 38 (“The…sites.”)
13
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference
Delete penultimate para on page 39 (“Any…considered.”)
Delete title and last para on page 39 (“Development Pressures…area”) Policy 5 : Local Green Space Policy 5 page 40 - 47 158 Policy 5, change the opening para to “The sites below, Agree with the modifications for the identified on Figures 16 to 19, are designated as Local reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. Green Space. The management of development within areas of Local Green Space will be consistent with that for development within Green Belts.”
Delete Site 5 (School Playing Fields)
Delete last sentence (“New…circumstances”)
Replace Figures showing each individual Local Green Space with clear, identifiable boundaries, preferably on an Ordnance Survey base. Re-number the Figures so that they are consecutive
Delete the Objectives under Policy 5
Change first line of Evidence to “…four Local Green…”
14
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Page 41, delete penultimate and last paras, which re- invent Green Belt policy without justification (“By…biodiversity”) and comprise a subjective and unjustified statement, respectively
Local Green Space is a distinctive policy designation. It is not the same thing as green infrastructure. Delete the text on page 42 (“Natural…document.”), which appears confusing/does not relate directly to Policy 5 and fails to take account of the text on pages 43 to 46
Delete contents of page 47 Policy 6 : The Natural Environment Policy 6 page 48 – 49 165 Policy 6, change to “The protection and enhancement of Agree with the modifications for the wildlife areas, measures to sustain and improve reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. biodiversity and net biodiversity gains will be supported. Development should respect important views and the distinctive local character of the Neighbourhood Area’s landscape. The enhancement of public rights of way will be supported, as will measures to mitigate the impacts of, and adapt to, climate change.
Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Where development is demonstrated to be necessary in such areas, it should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The
15
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference provision of sustainable drainage systems will be supported.” (delete rest of Policy)
Delete all Objectives except the second bullet point
Delete para in middle of page 49 (“A key consideration…surrounding landscape.”). The Policy does not preserve views (a matter considered under Policy 1, earlier in this Report)
Third para from bottom of page 49, change to “…areas remain, the Parish Council would like to maintain and preserve the pocket wildlife areas that remain.”
Delete the penultimate para, which does not relate to the Policy (“Recreational…enjoy”)
The penultimate para reads as a Policy, which it is not. Delete and replace with “Flooding is an issue in the Neighbourhood Area. National and local planning policy sets out clear requirements and a clear methodology for how development proposals must address flood risk. The Parish Council is keen to ensure that all development fully abides by this.”
16
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference Policy 7 : Conservation Policy 7 page 50-53 170 Policy 7, delete and replace with “Crondall Agree with the modifications for the Conservation Area and its setting must be conserved or reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. enhanced in a manner appropriate to its significance. The enhancement of the Conservation Area or its setting will be supported.”
Delete all Objectives and replace with “Conserve or enhance the Conservation Area and its setting”
Page 51, third para, delete last line (which reads as a Policy requirement, but is not)
Page 51, last para, change first line to “…evidence that can inform the…” and delete everything after the first sentence (“This…policies”) Policy 8 : Community Facilities Policy 8 page 54 173 Policy 8, delete sentence following bullet points and Agree with the modifications for the replace with “Proposals to develop key community reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. facilities will be supported, subject to respecting local character, residential amenity and highway safety. The loss of a key community facility will not be supported unless one of the following requirements is met:” Policy 9 : Recreation Areas Policy 9 55-56 182 Delete the wording of Policy 9 and replace with Agree with the modifications for the “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report.
17
PAPER E Appendix 2
Submitted Examiner’s Recommended Modification HDC Consideration / Justification Neighbourhood Plan Report Policy / Section/Page para reference and land, including playing fields, should not be built on, unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreation provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.”
Change last line of supporting text (which is not a Policy) to “The Parish Council would like to see the area being continually improved and protected for the benefit of the community.”
Page 56, delete the last line of text (“Developments…resisted.”) Other Matters General 184 Update the Contents page and where necessary, Agree with the modifications for the other parts of the Neighbourhood Plan, including reasons set out in the Examiner’s Report. paragraph, figure and page numbering, to take into account the recommendations contained in this Report
18
PAPER F
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING: 5 MARCH 2020
TITLE OF REPORT: ADOPTION OF THE HART LOCAL PLAN (STRATEGY & SITES) 2032
Report of: Head of Place
Cabinet member: Councillor Graham Cockarill, Place
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To ask Cabinet to recommend to Council that the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 is adopted in line with the Inspector’s recommendations (including the Inspector’s Main Modifications).
2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That Cabinet recommends to Council the following:
A. Adopt the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 [Proposed Submission Version incorporating the Inspector’s recommended Main Modifications attached at Appendix 1];
B. Agree the content of the Sustainability Appraisal Adoption Statement at Appendix 2;
C. Adopt a new Policies Map for Hart that incorporates the Policies Map changes associated with adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032;
D. Authorise the Head of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place to make minor alterations and corrections to the Local Plan and the updated Policies Map.
3 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Local Plan1 was submitted for examination in June 2018. The Secretary of State appointed Mr Manning (Planning Inspector) to undertake the examination. The examination hearings took place late in 2018.
3.2 The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the Local Plan is sound, judged against the soundness tests in the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF), and whether it meets legal requirements including the Duty to Cooperate. These
1 https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/ Local_Plan/CD1%20Hart%20Proposed%20Submission%20Local%20Plan%202016%20-%202032.pdf
6 PAPER F
tests are set out at Appendix 3. Although the Plan was submitted after the NPPF 2018 was published, it was examined against the previous NPPF 2012 under transitional arrangements.
3.3 After the hearings the Council formally requested that the Inspector recommend any Modifications that he considered were necessary to make the Plan sound and legally compliant. This is a routine part of the process.
3.4 The Council then prepared a schedule of Proposed Main Modifications that were agreed with the Inspector and published for consultation in July 2019. Alongside the Main Modifications the Council published: • A Sustainability Appraisal Addendum which appraised the Proposed Main Modifications against the established Sustainability Appraisal Framework and • Written confirmation that no further work on Habitat Regulations Assessment was necessary.
3.5 The Inspector’s Report was received in February 2020 and is attached at Appendix 1.
4 CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 The Inspector concluded that the Hart Local Plan 2032 with to the incorporation of all of the Main Modifications would be sound and capable of adoption. The ‘headline’ Main Modifications are set out at Appendix 4.
4.2 The Council now has a simple binary choice. It can either: a) Accept the Inspectors recommendations/modifications (in their entirety) and so proceed to adopt the Plan, or b) It can choose not to accept the Inspector’s recommendations and so not adopt the Plan. There are no alternative options unless the Council decides to withdraw the Plan.
4.3 The recommendation is that the Plan is adopted incorporating all of the Main Modifications. To not adopt the Plan would leave the Council without an up to date Local Plan, and vulnerable to planning by appeal. There is also the risk that the Government may seek to intervene in the Plan making process as they have done in another Council in the South East.
Saved policies
4.4 Upon adoption of the Plan a number of saved policies in the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006, and the First Alterations to that Plan, will be superseded. Those policies are listed at Appendix 5 of this report.
4.5 It is also the case that upon adoption of the Plan a number of saved policies (listed at Appendix 6) will remain in place as part of the overall development plan. These will be replaced through a separate Development Management Development Plan Document or the next Local Plan.
6 PAPER F
Policies Map
4.6 The Policies Map is a graphical representation of the Council’s planning policies. If the Plan is adopted the Policies Map must be updated in order to comply with the legislation and give effect to the Plan’s policies.
4.7 The Inspector states at paragraph 8 of his report that the Council needs to update its Policies Map to include all the changes proposed in EXAM2 to EXAM45 (i.e. the updated Policies Map as submitted to the examination) and the further changes published alongside the Proposed Main Modifications in July 2019.
The Maps EXAM2 to EXAM45, and the Further Changes to the Policies Map that must be made, are available at https://www.hart.gov.uk/local-plan-examination- library-2018
4.8 Appendix 7 summarises the changes needed to the adopted Policies Map upon adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032.
Minor changes and desktop publishing
4.9 The Council is able to make minor modifications to the Plan and to the Policies Map, for example for clarity, to make corrections, or address presentational issues, provided they do not materially affect the content or meaning of the Plan. An example of this will be the need to re-number the ‘NBE’ policies following the deletion of Policy NBE2.
4.10 It is proposed that authority be delegated to the Head of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place to agree any minor changes to the Plan and the Policies Map prior to publication.
5 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (INCORPORATING STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT)
5.1 Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) is an iterative process that has informed the Local Plan. Its role is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve environmental, economic and social objectives.
5.2 The final step in the SA process involves preparing a Sustainability Appraisal Adoption Statement at the time of a Local Plan’s adoption. The SA Adoption Statements allows stakeholders to see how environmental and sustainability factors have been considered and how consultee views have been taken into account during the preparation of the plan. It also outlines the measures for monitoring the significant environmental effects of implementing the plan. Cabinet is asked to recommend to Council that it agrees to the content of the SA Adoption Statement at Appendix 2.
6 PAPER F
6 EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1 An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) was submitted with the Plan for Examination. The Inspector states at paragraph 253 of his report that he has had due regard to the aims expressed in S149(1) of the Equality Act 2010. This included consideration of several matters during the examination including the provision of gypsy and traveller sites, housing for older people, and accessible and adaptable housing.
7 FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Is the proposal identified in the Service Plan? Yes Is the proposal being funded from current budgets? Yes Have staffing resources already been identified and set aside for this proposal? Yes
7.1 There are no significant resource implications arising from a decision to adopt the Hart Local Plan 2032. Following adoption the Plan will be desktop published and published in its final form and the Policies Map updated. This can be delivered within existing budgets. The cost of the examination itself must be paid regardless of whether the Plan is adopted or not.
8 ACTION
8.1 Upon adoption:
a) The Local Plan becomes part of the ‘development plan’ for Hart District. Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material consideration indicate otherwise (the full list of documents within the development plan for Hart is set out at Appendix 8);
b) In addition to publishing the Plan, a number of statutory tasks must be completed including publishing an adoption statement (in addition to the SA/SEA adoption statement) and notifying relevant parties of adoption;
c) There is a 6-week period when the Plan can be challenged on procedural matters in the High Court under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
8.2 To aid implementation of the new Plan work is underway on Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Technical Advice Notes (TAN) on a range of topics. Work has also started on the Traveller Development Plan Document which is a commitment in the new Plan. Monitoring Reports will be prepared annually.
8.3 Local Plans must be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary. The Plan refers to various factors that could trigger an early review of the Plan, such as monitoring information, changes in national policy, and duty to cooperate matters including unmet housing need. A review of the Plan will therefore be undertaken within 5 years of adoption, potentially sooner.
6 PAPER F
Contact Details: Daniel Hawes [email protected]
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Inspector’s Report including Main Modifications Appendix 2 Sustainability Appraisal Adoption Statement Appendix 3 Soundness and legal tests for local plans Appendix 4 Headline Main Modifications Appendix 5 Saved policies from Hart District Council Local Plan Replacement and First Alterations 1996 – 2006 that will be superseded by the Local Plan Strategy and Sites. Appendix 6 Saved policies from Hart District Council Local Plan Replacement and First Alterations 1996 – 2006 that will remain part of the development plan upon adoption of the Local Plan Strategy and Sites Appendix 7 Changes needed to the adopted Policies Map upon adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032 Appendix 8 The ‘development plan’ for Hart District
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Cabinet 3 January 2018 Paper B Proposed Submission Version of the Hart Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2016-2032 and Minutes https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Council_meetings/M_Arc hive/18%2001%2003%20Jan%20Cab1.pdf
Council 4 January 2018 Agenda and Minutes https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Council_meetings/M_Arc hive/18%2001%20Council%20jan1.pdf
Cabinet 14 March 2019 Paper A: Examination of the Hart Local Plan: Strategy and Sites and Minutes https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Council_meetings/M_Arc hive/19%2003%2014%20Cabinet.pdf
6
Report to Hart District Council
by Jonathan Manning BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date: 10 February 2020
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
(as amended)
Section 20
Report on the Examination of the Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites
The Plan was submitted for examination on 18 June 2018
The examination hearings were held between 20 November and 18 December 2018
File Ref: PINS/N1730/429/11
Abbreviations used in this report
AOS Area of Search BMV Best and Most Versatile DPA Dwellings Per Annum DPD Development Plan Document DtC Duty to Co-operate ELR Employment Land Review FEA Functional Economic Area GIS Geographical Information System GTAA Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment HDT Housing Delivery Test HMA Housing Market Area HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment IDP Infrastructure Delivery Plan IWMS Integrated Water Management Strategy LAP Local Play Area LDS Local Development Scheme LEAP Local Equipped Area for Play LPA Local Planning Authority MM Main Modification NE Natural England NEAP Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play NPPF National Planning Policy Framework OAHN Objectively Assessed Housing Need PPG Planning Practice Guidance PPTS Planning Policy for Traveller Sites RBC Rushmoor Borough Council SA Sustainability Appraisal SANG Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace SCI Statement of Community Involvement SHBC Surrey Heath Borough Council SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment SPA Special Protection Area
2
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Non-Technical Summary
This report concludes that the Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites provides an appropriate basis for the planning of the District, provided that a number of main modifications [MMs] are made to it. Hart District Council has specifically requested that I recommend any MMs necessary to enable the Plan to be adopted.
All the MMs were proposed or agreed by the Council and were subject to public consultation over a six-week period between 5 July and 19 August 2019. In some cases, I have amended their detailed wording and/or added consequential modifications where necessary. I have recommended their inclusion in the Plan after considering all the representations made in response to consultation on them.
The Main Modifications can be summarised as follows:
A change to the Plan period; To refer to flood risk in the Plan’s vision; Changes to the strategic objectives to ensure compliance with national policy; The addition of a strategic objective in relation to previously developed land; Changes to the Key Diagram; Alterations to the housing requirement (including Policy SS1) to correspond with the SHMA and to accommodate Surrey Heath Borough Council’s unmet need; Changes to the housing trajectory and updates to the components of supply; Alterations to the criteria of Policy SS2 ‘Hartland Village’. The removal of Policy SS3 ‘New Settlement at the Murrell Green / Winchfield Area of Search’ and its supporting text; Modifications to require the Council to prepare and submit for examination a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople DPD by January 2022; Changes to the criteria of Policy H1 ‘Housing Mix’; Policy H2 ‘Affordable Housing’; Policy H3 ‘Rural Exception Sites’; Policy H4 ‘Specialist and Supported Accommodation’; Policy H5 Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople’; and Policy H6 ‘Internal Space Standards’ to ensure the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy; Alterations to the criteria of: Policy ED1 ‘New Employment’; Policy ED2 Safeguarding Employment Land and Premises’; and Policy ED3 ‘The Rural Economy’ to ensure the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy; The change of the Bartley Wood, Hook site from a strategic employment site to a locally important employment site; To ensure the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy, changes to Policy ED4 ‘Town, District and Local Centres’; Policy ED5 ‘Fleet Town Centre’; and Policy ED6 ‘District and Local Centres’. Changes to the natural and built environment policies, in terms of sustainable development, development in the countryside, landscape, the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, biodiversity, flood risk, historic environment, design, renewable energy and pollution to ensure compliance with national policy and that the Plan is effective; The removal of Policy NBE2 ‘Gaps Between Settlements’ and its supporting text;
3
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Modifications to Policy I1 ‘Infrastructure’; Policy I2 ‘Green Infrastructure’; Policy I3 ‘Transport’; Policy I4 ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation’; Policy I5 ‘Community Facilities’; and Policy I6 Broadband or Successor Services’ to ensure compliance with national policy and that the Plan is effective; Changes to the Council’s implementation and monitoring strategy; and Alterations to the glossary and appendices.
4
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Introduction 1. This report contains my assessment of the Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). It considers first whether the Plan’s preparation has complied with the duty to co-operate. It then considers whether the Plan is sound and whether it is compliant with the legal requirements. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) (Paragraph 182) makes it clear that in order to be sound, a Local Plan should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
2. The revised NPPF was published in July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. It includes a transitional arrangement in Paragraph 214 which indicates that, for the purpose of examining this Plan, the policies in the NPPF 2012 will apply. Similarly, where the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been updated to reflect the revised NPPF, the previous versions of the PPG apply for the purposes of this examination under the transitional arrangement. Therefore, unless stated otherwise, references in this report are to the NPPF 2012 and the versions of the PPG which were extant prior to the publication of the NPPF 2018.
3. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local planning authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, submitted in June 2018 (CD1) is the basis for my examination. It is the same document as was published for consultation in February 2018.
Main Modifications
4. In accordance with section 20(7C) of the 2004 Act the Council requested (EXAM62) that I should recommend any main modifications [MMs] necessary to rectify matters that make the Plan unsound and thus incapable of being adopted. My report explains why the recommended MMs, all of which relate to matters that were discussed at the examination hearing(s), are necessary. The MMs are referenced in bold in the report in the form MM1, MM2 etc, and are set out in full in Appendix 1.
5. Following the examination hearings, the Council prepared a schedule of proposed MMs and carried out Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of them. The MM schedule was subject to public consultation for six weeks between 5 July and 19 August 2019. I have taken account of the consultation responses in coming to my conclusions in this report and in this light, I have made some amendments to the detailed wording of the main modifications and added consequential modifications where these are necessary for consistency or clarity. None of the amendments significantly alters the content of the modifications as published for consultation or undermines the participatory processes and SA that has been undertaken. Where necessary I have highlighted these amendments in the report.
Policies Map
6. The Council must maintain an adopted policies map which illustrates geographically the application of the policies in the adopted development plan. When submitting a local plan for examination, the Council is required to 5
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
provide a submission policies map showing the changes to the adopted policies map that would result from the proposals in the submitted Plan. In this case, the submission policies map comprises the set of plans identified as Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites Policies Map and associated inset maps as set out in EXAM2 to EXAM45.
7. The policies map is not defined in statute as a development plan document and so I do not have the power to recommend main modifications to it. However, a number of the published MMs to the Plan’s policies require further corresponding changes to be made to the policies map. In addition, there are some instances where the geographic illustration of policies on the submission policies map is not justified and changes to the policies map are needed to ensure that the relevant policies are effective. These further changes to the policies map were published for consultation alongside the MMs (EXAM64).
8. When the Plan is adopted, in order to comply with the legislation and give effect to the Plan’s policies, the Council will need to update the adopted policies map to include all the changes proposed in EXAM2 to EXAM45 and the further changes published alongside the MMs (EXAM64). Assessment of Duty to Co-operate 9. Section 20(5)(c) of the 2004 Act requires that I consider whether the Council complied with any duty imposed on it by section 33A in respect of the Plan’s preparation.
10. The Council has provided as part of its evidence a statement (CD9), which sets out how it considers the Duty to Co-operate (DtC) has been met. This sets out that the key strategic planning issues considered were: housing; the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA); employment land; traveller site provision; flood risk; water supply and waste water; and infrastructure (transport, healthcare facilities, education). In each case the Council has identified in detail how it has met the DtC and what agreements were made with the relevant parties during the Plan’s preparation.
11. I consider that the statement illustrates that the Council has made extensive efforts to engage with all relevant organisations and prescribed bodies during the Plan’s preparation. It is evident that many of the changes made during the Plan’s preparation prior to its submission have resulted from consultation with relevant parties, to address their concerns in a constructive and proactive manner.
12. I am content that matters associated with providing sufficient Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to mitigate impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA were suitably discussed with neighbouring authorities in the Housing Market Area (HMA) and with other relevant stakeholders.
13. Whilst some concerns have been raised in relation to accommodating unmet housing need from Surrey Heath Borough Council (SHBC), I am mindful that the DtC is not a duty to agree and it is clear to me from the Council’s statement (CD9) and through oral evidence at the hearing sessions that there has been significant discussions between the Council and SHBC on this matter.
6
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
14. It has been suggested that the Council should consider unmet need from London, Basingstoke and Deane and Guildford. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to suggest that this is necessary and none of the authorities have requested that the Council accommodate any of their unmet need.
15. I am satisfied that where necessary the Council has engaged constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in the preparation of the Plan and that the DtC has therefore been met. Assessment of Soundness Main Issues
16. Taking account of all the representations, the written evidence and the discussions that took place at the examination hearings, I have identified 12 main issues upon which the legal compliance and soundness of the Plan depends. This report deals with these main issues in turn. It does not respond to every comment or issue raised by representors. Nor does it refer to every policy or policy criterion in the Plan.
Issue 1 – Whether the objectively assessed need for housing and the housing requirement are justified.
Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN)
17. The Plan at Policy SS1 sets out a housing requirement of 388 dwellings per annum (dpa), which at the time of publishing the Regulation 19 Pre- Submission Plan for consultation in February 2018 was based on the then proposed Government standard methodology for calculating local housing need, with an uplift applied. The justification for the uplift is set out in Appendix 2 ‘Housing Numbers and Trajectory’ of the Plan. The ‘cap’ in the methodology was removed and then an uplift of 25% was applied as a contingency in case of a change in methodology or alterations to data, such as new household projections or affordability ratios. Reference was also made to the benefits of boosting the supply of housing, including the delivery of affordable units.
18. In terms of a contingency for a change in methodology or alterations to data, the standard methodology was incorporated into the NPPF 2018 as it was previously set out during the consultation that was undertaken upon it. There is therefore no support in national policy for the amended standard methodology calculation undertaken by the Council. Further, the Council has provided little substantive evidence to justify an uplift of 25% in preference of any other figure. In addition, it is clear under the transitionary arrangements that the Plan should be examined against the NPPF 2012.
19. Given the above, I am of the view that there is insufficient justification and evidence to support the Plan’s housing requirement, in terms of its formulation based on the Council’s amended standard methodology. Alterations are therefore needed (MM21, MM26 and MM138) for the Plan to be justified to remove reference to the Council’s amended standard methodology. 7
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
20. The Council produced a Joint Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment (SHMA) (HOU1a & b) in November 2016, with Rushmoor Borough Council (RBC) and SHBC. Together the authorities constitute the HMA and there is no reason before me to consider that this is inappropriate.
21. The SHMA (HOU1a & b) was based upon the 2012 household projections. This identified a demographic starting point of 247 dpa for Hart, uplifted to 254 dpa once adjusted for vacancy rates. Shortly before the SHMA’s publication, the 2014 household projections were released. However, given the stage at which the SHMA’s preparation had reached it was published based on the 2012 household projections.
22. Nonetheless, given the requirements of the PPG, 2012 (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2a-016-20150227), the Council undertook a review of the SHMA (HOU2a & b) and tested a number of alternative scenarios, with the more recent 2014 household projections, including a partial return to trend of household formation rates for younger people and differing migration trend periods. This found that whilst the 2014 household projections were lower at 207 dpa, once such other factors are taken into account the demographic starting point in the SHMA (HOU1a & b) remains valid. For example, the 2014 household projections, with a partial return to trend of household formation rates for younger people, results in a demographic starting point of some 232 dpa. I am not of the view that this represents a meaningful change in the housing situation in Hart.
23. There has been some concern raised that the moratorium associated with the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, which temporarily suspended planning permissions being granted for housing in Hart, constrained housing delivery between 2008 – 2011. Whilst I accept that this may have influenced the 2012 and 2014 household projection figures, particularly as they look at a five year migration trend, I am mindful that the SHMA review (HOU2a & b) did test longer migration trend patterns, where any dampening effect caused by the moratorium would be much less influential. For example, the 2014 based sub national population projections mid year estimates and a part return to trend household formation rates, with a 10 year migration trend scenario sets out a figure for Hart of 251 dpa, very similar to the SHMA demographic starting point. Whilst the SHMA review did look at 15 year migration trends which resulted in higher figures of up to 323 dpa, I have concerns in relation to relying on trends dating back as far as 1999, a significant period of time ago.
24. The PPG 2012 (Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2a-016-20150227) advises that the calculation of housing need should use the most up-to-date information. The 2016 household projections have been published more recently. The Government has expressed concerns with regard to the 2016 household projections and has advised that the 2014 household projections should, for the time being, be used to calculate housing need when using the standard methodology. On this basis, I consider at the current time some caution should be applied to the 2016 household projections.
8
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
25. Notwithstanding all of the above, I am also mindful that the final OAHN for Hart, as discussed later, is nonetheless economically driven in terms of job growth. The demographic starting point could therefore be seen as being somewhat academic. This is because, if the demographic starting point was lowered then a greater uplift in terms of job growth would be needed to ensure that there is a sufficient workforce in Hart and vice versa. Consequently, in this context a change to the demographic starting point through more recent household projections does not, in my view, represent a meaningful change in the housing situation in Hart.
26. The SHMA applies an uplift above the demographic starting point for market signals. The affordability ratio in Hart is very high and the SHMA recommends a market signals uplift, due to affordability issues of 15%. I have been referred to other higher examples of uplifts by Inspectors examining other Plans in the South East. Whilst a 15% uplift is lower than some examples elsewhere, in my view, this would still have an important and positive impact on affordability in Hart. In addition, as will be discussed below, the most recent economic forecasts suggest lower figures in terms of job growth in the HMA than were anticipated at the time the SHMA (HOU1a & b) was produced. If this were to be realised, less homes would be needed to accommodate the additional workforce that would migrate into Hart, which would provide more homes for the existing population in Hart, further improving affordability.
27. Following an uplift for market signals the SHMA considers any uplift required to ensure that there would be a sufficient workforce to meet forecast job growth. The forecast models considered varied substantially from 900 to 1500 jobs per annum, which reflects the challenges of long-term forecasting. The SHMA adopted a mid-point of the forecast scenarios with the HMA anticipated to see growth of 1,200 jobs per annum. The SHMA analysed historic trends, the growth potential within the area and included an expectation of some increase in household formation rates. I consider the assumptions and approach adopted in the SHMA in terms of job growth are appropriate and robust. To meet Hart’s proportion of job growth in the HMA a sizeable further uplift of 69 dpa, is applied on top of the 15% uplift for market signals.
28. As mentioned above, the SHMA review (HOU2a & b) identified that the most recent economic forecasts are now lower than those used in the SHMA. This was identified as largely being a result of a stall in employment during 2015 and 2016, notably in Surrey Heath and Hart. I am particularly mindful that long term economic forecasting is extremely challenging and forecast models from different sources can vary significantly. Further, as set out above, any new homes not required to meet future job growth would have the benefit of further improving affordability within Hart. Therefore, I consider that a change to the OAHN is unnecessary and there has not been a meaningful change.
29. The SHMA then applies a final uplift of 21 dpa for concealed families to reach the OAHN of 382 dpa. Based on the evidence provided in the SHMA, I
9
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
consider this to be appropriate. The most up-to-date data provided by the Council suggests that concealed families in Hart has slightly increased, but I am not of the view that it is of such significance to require a change to the OAHN.
30. An alternative ‘stock based’ approach to calculating housing need has been suggested. However, there is no clear support for such an approach in national policy.
31. It is important to emphasise that the calculation of housing need is not an exact science. Overall and having regard to all of the above findings, I consider that an OAHN of 382 dpa is robust and should be used as the starting point for the consideration of the housing requirement in the Plan. As a consequence, it is necessary to correlate the start of the Plan period, with the base date of the SHMA, which is 2014, particularly as this results in a greater level of overall need, given its longer timeframe (2014-2032). The Plan needs to therefore be clear that the Plan period is 2014 to 2032 and changes are needed (MM1, MM18, MM19, MM21, MM23, MM121 and MM140) for the Plan to be effective. The housing trajectory and completion figures (from 2014) in the Plan therefore also need to be amended (MM139 and MM140) to reflect this change. This will also ensure the Plan is effective and in accordance with national policy.
32. There has been some suggestion that the Plan period should be extended. The Plan looks forward 13 years after anticipated adoption, which is below the preferred 15 year time period set out in Paragraph 157 of the NPPF. However, the NPPF’s preference is not a set requirement and I consider 13 years to be an appropriate time scale in this instance, particularly as there is now a requirement to review plans every five years.
The housing requirement and unmet need
33. At the hearing sessions, representatives from SHBC provided an update in relation to unmet need, which results from the heavily constrained nature of Surrey Heath. SHBC has published an Issues and Options/Preferred Options consultation of its Local Plan, which identifies a shortfall in supply of 731 dwellings over its plan period (2016-2032). SHBC advised that although there are on-going attempts to try and find more sites, this is unlikely to significantly reduce. The Council had set out that any unmet need from SHBC would occur towards the end of the Plan period, however, this view was not shared by SHBC at the hearing session, who set out that the unmet need is imminent.
34. RBC the other authority in the HMA has received its Inspector’s Report following their Plan’s examination. The Rushmoor Plan does not make any provision for any unmet need from SHBC. There is a surplus in supply identified in the Rushmoor Plan of around 1,000 dwellings. However, it is clear that this is necessary to mitigate risks from some large sites in that Plan failing to deliver as anticipated and should not be seen to be off-setting any unmet need from SHBC. 10
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
35. It was accepted by the Council at the hearing sessions that Hart is the least constrained authority in the HMA. Given this, the matters discussed above and the fact that the Rushmoor Plan is unlikely to be reviewed for a period of 5 years following its adoption, I consider that this Plan should seek to meet the identified unmet needs of SHBC of 731 dwellings, which represents the most up-to-date figure at this point in time.
36. I am not of the view that it is premature to require the Plan to accommodate the unmet needs of SHBC or that it will prejudice the plan making process in Surrey Heath. The SHBC unmet need figure is within a formal consultation document and is based on a recognised method of calculating housing need encouraged by national policy. Further, SHBC’s Issues and Options/Preferred Options consultation is supported by a SHLAA, which provides an assessment of potentially suitable sites. I am also mindful that to be positively prepared the Plan should seek to meet unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities, as set out in Paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
37. In terms of any potential additional impacts on the environment and infrastructure from accommodating the unmet need, I have found under Matter 4 that the Plan can accommodate the unmet need from SHBC without the need to include additional sites, albeit with a relatively modest shortfall of 230 dwellings during the last year of the Plan period.
38. It has been suggested that SHBC is able to provide circa 350 units per annum between 2023-2027 whilst in the latter years they are only able to demonstrate approximately 130 dpa. However, even if I was to accept that this was the case, this would appear to ignore more immediate needs before 2023.
39. If in the future, the SHBC unmet need changes either positively or negatively, this will need to be considered in a future review of the Plan or could trigger an early review if necessary. Notwithstanding this, I am mindful that housing requirements are not maximums and Hart accommodating the currently identified unmet needs of SHBC would not rule out sustainable development being permitted in SHBC.
40. Accommodating SHBC’s unmet need would add 41 dpa to the housing requirement over the revised Plan period (2014 to 2032), which would result in a total housing requirement of 7,614 dwellings over the Plan period, which equates to 423 dpa. Modifications (MM10, MM19, MM21, MM26 and MM139) are therefore necessary to the strategic objectives, Policy SS1, its supporting text and the housing trajectory to amend the housing requirement. This will ensure that the Plan is positively prepared and in accordance with national policy.
Affordable housing
41. The SHMA calculates the level of affordable housing need within the HMA and for each of the authorities. In Hart the identified need for affordable housing 11
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
is 306 dpa (126 dpa for subsidised rented accommodation and 180 dpa for affordable home ownership). This equates to the need for some 5,500 affordable homes over the Plan period (2014 to 2032). I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the SHMA and the assumptions used in this regard and I consider the calculation of affordable housing need to be robust. Notwithstanding this, as is discussed below, the identified need is significantly higher than the amount of affordable housing that is likely to be delivered.
42. The Council are in a relatively unusual position whereby a very large proportion of the necessary supply over the Plan period already has planning permission and as a result, there is a fair level of certainty in relation to how much affordable housing is likely to be delivered. The Council (EXAM56b) has provided a trajectory of the anticipated delivery of affordable housing. This identifies that between 2016 and 2032 it is forecast that 1,633 affordable units would be delivered. Based on a tenure split of 65% subsidised rented accommodation and 35% affordable home ownership, the Plan would meet 47% of the identified need for subsidised rented accommodation. I am mindful that the trajectory provided by the Council is from 2016 to 2032. Given my findings above that the Plan period should be from 2014 to 2032 to correlate with the SHMA, this figure is likely to be higher to take into account any affordable homes delivered in 2014 and 2015. However, any increase is likely to be modest.
43. The PPG 2012 (ID 2a-029-20140306) states that an increase in total housing figures should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes. A housing requirement of 423 dpa, is in the region of 67% above the demographic starting point identified in the SHMA (254 dpa). Providing for this level of increase will result in significantly more affordable housing being delivered than if the household projections had been used. I consider that to uplift the housing requirement further could result in open market dwellings being provided when there is no evidence of need, which could lead to an imbalance between homes and jobs and unsustainable commuting patterns.
44. I am also mindful that there are other ways that additional affordable housing could be delivered, for example through rural exception sites under Policy H3 of the Plan. In addition, although the Council set out at the hearing sessions that there are currently no plans to provide affordable housing themselves, this could change during the Plan period.
45. Given all of this and despite the views expressed in the Council’s Affordable Housing Background Paper (HOU5) (March 2017), I am not persuaded that a further uplift to the housing requirement is justified in this case. It is therefore likely that some of those with affordable housing needs will continue to be dependent on the private rented sector, in some cases supported by housing benefit.
12
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Conclusion on main issue 1
46. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the OAHN and the housing requirement are justified.
Issue 2 – Whether the spatial distribution of housing growth in the Plan is sound.
The Spatial Strategy of the Plan
47. The spatial distribution of housing in the Plan is set out in Policy SS1 ‘Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Growth’. This identifies that new homes will be delivered over the Plan period through: existing completions; existing commitments (sites with planning permission); further development and redevelopment within settlement boundaries; Policy SS2 (delivery of Hartland Village); Neighbourhood Plans; Policy H3 (rural exception sites); and Policy NBE1 (development in the countryside).
48. Due to the large level of existing completions and commitments the Plan only allocates one site, Hartland Village for approximately 1,500 dwellings (approximately 1,368 to be delivered over the Plan period). Hartland Village is largely previously developed land and is in an accessible location. The pre submission Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (CD5a) found that the delivery of Hartland Village was the most sustainable growth option to meet housing needs over the Plan period. For reasons set out later in my assessment of legal compliance, I consider that the pre submission SA to be robust. I am satisfied that the allocation of Hartland Village to meet the remaining housing need after existing completions and commitments are taken into account is the most appropriate and sustainable strategy and is therefore justified. In any event, I am mindful that Hartland Village now benefits from planning permission, and I understand that the first phase is under construction.
49. I acknowledge that there are no medium and/or small site allocations directed towards other settlements in the District. However, it can be seen from the existing completions and commitments that most of the defined settlements in the Plan have or will receive some growth over the Plan period. Further, whilst it has been argued that more development should be diverted to the more rural communities to ensure their viability and vitality, I am mindful that Policy SS1 does allow for Neighbourhood Plans to deliver new housing. This would allow those communities who feel that the delivery of more housing would be of benefit to their community to be able to do so.
50. Policy NBE1 allows development in the countryside in certain circumstances. It has been suggested that Policy NBE1 should only apply to isolated development. Whilst, I acknowledge that Paragraph 55 of the NPPF seeks to avoid isolated new homes in the countryside, it does not suggest, in my view, that all housing in the countryside that is not considered isolated is acceptable in principle. The NPPF makes clear that it should be read as a whole. Further, I have found the Council’s spatial strategy to be justified and it does not depend on any notable housing outside of settlement boundaries. Policy NBE1 also includes the consideration of all types of development and not just housing. Given all of this, I am not of the view that it is necessary for Policy NBE1 to refer to isolated development to be consistent with national policy.
13
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
51. It has also been suggested that as a priority, settlements outside of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA buffer zones should have received growth first. However, it has been sufficiently demonstrated that any adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from the Plan can be suitably mitigated. Nonetheless, I am mindful that the vast majority of the supply needed over the Plan period benefits from planning permission.
52. On a related matter, although the Plan does not expressively rely upon it to deliver its spatial strategy, the introductory text to the Plan does identify a settlement hierarchy. This sets out that: the main urban area is Fleet (including Church Crookham and Elvetham Heath); the primary local service centres are Hook, Yateley and Blackwater and Hawley; the secondary local service centres are Hartley Wintney and Odiham and North Warnborough. These are based on the findings of the Settlement Hierarchy for Hart District Council, 2010 (OTH1). This considered each settlement in terms of its population, facilities and services. Whilst this was produced some time ago, I consider that it offers a reasonable basis to identify the settlement hierarchy in this Plan.
53. The Council had suggested modifications to remove the settlement hierarchy from the Plan as the spatial strategy was not reliant upon it. However, setting out the settlement hierarchy is likely to provide useful context for future windfall developments and is sound.
54. It has been suggested that all settlement boundaries should have been reviewed and expanded to meet the identified housing needs. However, I consider that this is not necessary to meet the identified housing need within this Plan and therefore the current settlement boundaries are appropriate.
Policy SS3 – New Settlement
55. The Plan’s strategy also includes Policy SS3, which sets out the Council’s commitment to preparing a New Settlement Development Plan Document (DPD) after the adoption of this Plan. Policy SS3 and its supporting text identifies an Area of Search (AoS) at Murrell Green / Winchfield for the delivery of up to 5,000 dwellings through the production of a New Settlement DPD. The Plan states that it is not required in this Plan period to meet identified housing needs. Despite this, the Council anticipate that some 1,500 homes from the proposed new settlement would be expected to be delivered within the Plan period.
56. I acknowledge that such delivery would help to meet the relatively modest shortfall in supply at the end of the Plan period identified under Matter 4. However, I have a number of fundamental concerns with regard to the soundness of Policy SS3. The Council and the site promoters have suggested that because the Plan does not rely on any delivery of housing from the proposed new settlement that Policy SS3 in itself cannot be found unsound. However, the policy sets out that ‘Permission will be granted for the development of a new settlement to be identified from the area of search identified on the Policies Map following the adoption of a New Settlement Development Plan Document and agreed comprehensive masterplan’. The 14
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Plan is therefore establishing the principle of a new settlement as the most appropriate growth strategy for meeting the Council’s long-term needs. It is also establishing a relatively confined area of search for a new settlement.
57. The tests of soundness require the Plan to be justified and therefore ‘the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence’ (Paragraph 182 of the NPPF). To find Policy SS3 sound, I must therefore be satisfied that a new settlement within the identified AoS is the most appropriate growth strategy to meet long-term needs, when considered against reasonable alternatives.
58. The SA (CD5a) that accompanied the pre-submission Regulation 19 consultation on the Plan did not test reasonable alternatives to a new settlement and it was considered as a ‘constant’ as part of all reasonable alternatives that were appraised. On this basis, I am not of the view that the pre-submission SA, in its own right, appropriately or robustly considers reasonable alternatives to a new settlement as a long-term growth strategy.
59. The Council has, however, produced a ‘Post Submission Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report’ (post submission SA) (CD5c) to supplement the pre- submission SA. This did test a number of alternative growth strategies to a new settlement. Putting aside the concerns raised in terms of legal compliance of the post submission SA, in terms of consultation, I am concerned by the way in which the new settlement has been considered and ranked against reasonable alternatives. These concerns were set out in detail in a post hearing letter to the Council (EXAM60) and related to the rankings given for the historic environment, land and other resources, flood risk, landscape, climate change and water. I will not repeat such details here.
60. I accept that the AoS by its very nature leads to some uncertainties, but in this case, the boundary of the AoS is, in my view, relatively confined and the indicative concept plan provided by the site promoters, once the requirements for SANG are taken into account, shows much of the AoS boundary being utilised as part of the proposed new settlement. It is therefore not, in my view, significantly different to that of a site allocation boundary.
61. I acknowledge that some evidence has been provided by the site promotors, particularly in support of their Regulation 19 representations. However, these represent very high-level broad overviews, with little in the way of detail. I am not of the view that there is sufficient evidence before the examination to support the rankings given to the AoS for the new settlement within the post submission SA or to allow a suitably robust comparison of reasonable alternatives to be undertaken, based on proportionate evidence. As a result, I consider that Policy SS3 and its supporting text are not justified, as, on the currently available evidence, it cannot be determined that it represents the most appropriate long-term growth strategy.
62. Further, the post submission SA is not robust and should not be relied upon in support of the Plan. Consequently, there is no need to address concerns
15
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
raised with regard to consultation and legal compliance of the post submission SA.
63. In addition, there is little evidence to demonstrate that a site can actually be delivered in terms of infrastructure, viability and landownership within the identified AoS. The Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) does not include any consideration of the proposed new settlement other than a brief mention of the potential secondary school and the viability assessment has not directly considered a proposed new settlement in the AoS. Again, whilst there is some information from the site promoters in relation to such matters, it is not of any great substance.
64. Evidence was also provided at the hearing sessions that shows a significant parcel of land cutting across the middle of the AoS that is not either in the ownership of the site promoters or land that is available to them. It was set out by Winchfield Parish Council at the hearing sessions that the owner of the land is not willing to release it as part of the development. This was not disputed by the Council or the site promoters. There is consequently some doubt, at this time, whether a comprehensive and inclusive new community can be delivered as required by Policy SS3 and its supporting text. Given all of this, I am not sufficiently content based on the evidence available to the examination that Policy SS3 is deliverable and is therefore not effective.
65. I am of the view that a significant level of further supporting work would be required for Policy SS3 to be found sound in its current form, which would need to include appropriate and proportionate area/site assessments, infrastructure considerations, viability testing, evidence in support of deliverability and further SA work, which would need to be done in an impartial manner with sufficient evidence to support its findings and comparisons with alternative options. Any further SA work would also need to include additional standalone consultation. This would have all led to a significant delay in the examination to allow such work to be undertaken.
66. It was suggested at the hearing sessions that such detailed work and assessment would be undertaken as part of the preparation of the New Settlement DPD. However, the Plan is establishing the principle of a new settlement as being the most appropriate strategy in the long-term, over other growth options such as smaller strategic urban extensions to existing settlements to name one example. Based on the Council’s approach it is evident that potential growth options, alternative to a new settlement, would not be considered through the production of the New Settlement DPD. Logically, the only reasonable alternatives considered would be potential site options within the already defined AoS boundary. Consequently, I am of the view that there needs to be sufficient evidence now to support the proposed new settlement AoS, to allow a robust comparison to be undertaken with reasonable alternative long-term growth strategies and to allow me to take a view that there is a real likelihood that a site could come forward in the AoS that would not have unacceptable impacts. For the reasons set out above, at the current time, I do not consider this to be the case.
16
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
67. Given my findings in terms of the housing requirement and that Policy SS3 is not required for the Plan to be sound (Matter 4) and in light of my findings above, I consider that for the Plan to be justified modifications (MM6, MM7, MM11, MM12, MM19, MM20, MM22, MM25, MM32, MM36, MM53 and MM146) are required to remove Policy SS3, its supporting text and other references to the New Settlement from the Plan. The Council will also need to remove the area of search from the policies map on adoption for the Plan to be effective.
Conclusion on main issue 2
68. I consider that with the recommended modifications the Plan’s spatial strategy is the most appropriate and is therefore justified. The Plan is therefore sound in relation to this main issue.
Issue 3 – Whether the site allocation and the settlement boundaries are justified and sound.
Site Selection
69. The Council’s approach to site selection and assessment is set out in the Site Assessment Methodology Report, 2017 (within HOU6). The sites promoted for housing were assessed using this methodology through the High Level Site Assessments and the Detailed Site Assessments (HOU6). Site selection was also informed by the Hart Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (HOU3a and HOU3b) and the pre-submission SA (CD5a).
70. There have inevitably been concerns raised with regard to the scoring and ranking of some promoted sites, particularly in relation to those that have not been selected for allocation in the Plan. However, I am mindful that these matters are subjective and require judgement to be applied. I am content that the Council’s judgements are within the realms of reasonableness. The adequacy of the pre-submission SA is also examined later on in this report.
71. Overall, I am satisfied that the Council’s approach to site selection and the appraisal of reasonable alternatives, has been robust and is sound.
Hartland Village
72. The Plan includes one site allocation at Hartland Village for approximately 1,500 dwellings. The site is allocated by Policy SS2, which includes a number of provisions and criteria. The site now benefits from planning permission. In order to ensure that the Plan is effective several changes (MM27, MM28, MM30 and MM31) are needed to Policy SS2 and its supporting text to ensure that it reflects that which has now been granted permission. This includes the provision of leisure facilities. Further, the modifications remove reference to the provision of older persons housing and delete reference to the level of affordable housing being reviewed at each phase of the development. Whilst both of these changes have raised some concerns, the permitted development does not include these provisions and is currently being implemented. This was considered acceptable by the Council for reasons associated with viability. However, to ensure the Plan is positively prepared, it is necessary to amend
17
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
the supporting text at Paragraph 121 (MM30) to state that should a future planning application be submitted that results in the total number of dwellings exceeding 1,500, then the scheme would be subject to the requirements of Policy H1 in full.
73. Criterion b) of Policy SS2 requires the provision of a local neighbourhood centre. However, to ensure consistency with national policy, an alteration (MM28) is needed to set out that residential use may be appropriate above retail or commercial units providing the active frontage is not compromised and that satisfactory residential amenity can be achieved. Again, to ensure consistency with national policy, a modification (MM29) to criterion k) of Policy SS2 is necessary to refer to the protection of bridleways.
74. The Council has proposed to alter the policies map to show the area of SANG adjacent to the site allocation. I consider this to be appropriate and will ensure that Policy SS2 is effective. In addition, it has come to my attention that Policy SS2 does not refer to the policies map. In order for the Plan to be effective a modification (MM27) to Policy SS2 is necessary to address this matter. Whilst this alteration was not subject to consultation, I consider it to be a relatively minor change.
Settlement boundaries
75. The defined boundaries of each settlement are set out on the policies map as proposed to be amended (CD2 and EXAM2 to EXAM45). This includes several changes to expand settlement boundaries to include completed and permitted major developments, which I consider to be appropriate. In addition, the Council has proposed changes to the Dogmersfield settlement boundary to encompass recently permitted development and changes to the Odiham Settlement Boundary to ensure consistency with the Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan. These changes were consulted upon alongside the MM schedule. Again, I consider these changes to be appropriate. In order, to ensure the Plan is effective these changes will need to be made to the policies map when the Plan is adopted.
76. On a related matter, Policy SS1 sets out that one source of new homes will be from sites within settlement boundaries. Paragraph 103 of the supporting text notes that settlement boundaries will be reviewed through future development plan documents. However, a change (MM24) is needed to also refer to the fact that settlement boundaries could also be changed through Neighbourhood Plans.
Conclusion on main issue 3
77. I consider that with the recommended main modifications, the site allocation and the settlement boundaries are justified and sound.
18
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Issue 4 - Whether the Plan’s assumption in terms of supply are sound, whether the Plan will meet the identified housing need and whether there is a reasonable prospect of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites on adoption.
Components of supply
Hartland Village
78. Hartland Village forms the only site allocation in the Plan and is allocated through Policy SS2. As set out above, the site benefits from planning permission. This is in the form of outline planning permission for 1,500 homes and full planning permission for the first phase (181 dwellings). At the hearing sessions the site promoter set out that site clearance works have started on site and I see no reason to question the lead in times anticipated by the Council, which would see the site start to deliver completions early this year. In terms of anticipated delivery rates, the Plan currently projects that Hartland Village will deliver 1,428 dwellings over the Plan period. However, during on- going discussions between the Council and the site promoter during the examination this has altered, and it is now anticipated that the site will deliver 1,368 new dwellings over the Plan period. For the Plan to be effective alterations are needed to reflect this change and this is addressed by MM23, MM139 and MM144. The anticipated delivery rates peak at 132 dpa in 2022/23, with numerous other years close to this figure.
79. Whilst I acknowledge that for a single house builder, the delivery of up to 132 dpa and an average, over the life of its development, of 105 dpa is challenging, it has nonetheless been achieved within Hart in the past. The Council has provided details of a site at Queen Elizabeth Barracks, where a single developer delivered an average of 130 dpa, with several years being over 200 dpa. I acknowledge that the site delivered a greater level of affordable units than will be delivered at Hartland Village, which can aid the quantity of housing delivered per year. However, even so, the Queen Elizabeth Barracks site delivered, at its peak, significantly more homes than is anticipated at Hartland Village.
80. Furthermore, I accept the Council’s view that Hartland Village is somewhat unique and will be an attractive new community to reside, particularly given the large area of SANG that will be delivered alongside the new homes. I am also particularly mindful that Hart is a sought after location to live, which is supported by the fact that very few planning permissions lapse. Having regard to such matters, I am content that the Council’s projected delivery of new homes from Hartland Village is reasonable.
Other aspects of supply
81. Appendix 2 of the Plan illustrates the housing trajectory. As set out above, I consider that it is necessary to alter the Plan period to reflect the SHMA. Alterations to the housing trajectory and completions table to include 2014/15 and 2015/16, are therefore necessary for the Plan to be effective and this is
19
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
addressed by MM139 and MM140. As a result of MM140, the level of existing completions over the Plan period increases from 798 to 2,217.
82. In addition, the Council has sought to update the components of supply to reflect more up-to-date information about their delivery, which includes a base date of 1 April 2018. I consider this to be reasonable and necessary for the Plan to be effective and up-to-date. These updates are made through MM19, MM22, MM23, MM141, MM142, MM143, MM144 and MM145. This base date also correlates with the Council’s five year housing land supply statement (HOU4). Having regard to the MM consultation responses, a change is needed to MM23 to clarify that sites within settlement boundaries can include those identified through neighbourhood plans. This will ensure the Plan is effective.
83. The Council is in the fairly unusual position whereby the vast majority of supply needed over the Plan period benefits from planning permission. The Plan (as amended in MM141) identifies that at 1 April 2018, 3,652 dwellings benefit from planning permission. However, the Council has set out that of this, 5 dwellings have now lapsed and 385 dwellings relate to prior approvals where they cannot be legally implemented until they have acquired SANG to mitigate impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and should therefore not be considered deliverable. The Plan (as amended in MM141) therefore considers that 3,262 dwellings are deliverable (this excludes Hartland Village, which is included under site allocations).
84. The Council has confirmed that the delivery assumptions for large sites of 10 or more dwellings with planning permission have been informed by discussions with the site promoters. I consider that there is no reason for me to disagree with the Council’s assumptions made in terms of delivery from such sites, which are reasonable.
85. The next component of supply relied upon by the Council relates to sites within settlement boundaries. The Plan (as amended by MM142) assumes that 150 dwellings will be delivered through 6 sites over the Plan period. This is based on site assessments in the SHLAA. Again, there is no reason for me to disagree with the assumed delivery of these sites, which are reasonable.
86. The Plan as currently drafted includes supply from ‘Deliverable Sites’. However, as part of the updated information the Council set out that there were now no sites that fit within this category. I understand that this is largely as a result of planning permissions being granted and these sites now being considered within the identified commitments. For the Plan to be effective, MM23 and MM143 is therefore needed to delete the table setting out the ‘Deliverable Sites’.
87. In terms of site allocations, Hartland Village has been discussed above. However, the Plan also relies on the supply of 111 dwellings from site allocations within the made Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan. The delivery rates from these have been criticised for being too conservative. Whilst, this could well be the case, I do not consider that
20
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
making conservative assumptions, particularly having regard to the evident healthy level of supply early in the Plan period, results in the Plan being unsound and no changes are needed.
88. The final component of supply is a windfall allowance. The Plan (as amended by MM145) and its housing trajectory assumes that 23 dwellings will be delivered per annum from 2020/21 until the end of the Plan period, a total of 276 dwellings. This is based on clear evidence of historic windfall delivery rates. I consider this to be a reasonable approach.
89. Policy SS1 notes that supply may also be gained through permitting rural exception sites and other housing where it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside. I agree with the Council that this source of supply is unlikely to generate significant numbers of new dwellings and there is little evidence to base a robust allowance on within the housing trajectory. Consequently, I am content that the Plan does not need to include an allowance in relation to rural exception sites and other housing where it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside.
90. The Council’s assumptions on supply do not include any lapse rates. The Council’s Matter 5 Hearing Statement sets out that over the past seven years only a small number of permissions have lapsed and that all of these relate to developments of 10 dwellings or less. The same hearing statement calculates that if the average lapse rate is drawn from the last four years (where there has been a noticeable rise) the average lapse rate for sites of 10 dwellings or less is 6.3%. If this is then applied to outstanding planning permissions for sites of up to 10 dwellings relied upon in the supply, it would reduce by just 13 dwellings. I do not consider this to be a significant figure that affects the soundness of the Plan. On this basis, I consider that based on the historical evidence provided, there is no need to incorporate lapse rates into the Plan’s supply assumptions. Overall, the Plan (as amended) anticipates the delivery of 7,384 dwellings.
Whether the Plan will meet the identified housing need?
91. Based on the revised trajectory set out in MM139, I calculate that a housing requirement of 423 dpa over the Plan period (7,614 dwellings in total) results in a shortfall of supply of 230 dwellings. I also calculate that this shortfall would occur in the last year of the Plan period (2031/32). The Council agrees with this assessment.
92. The NPPF 2012 at Paragraph 47 sets out that to boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should (amongst other things) be able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 (to meet identified needs).
93. The Plan would provide for specific, developable sites for 11 years following the adoption of the Plan. I consider that this would meet the requirements of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF and the shortfall of 230 dwellings during the last 21
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
year of the Plan period does not result in the Plan being unsound, particularly as the Plan would need to be reviewed in 5 years’ time in any event. A modification (MM22) is required to set this position out within the Plan.
94. There is clear evidence that over recent years, very few sites in Hart see their planning permissions lapse, particularly for sites over 10 dwellings. I am also mindful that in the short term there is forecast to be a very healthy level of supply over and above the housing requirement in the first five years of the Plan following adoption. This means that a review of the Plan in 5 years’ time would ensure that any under or non-delivery from sites in the longer term can be suitably addressed if necessary at that time. It is also feasible that additional windfall development could come forward over the Plan period that would meet the relatively modest shortfall.
Five year housing land supply
95. The Council’s five year housing land supply statement (HOU4) sets out that against a housing requirement of 388 dpa the Council can demonstrate a 9.53 year supply. I have found that the housing requirement should be increased to 423 dpa to address unmet need from SHBC. Given that this finding was after the close of the hearing sessions, I did not request the Council to produce a revised housing land supply position to take this into account. This was on the basis of the very healthy level of supply anticipated over the next five years.
96. Table 3 of the Council’s five year housing land supply statement (HOU4) illustrates the historic performance of the Council since 1996/97. Table 3 shows that there has been peaks and troughs. However, I consider that the Council, through Table 3, has sufficiently demonstrated that it has overdelivered against the relevant housing requirements (which have changed during this period) over the past 20 years.
97. Further, in the past 5 years (2013/14 to 2017/18) where completions are confirmed, the Council has also overdelivered, even against the increased housing requirement of 423 dpa. Given all of this, the Council does not have a persistent record of under delivery and I consider that a 5% buffer should be applied.
98. I have found that all aspects of the Council’s supply have been based on reasonable assumptions. I am content that even at a greater housing requirement of 423 dpa that the Council will have a healthy five year housing land supply on adoption of the Plan.
99. I acknowledge that the majority of supply is front loaded towards the beginning of the Plan and that the housing trajectory shows supply significantly reducing below the housing requirement from 2025/26 onwards. My attention has also been drawn to the requirement in the NPPF (Paragraph 47) to maintain delivery of a five year supply of housing land to meet the housing target.
22
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
100. I consider that previous oversupply during the beginning of the Plan period should be taken into account during the calculation of the Council’s five year housing land supply. Consequently, towards the end of the Plan period where supply falls below the housing requirement, the five year land supply calculation at that point in time should take into account the oversupply above the housing requirement during the early years of the Plan.
101. I am also mindful that in practice, the delivery of some sites may slip and therefore result in a more even spread of supply during the early and middle parts of the Plan period. Given the very healthy supply during the next five years, this offers a good level of flexibility to allow some slippage to later on in the Plan period.
102. The issue of the newly introduced Housing Delivery Test (HDT), which will be relevant to decision making, was discussed. The Council in its Matter 5 Hearing Statement (Table 13) calculated that it could starting dipping below 95% from 2025/26. I am mindful that a review of the Plan within 5 years of the adoption of the Plan can address any implications associated with the HDT at that time.
Conclusion on main issue 4
103. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan is sound in relation to this main issue and the Council will be able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply on adoption of the Plan.
Issue 5 - Whether the Plan’s approach to the delivery of affordable housing is sound.
104. Policy H2 sets out the Plan’s approach to the delivery of affordable housing. This requires no less than 40% of developments for new homes to be affordable housing. Having regard to the supporting Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study 2016 (ECO3a) I consider this percentage to be justified. However, I consider that ‘no less than’ could mean that the Council could seek to secure higher levels of affordable housing. The Council confirmed that this was not their intention and I am mindful that the Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study 2016 (ECO3a) indicates that higher levels of affordable housing could make developments unviable. Consequently, a change (MM38) is needed to remove ‘no less than’ to ensure the Plan is justified. For the same reason, a subsequent change is also needed (MM44) to the penultimate paragraph of Policy H2.
105. Policy H2 sets out that developments of 11 or more units (or exceeding a gross internal area of 1000 square metres) will be required to make provision for affordable dwellings. This complies with the guidance in the PPG. However, I am mindful that the NPPF 2019 requires major developments (10 or more dwellings or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more) to make provision for affordable units. Whilst this Plan is being examined under the transition arrangements, I consider that it would be appropriate to modify Policy H2 in this regard (MM38) so that it is consistent with national policy moving forward.
23
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
106. For the same reason and to aid the decision-making process, I also consider that it would be appropriate to amend the supporting text of Policy H2 (MM37 and MM45) to refer to the latest definition of affordable housing in the NPPF 2019 and to update the definition in the Plan’s glossary (MM134). Further, I also consider that it is appropriate to update the tenure mix definitions in Policy H2 (MM39) and its supporting text (MM37) to reflect those in the latest definition of affordable housing in the NPPF 2019.
107. National policy requires that affordable housing for rent should be used solely for that purpose and remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or the subsidy should be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. However, this is not included within Policy H2 and therefore a modification is required to add a new criterion to the policy to address this matter (MM43). This will ensure compliance with national policy.
108. Criterion d) of Policy H2 requires that at least 15% of the affordable units will be accessible and adaptable as defined by requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations. Based on the need for accessible and adaptable homes in the Council’s topic paper (TOP5) and the viability evidence set out in the Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study 2016 (ECO3a) and its Addendum (ECO3d), I consider this to be justified. Further, I am content that this proportion is appropriate. However again, the criterion refers to ‘at least’, which could indicate that the Council may seek more than 15%, which I consider could have the potential to make developments unviable. A change (MM40) is therefore needed to remove ‘at least’ for the Plan to be justified.
109. The policy at criterion e) considers the requirements of Building Regulations M4(3) and sets out that where evidenced by local need, a proportion of affordable dwellings should be built as wheelchair user dwellings. I consider this to be vague and ineffective. The Council has suggested a modification to overcome this matter, that sets out that based on local need one or more of the affordable dwellings will be built as wheelchair user dwellings to meet, or exceed where justified, the requirements of Building Regulations M4(3). Having regard to the need for accessible and adaptable homes in the Council’s topic paper (TOP5) and the viability evidence set out in the Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study 2016 (ECO3a) and its Addendum (ECO3d), I consider this to be appropriate and MM41 is required for the Plan to be justified and effective. To reflect this change, an alteration to the supporting text is also necessary (MM47) to set out the circumstances when it might be justified to exceed the standard in Building Regulations M4(3) and to state that wheelchair user dwellings will be negotiated on a site by site basis recognising viability considerations.
110. Further, a change (MM42) is necessary to insert a footnote for criteria d) and e) to set out ‘Or as otherwise amended by the Building Regulations’. This will ensure any future changes to the building regulations can be suitably considered.
111. The supporting text to Policy H2 makes it clear that the policy applies to specialist and supported housing schemes. Concerns have been raised that the ability for such schemes to deliver 40% affordable housing can be difficult due to other costs associated with such housing. I accept this view and therefore consider that a modification is necessary (MM46) to set out that as
24
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
much affordable housing as is viable (up to 40%) will be sought for specialist and supported housing, on a site by site basis. This will allow the merits of each individual case to be considered and is required for the Plan to be justified and effective.
112. It has been brought to my attention that Policy H2 refers to ‘exceptional circumstances’, which does not comply with national policy. I have therefore amended MM44 to remove reference to exceptional circumstances. Whilst, such a change was not consulted upon, I consider it to be minor and does not alter the overall meaning of the policy.
113. Policy H3 of the Plan considers rural exception sites for affordable housing. The policy current states that an element of market housing will be supported where at least 70% of the total number of proposed dwellings would be affordable housing for subsidised rent. At the hearing sessions it was discussed where the 70% figure had originated. I am not of the view that there is sufficient evidence to justify this threshold and it could lead to much needed affordable housing not being delivered. Subsequently, to ensure compliance with national policy, there is a need to alter Policy H3 (MM49) to set out that some market housing will be supported as part of a rural exceptions scheme where it would facilitate the provision of affordable accommodation to meet local needs. This would allow the merits of each individual case to be considered. It has come to my attention that a subsequent change to the supporting text of Policy H3 to reflect this change is necessary and I have amended MM50 in this regard.
114. The supporting text to Policy H3 sets out that it is envisaged that rural exception sites would be for developments of up to 20 dwellings. However, for the Plan to be effective and consistent with national policy, it is necessary to clarify that where there is an established local need, developments could be greater in size. MM50 is therefore required to address this matter.
115. On a related matter, the supporting text to Policy H3 at Paragraph 189 states that the Council may use compulsory purchase powers to deliver rural exception sites. For the Plan to be effective and consistent with national policy, it is necessary to set out (MM48) that this would be as a last resort.
Conclusion on main issue 5
116. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan’s approach to the delivery of affordable housing is sound.
Issue 6 - Whether the Plan makes adequate provision to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople.
117. The Plan is supported by the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (2016) (the GTAA), which assesses the additional need for pitches and plots over the Plan period. The GTAA sets out that there is currently an over provision of 5 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers who meet the definition set out in the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2015) (the PPTS). However, the GTAA also notes that an additional 10 pitches are required for non-travelling gypsies and travellers. This represents a shortfall of 5 pitches. I am particularly mindful of the requirements of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. 25
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Consequently, I consider that the Council should be seeking to positively meet this need and the reliance on the criteria based Policy H5 results in the Plan not being positively prepared and unsound.
118. Identifying additional pitches to meet this future need would not be a quick process and to allow the rest of the Plan to be adopted without undue delay, the Council agreed at the hearing sessions to produce and submit for examination a Gyspy and Traveller DPD within two years of the adoption of this Plan. Consequently, to ensure the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy, changes are needed (MM54 and MM55) to Policy H5 and its supporting text to secure the production of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD within two years of the adoption of this Plan or by January 2022 (whichever is soonest). I have altered the timescale to January 2022 to reflect the passage of time since the MM consultation took place.
119. In addition, I also have concerns in relation to the robustness of the GTAA itself. This primarily relates to the duration and time of year that the interviews were undertaken. The interviews undertaken of the gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople that underpinned the evidence of the GTAA were conducted between May and June 2016. I consider this to be a limited period of time and was at a time of year when traditional gypsy horse fairs occur and consequently when many gypsy and travellers are travelling. This appears to be evident in the GTAA as 14 households were not present to be interviewed. As a result, I consider that the GTAA should not be relied upon when considering the need for future proposals, as there is a realistic probability that need has been underestimated.
120. Therefore, for the Plan to be justified MM54 and MM55 are necessary to remove reference in the Plan to the GTAA. The Council had proposed to publish a new GTAA in 2019 and have referred to this within MM55, which I consider to be appropriate. However, again to reflect the passage of time, I have amended this timeframe to 2020.
121. MM54 includes alterations that make clear that before the adoption of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, future proposals will be considered against Policy H5 (as amended) and will need to demonstrate a need for the proposal. In the absence of a robust GTAA, I consider that this is an appropriate approach and is necessary to ensure soundness. However, having regard to the MM consultation responses, I consider that it should be made clear that this would only apply to sites within the open countryside to be consistent with national policy. I have therefore amended MM54 to this effect. MM55 also includes additional supporting text to clearly set out to future applicants what will be considered when establishing whether or not there is a need for the proposed development, which is necessary for the Plan to be effective.
122. It is also necessary within MM54 to make alterations to ensure that Policy H5 applies to both travelling and non-travelling gypsy and travellers. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.
123. Further, some other more minor alterations are needed to the criteria of Policy H5 (MM54) to ensure the Plan is effective. This includes amending criterion c) to refer to services and facilities being ‘suitably’ accessible rather than ‘readily’ accessible as currently drafted. I consider that this is needed to reflect the intentions of the PPTS. 26
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
124. MM54 alters criterion d) to refer to the significance of heritage assets. During the MM consultation it has been raised that this does not accord fully with the NPPF. I consider that Policy NBE9 of the Plan suitably addresses matters associated with the Historic Environment and consequently there is no need for repetition within Policy H5. I have therefore removed its reference in criterion d). This will ensure the Plan is effective.
125. The Council has suggested alterations to criterion g) to set out that sites should not be inappropriately screened and should not create a sense of isolation from adjoining communities. I consider this to be in accordance with the PPTS and is necessary for soundness.
126. On a related matter, I consider criterion j) of Policy H5 to be consistent with the PPTS, which sets out at Paragraph 13 that sites should not be located in areas at high risk of flooding, including functional floodplains, given the particular vulnerability of caravans.
127. The Plan currently contains definitions of gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople in the glossary that do not reflect those in the PPTS. Changes (MM135 and MM137) are therefore needed to ensure compliance with national policy.
Conclusion on main issue 6
128. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan makes adequate provision to meet the needs of gypsies and travellers and travelling showpeople and is sound.
Issue 7 - Whether the other housing policies of the Plan are soundly based.
Housing mix
129. Policy H1 of the Plan sets out the Council’s approach to the housing mix from market housing. Criterion d) refers to site suitability for self and custom build homes. However, the Plan currently does not set out what will be considered when determining if a site is suitable such housing. A change is therefore needed (MM35) to set out that site suitability will be considered on a case by case basis and considerations will include the scale of the development, its layout and the type of dwellings proposed. For example, for a block of flats, it would not be feasible to have a proportion of self build, as the flat(s) could not be separated for a self build purpose.
130. Criterion d) of Policy H1 sets out that for developments of 20 dwellings or more, 5% of plots should be for self and custom built homes, subject to site suitability and the need shown on the self and custom build register. MMs were consulted upon (MM34, MM36 and MM128 of EXAM64) to remove the 20 dwelling threshold. However, I am mindful that in order for developments to be able to provide a 5% provision that they would need to be at least 20 dwellings in size. I have therefore not recommended these modifications as they are not required for soundness.
131. I am not of the view that the Plan’s approach to self build and custom housing in Policy H1 is contrary to national policy, which sets out that Council’s should 27
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
encourage their delivery thorough various mechanisms. I am mindful that the PPG (Paragraph: 025 Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) sets out that relevant authorities should consider how they can best support self-build and custom housebuilding in their area, include developing policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding. I consider the Council’s approach complies with this guidance and therefore Policy H1 complies with national policy in this regard. Further, given the evidence provided in the Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study 2016 (ECO3a) and its Addendum (ECO3d), I am content that a requirement of 5% of dwellings on suitable sites to be self and custom build plots would not make developments unviable.
132. The supporting text to Policy H1 also notes at Paragraph 176 that if such plots are not taken up by the public after being marketed for at least two years then they will be allowed to revert to conventional build plots. I agree with concerns raised that a two year marketing period is excessive and the Council has suggested that this should be reduced to one year. For the Plan to be justified and effective, I consider that a change (MM35) is needed to alter the marketing period to one year.
133. Criterion b) of Policy H1 requires that at least 15% of new dwellings will be accessible and adaptable as defined by requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations. Having regard to the Council’s Topic Paper on Accessible Homes (TOP5), I am satisfied that the imposition of this optional technical standard is justified and consistent with national policy. Further, based on the Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study 2016 (ECO3a) and its Addendum (ECO3d), I am content that this threshold is appropriate and would not make developments unviable.
134. Similarly to criterion d) of Policy H2, as discussed under main issue 5, criterion b) of Policy H1 refers to ‘at least’, which could indicate that the Council may seek more than 15%, which I consider could have the potential to make developments unviable. I have therefore amended MM33 and MM34 to include this change to Policy H1 and its supporting text. This will ensure the Plan is consistent, justified and effective.
Housing for older people
135. The SHMA contains an assessment of need for housing for older people. The PPG (Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 2a-021-20150326) sets out that: ‘…The age profile of the population can be drawn from Census data. Projection of population and households by age group should also be used… The future need for specialist accommodation for older people broken down by tenure and type (e.g sheltered, enhanced sheltered, extra care, registered care) should be assessed and can be obtained from a number of online tool kits provided by the sector. The assessment should set out the level of need for residential institutions (Use Class C2)…’.
136. The SHMA (HOU1a) at Pages 210 to 217 takes the approach advocated in the PPG and utilises census data, population projections and utilises the Strategic Housing for Older People (SHOP) analysis toolkit. This identifies a need for sheltered accommodation (52 units per annum), enhanced sheltered accommodation (14 units per annum), extra care housing (8 units per
28
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
annum), residential care (33 units per annum) and nursing care (22 units per annum). It is clear that this is a significant need.
137. I appreciate that the use of other data sources may result in differing or higher levels of need. However, the SHMA has followed the approach suggested by national policy. Whilst the Plan is being examined under transitionary arrangements, it is also worth noting that the new PPG guidance (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 63-004-20190626), now specifically refers to the SHOP analysis tool kit as being an appropriate toolkit. Given all of the above, I consider the assessment of need for housing for older people to be in accordance with national policy and is therefore sound.
138. The Plan seeks to meet the needs of older people in a number of ways. Policy H1 requires as part of the housing mix provision to be made for specialist/supported housing where appropriate. Policy H1 and Policy H2 also require a proportion of new market and affordable dwellings to be accessible and adaptable homes.
139. It has been suggested that the Plan should allocate sites for specialist/ supported housing. The Council confirmed at the hearing sessions that no sites that it considered to be appropriate and/or deliverable were put forward. Several omissions sites have been promoted and I acknowledge that the site promotors disagree with the Council’s site assessments. However, as set out above in relation to the site selection process, such assessments are often a matter of judgement that can be somewhat subjective, and I have found that the judgements made by the Council in the SA (CD5a), SHLAA (HOU3a and HOU3b) and High Level and Detailed Site Assessments (HOU6) to be within the realms of reasonableness.
140. It has also been pointed out to me that the majority of supply required to meet housing needs over the plan period has already been granted planning permission and therefore Policies H1 and H2 are unlikely to deliver any significant levels of housing for older people. I also acknowledge that for viability reasons Hartland Village the only site allocation in the Plan has been granted planning permission without any provision for older people’s housing.
141. Notwithstanding this, the Plan does recognise these matters and includes Policy H4 that specifically addresses specialist and supported housing. This takes a more flexible approach to meeting such needs and where certain criteria are met would allow proposals outside of settlement boundaries and therefore in the countryside to come forward. Given the above, I consider this to be a pragmatic approach that in the circumstances is justified and results in the Plan being positively prepared. This approach would allow suitable windfall sites to be delivered and could also allow the promoted omission sites to be considered through the decision-making process on their merits.
142. However, it is clear that the Council will need to monitor the delivery of housing for older people carefully and I am mindful that the Plan will be reviewed within the next five years, in any event, where such matters can be addressed if necessary.
29
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
143. Turning to the wording of the policies that relate to the provision of older peoples housing in the Plan, Policy H1 includes criterion c) that requires housing proposals to make provision for specialist/supported accommodation where appropriate. It is not clear from Policy H1 or its supporting text when the Council will consider it appropriate for housing schemes to make provision for specialist/supported accommodation. Changes are therefore needed to Policy H1 (MM33) and its supporting text (MM34) to refer to the need for the development, as evidenced in the SHMA and the factors (such as scale, location, design and layout) that will be considered when determining if provision should be made. This will ensure the Plan is effective. During the MM consultation, it was suggested that at the time of determining an application, there may be other relevant evidence in relation to need that should be considered. I accept this view and I have amended MM33 to also refer to other relevant evidence. I do not consider it necessary to include the consideration of need in MM34, as this is addressed by MM33.
144. Policy H4 sets out that proposals for specialist and supported dwellings will be permitted within a) settlement boundaries and Hartland Village and b) on sites within the countryside, where certain criteria are met. The criteria include: where there is a demonstrable need; that there are no available or viable alternatives within settlement boundaries and the site is well related to an existing settlement with access to appropriate services and facilities either on or off site.
145. The MM schedule as consulted upon (MM52 and MM53 of EXAM64) included alterations to criterion b) i) of Policy H4 and its supporting text. This included the need for applicants to demonstrate a ‘local’ need for the scheme. However, I have had regard to the consultation responses on the MM schedule and I accept that need is best established on a district level, as identified in the SHMA and that this could place an unreasonable burden on future applicants. I have therefore not included this modification in the MM schedule to this report.
146. In a similar manner, the MM schedule as consulted upon (EXAM64) also set out changes to criterion b) i) to state that ‘there are no available or viable alternatives sites within settlement boundaries where the need arises’. However, given my above findings in terms of ‘local’ need, this would not be appropriate. The wording of Policy H4 criterion b) i) of the Plan (as submitted) could be interpreted to mean that all sites within settlement boundaries in the District would need to be considered, in terms of whether they were available and viable for the development proposed. I consider that this would place an unreasonable burden on future applicants. Consequently, to ensure that the Plan is justified and consistent with national policy, a change (MM52) to the supporting text of Policy H4 is required to set out that a proportionate level of evidence should demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within defined settlements, that are in the vicinity of the application site and that it will not be necessary to investigate all settlements in the District.
147. Whilst the wording of MM52, in this regard, is different from that in the MM schedule that was consulted upon (EXAM64) (as a result of my findings with regard to local need), I consider that it establishes the same principle that applicants should not be expected to examine all defined settlements in the
30
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
District for alternative sites when seeking to ensure compliance with criterion b) of Policy H4. Therefore, I am of the view that the alteration that I have made to MM52 is not significantly different from that which has been consulted upon. Depending on the site’s location, the defined settlements that should be considered for alternative sites would be considered on a site by site basis and would be a matter of judgement for the decision maker.
148. As already set out above, criterion b) i) requires that there are no available or viable alternatives within settlement boundaries. However, having regard to consultation responses on the MMs, I consider that alternative sites should be both available and viable. I have therefore amended MM51 to address this matter. This will ensure the policy is effective.
149. There have been concerns raised more generally about the sequential approach of Policy H4 by only allowing sites in the open countryside if there are no available and viable sites within settlement boundaries. However, I consider that the approach of Policy H4 is consistent with national policy that seeks to steer development towards settlements that offer the greatest level of services and facilities.
150. Policy H4 at criterion b) ii) requires sites to be well related to an existing settlement with access to appropriate services and facilities either on or off site. However, it is not clear in the Plan what appropriate access might be or what factors will be considered when determining such matters, such as for example the nature of potential occupants. A modification to the supporting text to Policy H4 (MM52) is therefore needed to address this matter and to ensure the policy is effective.
151. Finally, to ensure consistency with alterations to Policy SS2, as discussed above, it is necessary to remove reference to Hartland Village from Policy H4 (MM51). This will ensure the Plan is effective.
Space standards
152. Policy H6 requires development proposals for new homes to meet or exceed the nationally described space standard. I consider the Council’s Topic Paper: Internal Space Standards for New Homes (TOP3a) and its Appendix (TOP3b) provide robust justification for its implementation and is therefore justified and consistent with national policy. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it would be appropriate to seek developments to exceed the space standards. A modification (MM56) is therefore needed to address this matter and for the Plan to be justified.
153. To ensure the Plan is consistent with national policy and is effective, it is necessary (MM57) to set out that the space standards apply to market and affordable housing, including conversions and change of use proposals. Further, it is also necessary (MM57) to set out that if a development does not comply with the space standards then it must be supported by evidence of viability. This will ensure consistency with national policy.
154. The Council has also suggested a modification (MM58) to refer to the requirements of other policies in terms of adaptable and accessible homes in the supporting text to Policy H6. I consider that this is appropriate to aid future applicants and is necessary for the Plan to be effective. 31
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Conclusion on main issue 7
155. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the other housing policies of the Plan are soundly based.
Issue 8 - Whether the strategy for job growth and employment is sound.
156. The Plan is supported by the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Joint Employment Land Review Update, 2016 (ECO2a) (the ELR). This considers the employment land needs of the Functional Economic Area (FEA) comprised of the three authorities. I consider that the ELR complies with the guidance in the PPG and considers future employment needs based on employment labour demand; employment land supply; and past take up trends.
157. The ELR concludes that there is sufficient floorspace for office use in the FEA but that industrial land is tight. Its conclusions took account of both quantitative and qualitative factors. I see no reason to disagree with the findings of the ELR, in terms of its assessment of need and I consider it to be robust.
158. Policy ED1 of the Plan sets out the Council’s approach when considering planning applications for new employment. A change is needed (MM59) to refer to the policies map. This will ensure the policy is effective. Further, Policy ED1 under criterion d) refers to an overriding need having to be demonstrated to justify new employment provision in the countryside. The NPPF encourages a strong rural economy and does not refer to there having to be an overriding need. To ensure compliance with national policy, changes are needed (MM60 and MM61) to Policy ED1 and its supporting text to remove reference to overriding need.
159. Policy ED2 of the Plan addresses the safeguarding of employment land and premises. It identifies 6 strategically important sites and 13 locally important sites. A change is needed (MM62) to refer to the policies map, to ensure the policy is effective.
160. The policy sets out that strategic employment sites are safeguarded from other uses and that locally important sites can be considered for other uses in certain circumstances. It has been suggested that the same flexibility should be applied to strategic sites. I acknowledge that Paragraph 22 of the NPPF sets out that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. However, in this case the ELR has considered the suitability of the strategic employment sites and reinforces the importance of safeguarding existing provision to ensure that there is sufficient employment land over the Plan period. Further, the Plan will need to be reviewed within the next 5 years, where the role of each site can be re- considered. Given this, I consider that the Council’s approach to safeguarding strategically important sites is sound.
161. The strategically important sites identified in Policy ED2 include a site known as Bartley Wood, Hook. It has been drawn to my attention that there have been several prior approvals granted for office to residential use. It is evident that this has affected the strategic importance of the site. Consequently, I consider that a modification (MM63) is necessary to remove Bartley Wood, 32
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Hook from the strategic sites and to safeguard the site as one of local importance, where there is a greater level of flexibility to allow alternative uses, where this would be appropriate. To ensure Policy ED2 is effective this change will also need to be made to the policies map. During the MM consultation it has been raised that further prior approvals have been granted and that the site should not be safeguarded at all. However, it remains unclear to me whether the more recently permitted prior approvals remove all buildings from the site that are in employment use. Further, I consider that Policy ED2 (as amended by MM63) allows a suitable level of flexibility.
162. In a similar manner, concerns have been expressed about the suitability of Ancells Business Park, Fleet to be considered a locally important site. I am content the sites designation as a locally important site is appropriate, given that the policy allows some flexibility as discussed above.
163. The Council has proposed changes to the boundaries of: Waterfront Business Park; Blackbushe Business Park; Eversley Storage; and Optrex Business Park on the policies map to correct errors. I consider this to be appropriate and will ensure that Policy ED2 is effective.
164. On a related matter, at the time of the hearing sessions the Council were seeking to enforce an Article 4 Direction to stop permitted development rights for office to residential conversions. The appropriateness of this was not for me to consider as part of this examination. I understand that the Article 4 Direction has now been implemented. MM67 of the MM schedule (EXAM64) that was consulted upon was written in a manner that reflected that the Article 4 direction had not, at that time, been implemented. I have therefore amended the MM accordingly to address this change in circumstance. MM66 is needed to alter the supporting text of Policy ED2 to refer to this matter. This will ensure that the Plan is effective.
165. Policy ED2 does not offer any protection to existing employment uses outside of the strategically and locally important sites. Given the importance that employment uses make to the rural economy and to ensure compliance with national policy, I consider that changes are needed (MM64) to Policy ED2 to set out the circumstances when the loss of other existing employment sites will be justified.
166. During the examination, interested parties raised concern that the Council’s guidance on the allocation of Council owned or managed SANG does not allow it to be allocated to sites that are designated as strategic or locally important employment sites. Given the flexibility associated with locally important employment sites, which would allow the potential for residential development in certain circumstances, this is an area of concern. I consider that it would be unreasonable for proposals that met the requirements of Policy ED2 to be subsequently refused Council owned or managed SANG provision that could in effect, block its delivery. Alterations (MM65 and MM67) are therefore needed to Policy ED2 and its supporting text to make clear that if a development proposal meets the requirements of Policy ED2 then the loss of employment land would not be a reason for refusing an allocation of Council owned or managed SANG.
33
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
167. Policy ED3 considers the rural economy and sets out a number of circumstances where development proposals for economic uses will be supported in the countryside. In order for the policy to be effective, a change (MM68) is needed to remove ‘or’ at the end of criteria b) and d). This ensures that the policy reads as intended.
Conclusion on main issue 8
168. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan’s strategy for job growth and employment is sound.
Issue 9 - Whether the strategy for town, district and local centres and retail is sound.
169. Policy SS1 of the Plan sets out that over the Plan period an additional 5,900 square metres (net) of convenience and 3,960 square metres of comparison floorspace (net) is required. These figures reflect those identified in the Retail, Leisure and Town Centres Study 2015, Part 1 and Part 2 (ECO5a and ECO5b) (the Retail Study). I consider this to be a robust assessment.
170. The Plan does not allocate any specific sites to meet this need, other than the provision of a local neighbourhood centre at Hartland Village within Policy SS2. However, this will not meet all of the identified need. The Council confirmed at the hearing sessions that no sites considered suitable were promoted during the Plan’s preparation and whilst the Retail Study did identify sites, these did not have any landowner or developer backing and therefore their deliverability could not be ensured.
171. The Council has set out that the Retail Study indicated that existing units would help to accommodate growth, in terms of increased turnover densities and a reduction in vacancy rates. However, the Council conceded that this, in itself, would not be sufficient to meet the identified need.
172. The Plan seeks to meet the identified need in several ways. Firstly, through the identification of the town, district and local centre boundaries in Policy ED4 that provide some certainty regarding the areas in which retail and main town centre development will be encouraged, but also provides flexibility by potentially allowing any site within the centre to come forward.
173. Secondly, Policy ED5 identifies a Primary Shopping Area (PSA) within Fleet Town Centre, which has been significantly extended to include land previously described as a secondary retail area. I consider this additional area to be well connected and significantly increases opportunity for new retail and main town centre use floorspace.
174. The Council also set out that neighbourhood plans may also allocate sites and that there are many neighbourhood plans being drafted, which cover the town, district and local centres.
175. Given that no deliverable and acceptable sites were put forward during the Plan’s preparation, I consider that the Council’s approach to meeting the identified need to be justified. However, the Council will need to monitor the delivery of additional floorspace carefully. I am mindful that the Plan will
34
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
need to be reviewed within the next 5 years, where such matters could be revisited if necessary.
176. Policy ED4 of the Plan sets out the Plan’s approach to maintaining and improving the vitality and viability of the town, district and local centres. This includes the identification of a hierarchy: with Fleet as the only town centre; Blackwater, Hook and Yateley being district centres; and Hartley Witney and Odiham designated as local centres. Having regard to the evidence within the Retail Study, I consider the hierarchy to be justified.
177. Policy ED4 includes a threshold that requires development for town centre uses exceeding 1,000 square metres to be supported by an Impact Assessment. Based on the evidence provided in the Retail Study, I consider this threshold to be justified. However, a modification (MM69) is necessary to set out that this relates to gross floorspace and not net floorspace as this was an error. This will ensure the Plan is effective.
178. It has been brought to my attention that Policy ED4 requires proposals for ‘main town centre uses’ outside of town centres to undertake a retail impact assessment. However, the NPPF only seeks an impact assessment for ‘retail, leisure or office development’. Further, the NPPF 2019 requires only ‘retail and leisure’ development to undertake an impact assessment. Consequently, I have altered MM69 to reflect the wording of the NPPF 2019 to ensure compliance with national policy moving forward. To reflect this change and to ensure consistency with national policy, alterations are also needed to the supporting text of Policy ED4 and I have added these to MM69. For the same reasons, a further main modification (MM149) is also needed to amend the glossary definition of retail impact assessments.
179. Whilst these additional changes have not been consulted upon, I consider that they are necessary to address inconsistencies with national policy and are not significant ones. Further, I am mindful that the NPPF 2019 will be a significant material consideration for decision making in any event and it is appropriate to bring Policy ED4 in line with the latest position of national policy to aid decision making.
180. Policy ED5 relates to Fleet town centre. This includes several criteria that proposals within the identified primary shopping area must meet. The NPPF at Paragraph 23 recognises that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres. To be consistent with national policy, a change is needed to Policy ED5 (MM70) to set out that residential use may be appropriate above retail or commercial units providing the active frontage is not compromised and that satisfactory residential amenity can be achieved. In addition, for the same reason changes are needed to Policy ED6 that addresses development in district and local centres (MM71) and the introductory text at the front of the Plan (MM3).
181. Interested parties have set out that more should have been done to regenerate Fleet’s town centre and I acknowledge the feasibility study provided in this regard by one party. Further, I acknowledge the suggestion that the provision of mixed-use developments that include residential might help to meet future housing needs in the longer-term. However, no deliverable sites with sufficient landowner or developer backing have been put forward for such developments within Fleet town centre or any other district 35
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
or local centre. Although, I am mindful the modifications discussed above (MM70 and MM71) would allow such mixed-use developments to come forward as windfall. Nonetheless, the Council will need to ensure that all options for meeting future housing needs are considered fully in future reviews of the Plan, including the potential for regeneration.
Conclusion on main issue 9
182. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan’s strategy for town, district and local centres and retail is sound.
Issue 10 – Whether or not the key issues, vision, strategic objectives and policies associated with the natural and built environment in the Plan are soundly based.
183. The Plan identifies 14 key issues that the Plan must address. In order to ensure compliance with national policy, changes (MM4 and MM5) are needed to refer to the need to consider the public rights of way network and to appropriately refer to the District’s heritage assets.
184. The Plan’s vision does not refer to the important matter of flood risk. To ensure that the Plan is consistent with national policy a modification (MM8) is necessary to address this matter. Further, MM9 is needed to ensure the vision appropriately refer to heritage assets in accordance with the NPPF. Having regard to the MM consultation responses, it has been suggested that the vision should include reference to ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees in accordance with the NPPF. I consider this to be appropriate and necessary for the Plan to consistent with national policy. I have therefore amended MM9 accordingly.
185. The NPPF and the Plan both promote the use of previously developed land. However, this is not reflected in the strategic objectives. To ensure compliance with national policy, a modification (MM16) is required to add an additional strategic objective to the Plan to address this matter and a change is also needed (MM136) to add the NPPF definition of previously developed land to the glossary. In addition, changes are needed to strategic objectives 9 (MM13) 10 (MM14) and 13 (MM15) to appropriately refer to heritage assets, refer to the provision of sustainable transport and to make reference to public rights of ways respectively. These will ensure the Plan is consistent with national policy.
186. Policy SD1 of the Plan identifies its approach to sustainable development. The last paragraph reflects Paragraph 14 of the NPPF 2012. However, I am mindful that the equivalent paragraph (11) in the NPPF 2019 has been amended. I consider it is appropriate to ensure the policy is consistent with national policy moving forward and a change is needed in this regard (MM17).
187. The Plan’s approach to development in the countryside is set out by Policy NBE1. This identifies the countryside as being outside of settlement boundaries. However, I am mindful that the Plan also designates strategic and locally important employment sites. These should not be considered as countryside and therefore, for the Plan to be effective, changes (MM72, MM74 and MM75) are needed to Policy NBE1 and its supporting text to set 36
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
this out. Having regard to the MM consultation responses, this amended also needs to be reflected in MM73 and I have amended this modification accordingly.
188. Paragraph 261 of the supporting text to Policy NBE1 sets out the context to the policy. I consider that this goes beyond the protection afforded by the NPPF and alterations (MM73) are needed to ensure compliance with national policy. It has been raised that Paragraph 261 should clarify that a more restrictive approach to development in the countryside is taken than for development within the defined settlement boundaries and designated Strategic and Locally Important Employment sites. I agree that this is necessary for the Plan to be effective and I have amended MM73 accordingly. I am not of the view that that Paragraph 261 should include reference to historic landscape character, as this is covered by Policy NBE3 of the Plan and there is no need for duplication.
189. Policy NBE1 at criterion g) sets out that replacement dwellings or extensions to existing dwellings would be considered suitable in the countryside. I am mindful that the NPPF, 2019 also allows for the subdivision of an existing dwelling. I consider it is appropriate to ensure the policy is consistent with national policy moving forward and a change is needed (MM76). Criterion h) of Policy NBE1 allows the conversion of previously used permanent buildings or redundant agricultural buildings to be developed for appropriate uses. However, neither the policy nor the supporting text sets out what is an appropriate use. A change is needed (MM77) to add a footnote that explains an appropriate use is one that is consistent with other development plan policies. This will ensure the Plan is effective.
190. The NPPF allows housing development in the countryside where it would secure the optimal viable use of a heritage asset and is of exceptional quality or truly innovative in design. Further, the PPTS also considers that gypsy and traveller sites may also be considered appropriate in the countryside. For Policy NBE1 to be consistent with national policy, a modification (MM78) is needed to add these additional criteria.
191. Paragraph 267 of the Plan sets out that applications for rural worker dwellings which are primarily made on the grounds of providing security will not generally be supported. However, there may be certain circumstances where this could be justified. An alteration (MM79) is therefore needed to set out that rural worker dwellings for such reasons need to be robustly justified and explain why alternative security measures are inadequate.
192. Paragraph 271 of the Plan sets out that the redevelopment of suitable previously developed land in the countryside will be encouraged provided that the site is not of high environmental value and that the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s rural context. The Council has sought to modify this paragraph (MM80) to clarify that such proposals should not cause harm to areas of high environmental value. I consider this to be necessary for the Plan to be effective.
193. Policy NBE2 designates indicative gaps between settlements. These are illustrated on the key diagram and policies map. The policy sets out that the precise boundaries of the gaps will be determined through a separate development plan document or through neighbourhood plans. I consider that 37
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
the identification of indicative gaps which have ambiguous boundaries shown on the policies map is ineffective. This is because, firstly it is unclear to me how this could be reasonably applied during decision making and secondly, such an approach could lead to arguments about whether a site is located within the indicative gap or not. Having regard to the evidence provided by the Council and the discussions that took place at the hearing sessions, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to allow the gap boundaries to be formalised within this Plan. Consequently, to ensure the Plan is justified, I consider that modifications (MM81, MM147 and MM148) are needed to remove Policy NBE2, its supporting text and references to it from Appendix 4 and 5 from the Plan.
194. I have also become aware that a subsequent change is needed to Policy SS2 ‘Hartland Village’ and its supporting text to remove reference to the site’s location in a gap. I have amended MM28 and MM31 to include this change. This will ensure the Plan is consistent and effective.
195. I am not of the view that the deletion of Policy NBE2 and the removal of Saved Policies CON19 ‘Strategic Gaps – general policy’, CON20 ‘Strategic Gaps: Blackwater Valley ‘and CON21 ‘Local Gaps’ from the list in Appendix 5 of the Plan (MM148) weakens the protection provided by the development plan. This is because modifications are also recommended to Policy NBE3 ‘Landscape’. The Council has proposed modifications (MM82 and MM83) to Policy NBE3 and its supporting text. I consider that reference to the avoidance of physical or visual coalescence of settlements, or damage to their separate identity, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development is consistent with the NPPF. I therefore consider MM82 and MM83 to be appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with national policy.
196. I am not of the view that Policy NBE3 or its supporting text (as modified by MM82 and MM83) would restrict all potential development between settlements. But, instead, it would allow matters such as coalescence to be considered on a case by case basis, where it is of relevance. Further, I consider the use of ‘perception’ in the supporting text (MM83) to be justified, as there may be circumstances where settlements can be perceived to have coalesced even if they have not physically done so.
197. MM83 also sets out that policies to designate specific areas or ‘gaps’ between settlements can be prepared through subsequent Development Plan Documents and Neighbourhood Plans. This also raised concern during the MM consultation. I am mindful that the designation of gaps is relatively common and the Council could seek to identify gaps in future development plan documents, such as the planned Development Management DPD, but would need to be sufficiently evidenced at that time. In addition, the same would apply to gaps designated in neighbourhood plans, where the justification for such designations would need to be robustly evidenced for any future examiner to find them appropriate.
198. The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) is the subject of Policy NBE4. A number of changes (MM84, MM85 and MM86) are needed to Policy NBE4 and its supporting text to ensure that it reflects the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the People Over Wind and
38
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta case in April 2018 and to ensure that there will be no adverse effect on the SPA, in accordance with national policy.
199. It has been brought to my attention that the changes to the supporting text proposed in MM85 and MM86 are not entirely consistent with Policy NBE4. This relates to proposals for 50 or more net new dwellings that would be located within 5 to 7 kilometres of the SPA. Policy NBE4 sets out that such developments may be required to provide mitigation measures. It also sets out that this will be assessed on a site by site basis in consultation with Natural England (NE) and where necessary an appropriate assessment may be required. However, the changes to the supporting text to Policy NBE4 that were consulted upon in the MM schedule (MM86 and MM87 of EXAM64) set out that all developments of 50 or more net new dwellings that would be located within 5 to 7 kilometres of the SPA will need to undertake an appropriate assessment.
200. I consider that it is not necessarily the case that all such developments will have a likely significant effect and therefore it should not automatically be the case that they will need to undertake an appropriate assessment. Consequently, I have amended MM85 and MM86 to ensure the supporting text is consistent with Policy NBE4, which I consider sets out the correct approach to such developments, in accordance with the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework (ENV3) and national policy. I am also mindful that NE has not raised any concerns with regard to the wording of Policy NBE4 in relation to this matter.
201. I am not of the view that MM85 seeks to pre-empt the assessment stage. The additional text sets out that for proposals between 400 metres and 5 kilometres from the SPA, an appropriate assessment will be necessary where there is a net increase in dwellings. Further, to provide guidance to future applicants the additional text sets out the probable outcome of the assessment if contributions are made to the Thames Basin Heaths Avoidance Strategy. The role of the Thames Basin Heaths Avoidance Strategy is to ensure no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA arises from new housing development via recreational pressure. Consequently, I consider that it is appropriate to set out to future applicants that compliance with the Thames Basin Heaths Avoidance Strategy would likely result in a conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
202. I consider that the use of the word mitigate in MM85 is also appropriate, given that mitigation measures may result in no harm arising. I am also mindful that NE has not raised any concern with regard to the wording of MM85.
203. I do not consider that Policy NBE4 should contain additional criteria in relation to SANG provision. I am mindful that the supporting text to Policy NBE4 sets out that proposals for new SANG must be approved by the Council (as competent authority) following advice from NE and will be expected to follow NE’s SANG guidelines. As a result, I do not consider that there is a need to duplicate such guidelines within Policy NBE4 or its supporting text.
204. I acknowledge that SANG provision is sometimes made in areas of flood risk, which might affect their usability. I am mindful that the NPPF sets out within its core objectives that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food 39
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
production). It is therefore clear that it can be appropriate for open land to be multifunctional. Further, the supporting text to Policy NBE4 notes that if the SANG is used for publicly accessible open space, then it must be of high quality in accordance with the Hart Open Space Study, 2016. This at Appendix 2 sets out a quality scoring matrix that includes whether the site is with a flood zone. Given all of this, I consider that the usability of the site will be an important focus, including factors such as flood risk, when the suitability of a proposal for SANG is being considered by the Council and NE. On this basis, I consider that no changes are needed in this regard. Further, it is relevant to note that NE do not share any of the above concerns.
205. On a related matter associated with the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, the introductory text of the Plan at Paragraph 26, sets out that the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) confirms that the recreational impacts of proposed development on European sites can be avoided or mitigated. It also confirms that air quality is not likely to cause a significant effect on the SPA. However, the Plan itself does not refer to increases in nitrogen deposition that can adversely affect the SPA. A change is needed (MM2) to address this matter and to set out that the Council is committed to working with partners to monitor roadside air quality that may affect the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. This ensures compliance with national policy.
206. Policy NBE5 addresses the matter of biodiversity. When consulted upon, MM88 of EXAM64 included an alteration to set out that development should conserve or ‘where possible’ enhance biodiversity. I am mindful that Paragraph 8 c) of the NPPF 2019 refers to protecting and enhancing. Consequently, I consider that it is not necessary to make such a change and I have removed the modification from the schedule, this will ensure the policy is consistent with national policy moving forward. Several alterations (MM87, MM88 and MM89) are needed to Policy NBE5 and its supporting text to ensure compliance with national policy and to refer appropriately to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
207. Managing flood risk is the subject of Policy NBE6. Changes (MM90 and MM91) are needed to the policy to appropriately refer to national policy and guidance on flood risk. This ensures that the policy is effective and consistent with national policy.
208. Policy NBE8 requires all new homes to meet the water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person a day. Having regard to the evidence in the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Water Cycle Study and appendices, 2017 (ENV5a and ENV5b), I consider that this is justified. Further, I am content that it would not result in developments becoming unviable and the cost of such measures is low, as shown in the Whole Plan and CIL Viability Study, 2016 (ECO3a).
209. To ensure compliance with national policy in terms of the historic environment, several changes (MM92, MM93 and MM94) are needed to Policy NBE9 and its supporting text, to ensure its wording reflects that in the NPPF.
210. Policy NBE10 of the Plan relates to design. To ensure the policy is consistent with national policy, modifications (MM95 and MM96) are required to refer to
40
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
public rights of way within criterion b) and reducing opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour in criterion g).
211. Proposals for renewable and low carbon energy are considered by Policy NBE11. A change (MM97) is needed to criterion c. to appropriately refer to heritage assets in accordance with the NPPF. To ensure compliance with national policy, a modification (MM98) to Policy NBE12 ‘Pollution’ is needed to refer to cumulative impacts.
Conclusion on main issue 10
212. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the key issues, vision, strategic objectives and policies associated with the natural and built environment in the Plan are soundly based.
Issue 11 - Whether the Plan’s approach to infrastructure is justified and consistent with national policy.
213. In support of the Plan, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), 2018 (INF1) has been produced by the Council. I consider that the Council’s consideration of infrastructure to be robust and the IDP and Transport Assessment, 2018 (INF2) sufficiently demonstrates that the Plan (as modified) is deliverable. However, I consider a modification (MM100) is necessary for the Plan to be effective, that explains the role of the IDP and how any funding gaps will be delivered. I am also mindful that the vast majority of the supply needed to meet the housing requirement already benefits from planning permission, including Hartland Village. Consequently, the individual needs of sites have been considered through the decision-making process and it has been found that they can be delivered appropriately with any necessary infrastructure secured.
214. Highways England has raised concern that the increased housing requirement to accommodate the unmet needs of SHBC could result in increased impacts on the Strategic Highway Network that have not been assessed. However, as already set out above, I do not consider that additional sites are necessary for this Plan to be sound. In the future, when the Plan is reviewed and the identified modest shortfall in supply in the last year of the Plan period is addressed, new evidence will be required to demonstrate how housing needs, at that time, can be suitably delivered without unacceptable impacts on the highway network.
215. In relation to SANG capacity, the HRA identifies at Paragraph 5.17 that even after the allocation of housing provided by the Plan (including 265 windfall dwellings) and the quantum of SANG allocated for use by neighbouring RBC, that SANG sites under the Council’s control have remaining capacity for 916 units (dwellings). I have been provided with no substantive evidence to doubt this position. Further, I am mindful that the vast majority of supply needed to meet the housing requirement benefits from planning permission, where the provision of suitable SANG will have been considered where necessary. Given that I have found the Plan’s spatial strategy to be sound, I am not of the view that additional SANG capacity needs to be delivered in parts of the District where there is an existing deficit, as development in these areas is not necessary.
41
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
216. Policy I1 sets out the Plan’s approach to the delivery of infrastructure. The policy sets out that all development that requires planning permission must make appropriate provision for infrastructure, on and off-site, or through financial contributions to off-site provision. However, I am mindful that there may be circumstances that sufficient infrastructure already exists and this is not necessary. Changes (MM101 and MM102) are therefore needed to address this matter to set out that this is will be required to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. This will ensure compliance with national policy.
217. The Council confirmed at the hearing sessions that it was not its intention to seek tariff based planning obligations for developments of 10 dwellings or less and that the viability assessment had not considered the ability of developments of such size to be able to make such contributions. Changes (MM102 and MM104) are therefore required to make this clear and to ensure the Plan is consistent with national policy. I appreciate that such thresholds have been removed in the NPPF 2019 and latest PPG guidance (with the exception of affordable housing). On this basis, it could be suggested that the policy should remain as it is without the above recommended modification. However, given that such requirements have not been tested in the viability assessment, this would in itself be unsound. Nonetheless, the NPPF 2019 and the latest PPG guidance, will be a significant material consideration in determining planning applications.
218. The Council accepted at the hearing sessions that the Policy I1 should refer to financial viability, in accordance with national policy, as there may be instances where the sought contributions would make a proposal unviable. A change to the policy (MM103) and its supporting text (MM105) is therefore necessary to make this clear and to set out what will be required of applicants in such circumstances. I consider that it is appropriate for these changes to reflect the NPPF, 2019 in terms of viability to ensure that the Plan is consistent with national policy moving forward.
219. The supporting text to Policy I1 at Paragraphs 381 and 382 considers waste water supply, surface water, foul drainage and sewage treatment capacity. Thames Water has advised that the provision of water treatment (both wastewater treatment and water supply) is met by its asset plans and as of 1 April 2018, network improvements will be from infrastructure charges per new dwelling. Modifications (MM106 and MM107) are therefore needed to reflect this matter and to ensure the Plan is effective. It has been suggested that these modifications reduce the protection offered by Policy I1 and that capacity issues should be properly investigated and addressed prior to any development. However, I am mindful that Policy I1 requires developers to demonstrate that there is adequate waste water capacity and surface water drainage both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users.
220. Paragraphs 373 and 384 provide supporting text to the Infrastructure section and Policy I1. Changes (MM99 and MM108) are needed to include public rights of way. This ensures compliance with national policy.
221. Policy I2 sets out the Plan’s approach to green infrastructure. The PPG at Paragraph: 029 Reference ID: 8-029-20160211 sets out that ‘Local Plans
42
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
should identify the strategic location of existing and proposed green infrastructure networks’. As currently drafted the Plan does not identify the existing green infrastructure network within the District. At the hearing sessions, the Council set out that it was possible to show the green infrastructure network on the policies map. A modification (MM109) is therefore required to criterion a) of Policy I2 to refer to the existing green infrastructure network being shown on the policies map. The Council will also need to ensure that the green infrastructure network that was consulted upon alongside the MM schedule is shown on the policies map on adoption of the Plan for Policy I2 to be effective.
222. Policy I3 relates to transport. To reflect national policy, a change (MM110) is needed to set out that development should promote the use of sustainable transport modes rather than offering maximum flexibility as currently drafted. Further, to ensure Policy I3 is effective and reads as intended, alterations (MM110) are needed to criterion f) and h). Paragraph 398 of the supporting text to the policy refers to Travel Plans. The Council has suggested a modification (MM111) to this paragraph to set out that consideration should also be given to the Hampshire Countryside Access Plan and Rights of Way Improvement Plans. I consider this to be required for the Plan to be consistent with national policy.
223. The Plan’s approach to open space, sport and recreation is set out by Policy I4. The policy sets out that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land including playing fields should not be built on, other than in three specific circumstances. However, it is not clear where the existing open space is located. The Council confirmed at the hearing sessions that the existing open space can be illustrated on the policies map. A change (MM MM112) to Policy I4 is therefore necessary to refer to the policies map for it to be effective. The Council will also need to ensure that when the Plan is adopted that the policies map includes the open space map that formed part of the consultation on changes to the policies map that was undertaken alongside the MM schedule. This will ensure that Policy I4 is effective.
224. At the hearing sessions, the Council confirmed that, in a similar manner to Policy I1, it is not seeking tariff based planning obligations from development of 10 or less dwellings. A modification (MM112) to Policy I4 and its supporting text (MM113) is therefore needed to make this clear. The supporting text to the policy at Paragraph 403 sets out that the exact nature of any on-site provision will need to be agreed on a case-by-case basis. Further, it states that where necessary, contributions to off-site improvements to open space, sports and recreational facilities will be required. However, it is not clear under what circumstances an off-site contribution will be considered suitable. For the policy to be effective, an alteration (MM113) is needed to the supporting text to address this matter and to provide clarity to future applicants.
225. Table 2 of the Plan that supports Policy I4 sets out the open space standards that will be applied to development proposals. This refers to Local Play Areas (LAPs), Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAPs) and Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAPs). Table 2 does not, however, set out what size these should be, to offer suitable guidance to future applicants. Consequently, a modification (MM114) is needed to set these out within Table 2. Table 2 also
43
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
sets out the requirement for natural and semi-natural green space to be delivered. However, the relationship between the need for this and proposals that also require the provision of SANG to mitigate impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA is not clear within the Plan. For the Plan to be effective, a change (MM115) is therefore necessary to set out that natural and semi- natural space will not be requested in addition to the provision of SANG (either on-site or through financial contributions) where required to mitigate impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
226. Policy I5 of the Plan addresses community facilities. A change (MM116) to criterion ii. is required to ensure that the policy reads as intended and is therefore effective.
227. Policy I6 sets out the Plan’s approach to broadband or successor services. Concern has been raised that the policy could place an unreasonable burden on developers. However, the Council set out at the hearing sessions that developers are only expected to deliver the necessary infrastructure within their site. Changes are therefore needed to Policy I6 (MM117) and its supporting text (MM118) to make this clear and also to set out that the Council will work with Hampshire County Council as well as the telecommunications industry to maximise access to superfast broadband. This will ensure the Plan is effective and consistent with national policy. I am not of the view that the requirements of Policy I6 (as modified) would affect the viability of developments.
228. Policy I7 safeguards land at Phoenix Green for a flood alleviation system. The Plan sets out that up to 80 properties are at risk of flooding. I am satisfied that there is a need to deliver the scheme, as set out in the Summary Technical Note - Outline Business Case for the Phoenix Green Flood Alleviation Scheme (INF4). Concerns have been raised by the landowner about the impact of the scheme on the agricultural holding on which it would be located. Further, it has been suggested that the Council has not demonstrated that it has the resources likely to be needed to implement the flood alleviation scheme and therefore it does not comply with Section 19(2) (i) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. However, the Council has set out that the scheme is a formal flood alleviation scheme on the Environment Agency’s Programme of flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes and is being funded through the Flood Defence Grant in Aid process. The Council also set out that the works can be undertaken using the Land Drainage Act 1991 section 14 (A) 1 which allows the Council to serve notice and undertake the works so compulsory purchase is not necessary. I see no reason to disagree and given the clear need for the scheme, I consider Policy I7 to be justified. However, the Council will need to monitor this position closely and if the scheme is not delivered then a review of Policy I7 may be necessary in the near future.
229. The changes to the policies map were consulted upon alongside the MMs. This included changes to the area of land safeguarded for the flood alleviation scheme to reflect the most up-to-date position on the land necessary to deliver the scheme. The Council will need to ensure that this change to the boundary is made to the policies map on adoption, to ensure that Policy I7 is effective.
44
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
230. Policy I8 safeguards land for education at Robert May’s School and Calthorpe Park School. I consider that the evidence provided by the Council shows that there is a need to safeguard such land to meet future educational needs and on this basis Policy I8 is justified. Proposed changes to the policies map that were consulted upon alongside the MMs included minor changes to the area of land safeguarded at Calthorpe Park School to reflect an updated position of the school’s needs. The Council will need to ensure that this change to the boundary is made to the policies map on adoption, to ensure that Policy I8 is effective.
Conclusion on main issue 11
231. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan’s approach to the delivery of infrastructure is sound.
Issue 12 – Whether the Plan’s delivery, monitoring and review framework is sound.
232. The Plan contains a delivery, monitoring and review framework, which includes a number of indicators. The Plan currently sets out that the Council will commence a review of the Plan in 2021 unless triggered sooner by other factors. However, during discussions at the hearing sessions it became clear that this was an error. Consequently, for the Plan to be effective, a change is needed (MM119) to correct this and to set out a review will be undertaken within five years of the adoption of the Plan or sooner if triggered by factors that are set out in Paragraph 427 of the Plan. It has been suggested that the Plan should contain firmer commitments for an early review if certain circumstances arise, such as if any unmet need from SHBC were to increase above that considered in the Plan (as modified). However, the review framework includes DtC issues such as housing and I consider that this is sufficient to monitor and trigger the need for an early review if necessary.
233. MM119 also includes a reference to the Council having aspirations to plan ahead for long-term growth needs, to reduce the risk of policies (particularly housing policies) becoming out of date and would provide greater certainty over the longer term. It also notes that all reasonable growth options, including the potential for a new settlement, would need to be fully considered in a future review of the Plan or a subsequent DPD. Reference to the Council’s aspiration for a new settlement has raised numerous concerns during the MM consultation. However, it must be borne in mind that it is an aspiration and MM119 makes clear that all reasonable growth options will need to be considered in the future. I therefore consider MM119 to be appropriate in this regard. Notwithstanding this, it has been suggested that the words ‘and evidenced’ should be included in MM119 to ensure that any long-term growth options are fully considered and supported by sufficient evidence. I consider this to be necessary for the Plan to be justified and effective and I have therefore altered MM119 to this effect.
234. A number of changes are needed to the monitoring framework objectives themselves to reflect other MMs. This includes: updating the housing completions and delivery assumption figures (MM121, MM122 and MM123); the deletion of references to Policy SS3 (MM120, MM124, MM126, MM127, MM128 and MM130); and to reflect the deletion of Policy NBE2 and
45
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
alterations to Policy NBE3 (MM129, MM131 and MM132). Further, an alteration (MM125) to indicator 4d is necessary to make clear that the annual target should be that 15% of new homes delivered in any given year are accessible and adaptable. These will ensure the Plan is effective.
235. Policy SS1 sets out that development will be focused on (amongst other things) previously developed land. However, there is no monitoring objective that considers this matter. For the Plan to be effective, a new monitoring objective is necessary (MM133).
Conclusion on main issue 12
236. I consider that with the recommended modifications, the Plan’s delivery, monitoring and review framework is sound. Assessment of Legal Compliance
237. My examination of the legal compliance of the Plan is summarised below.
238. The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Council’s Local Development Scheme (EXAM63) (LDS).
239. Consultation on the Local Plan and the MMs was carried out in compliance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (CD7).
240. I have set out above that the post submission SA (CD5c) that was primarily produced to consider the proposed new settlement area of search subject to Policy SS3 is not robust and should not be relied upon. However, I consider that the pre-submission SA (CD5a) that has been carried out is adequate to support the Plan (as modified).
241. A number of criticisms have been made of the pre-submission SA (CD5a). I consider that the pre-submission SA does appropriately look at different spatial strategies. Whilst this is done through different site combinations, it is clear that the reasonable alternatives include a single new large settlement (Hartland Village), strategic sites and non-strategic smaller sites that are dispersed throughout the District or several combinations of strategic and non-strategic sites. I consider that this offers a reasonable range of differing spatial strategies.
242. I acknowledge the concerns of the promoters of some of the sites who set out that because their site was considered along with a combination of other sites and that the low scoring of other sites affected the overall ranking of the reasonable alternative in which their site was appraised. However, it is clear that to meet the housing needs of the District many of the smaller non- strategic sites would have needed to be delivered together. I consider that such an approach is therefore acceptable. Further, to consider every possible combination of sites available would have led to dozens of reasonable alternatives and would have made the pre-submission SA unmanageable. Overall, I consider that the pre-submission SA considers an appropriate range of reasonable alternatives.
243. In terms of testing different housing levels to be delivered, this is also undertaken thorough the differing reasonable alternatives and site 46
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
combinations appraised in the pre-submission SA. These range from 397 dpa to 490 dpa, which I consider offers a suitable range. Whilst I knowledge that the post submission SA set out that it had also been produced (as well as to consider the proposed new settlement) to test a higher housing figure, I consider 490 dpa to be a reasonable maximum figure to test, which is significantly above the housing requirement in the Plan even as modified.
244. To inform the selection of reasonable alternatives a large number of proposed sites were appraised using a Geographical Information System (GIS). I consider that this approach and the criteria adopted to be an appropriate way of appraising a large number of sites, including those in relation to SANG, SINC and ancient woodland. It is inevitable that many site promotors disagree with the scoring of their site. In many instances, judgement is needed, and some considerations are clearly subjective. I have considered carefully the concerns raised by site promotors and I am content that based on the information that the Council had before them at the time of producing the pre-submission SA, its scoring was reasonable.
245. It should also be noted that it is not for the Council to suggest to site promoters how their site could be improved or what further information or clarification is needed to improve a site’s score. To do so for all promoted sites would be an unmanageable task. Further, it has been suggested that some of the scores for the sites should have been updated to reflect additional information provided as part of planning applications or clarifications submitted by site promoters. This would require the SA to be regularly updated. This simply isn’t practical, and I am mindful that at some point the Council has to draw a line under the evidence base and submit a Plan for examination.
246. Further to the above, I am particularly mindful that even if some of the scores were improved for the disputed sites, even significantly so, I am satisfied that Option 1 (Hartland Village only) would still be ranked the highest, given its location and previously developed nature. In addition, Hartland Village does benefit from planning permission and is currently being constructed. The spatial strategy for the Plan to meet the identified housing need has therefore, in the main part, already been set through existing planning permissions.
247. I note that a promoted site called Rye Common was not considered to be a reasonable alternative to those considered in the pre-submission SA. However, it was considered as an area of search alternative alongside the Murrell Green / Winchfield (area of search) for a new settlement in Appendix III. Rye Common was therefore appraised by the same criteria as the reasonable alternatives. I consider that this offers sufficient information to allow me to be content that had Rye Common been considered as a reasonable alternative that it would not have ranked higher that Option 1 (Hartland Village only), which is the spatial strategy adopted in the Plan (as modified).
248. There has been some suggestion that the SA addendum (EXAM65) to support the MMs should have considered further reasonable alternatives based on the increase in the housing requirement to 423 dpa. However, as I have already
47
Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites, Inspector’s Report 10 February 2020
found, further supply is not required to make the Plan sound. Consequently, this is unnecessary.
249. Overall, I am content that the pre-submission SA provides an adequate basis to inform the Plan.
250. The Habitats Regulations Assessment June 2018 (ENV13) sets out that a full assessment has been undertaken and that the Plan may have some negative impacts which require mitigation and this mitigation has been secured through the Plan as modified.
251. The Plan (as modified) includes a vision, strategic objectives and Policies NBE6, NBE8, NBE10, NBE11 and Policy I3 designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
252. The Local Plan complies with all other relevant legal requirements, including in the 2004 Act (as amended) and the 2012 Regulations.
253. I have had due regard to the aims expressed in S149(1) of the Equality Act 2010. This has included my consideration of several matters during the examination including the provision of gypsy and traveller sites, housing for older people and accessible and adaptable housing. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 254. The Plan has a number of deficiencies in respect of soundness for the reasons set out above, which mean that I recommend non-adoption of it as submitted, in accordance with Section 20(7A) of the 2004 Act. These deficiencies have been explored in the main issues set out above.
255. The Council has requested that I recommend MMs to make the Plan sound and capable of adoption. I conclude that with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix 1, the Hart District Council Local Plan – Strategy and Sites satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework. Jonathan Manning
INSPECTOR
This report is accompanied by Appendix 1 containing the Main Modifications.
48
Appendix 1 Schedule of Main Modifications
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM1 Cover, 1 Change plan period from 2016-2032 to 2014-2032. 1 & 6
MM2 10 26 The HRA confirms that the recreational impacts of proposed development on European sites can be avoided or mitigated. It also confirms that air quality is not likely to cause a significant effect on the SPA. Increased nitrogen deposition has the potential to result in heathland habitat change and loss of species diversity which could adversely affect the TBHSPA. The Council is committed to working with partners to monitor roadside air quality that may affect the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
MM3 18 66 The challenge for Fleet specifically, will be to secure investment so that it can compete with the comparable towns in neighbouring districts. There will be continued scope to diversify, for example the evening economy, leisure and entertainment and more focus on convenience retailing and services, but comparison retail will still be the driver of growth. The Council will support mixed-used development, which includes residential, within the District's centres where it maintains or enhances the vitality and viability of the centre.
MM4 24 92 - Key To protect and enhance the District’s green infrastructure and the public rights of way Issue 13 network;
MM5 24 92 - Key To conserve and enhance the significance and special interest of the District’s heritage assets Issue 14 and their settings
MM6 24 Vision, Delete following paragraph: third paragraph
1
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
To meet longer term needs the creation of a new settlement will have begun, providing new homes, jobs and infrastructure, including a new secondary school.
MM7 25 Vision, Amend paragraph 7 as follows: seventh paragraph Our infrastructure will have been enhanced to support the changing population. There will be including a new primary school at Hartland Village and educational facilities at the new settlement. New development will also have provided improvements to health care facilities. There will have been investment in our roads to tackle congestion and make them safer, and in measures to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport. Green infrastructure will have been protected and enhanced encouraging healthy communities and opportunities for wildlife to thrive.
MM8 25 Penultimate Amend penultimate paragraph of vision: paragraph New development will have been built to high environmental and design standards including. It will have been designed and located so that it is safe from flooding and has not increased the risk of flooding elsewhere and includes measures to meet the challenges of climate change. These developments will have respected the individual characteristics of the towns and villages across Hart and will have avoided the coalescence of settlements.
MM9 25 Vision, final Amend final paragraph of vision: paragraph The character, quality and diversity of our natural, built and heritage assets will have been preserved conserved, and where possible enhanced. These assets include the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), such as the Basingstoke Canal and other protected habitats, the chalk downland in the south west of the District, riverine environments, the Forest of Eversley, ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, Historic Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
2
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM10 25 94 - Amend as follows: Objective 1 To plan for sufficient land to be available for at least 6,208 7,614 new homes to be built in the District in the period 2016 2014 – 2032 such that it provides a continuous supply of housing.
MM11 26 94 - Delete objective 3. Objective 3 To provide for longer term development needs through planning for a sustainable new settlement within the Murrell Green/Winchfield area of search.
MM12 26 94 - Amend objective 8: Objective 8 Through partnership working with the education authority (Hampshire County Council) to plan for the provision of sufficient primary and secondary school places. This will include new primary provision at Hartland Village as well as new primary provision and a new secondary school at the new settlement within the Murrell Green/Winchfield area of search.
MM13 26 94 - To conserve and enhance the distinctive built and historic environment in the District Objective 9 including the protection of the significance and special interest of heritage assets and their settings.
MM14 26 94 - To maximise opportunities for the provision of sustainable transport infrastructure that Objective supports new development, including facilities for walking, cycling and public transport, and 10 the delivery of measures, including provision for sustainable transport, to minimise, or mitigate, the impact of new development on the existing network with priority given to the improvement of sustainable transport options.
3
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM15 27 94 - To promote healthy and sustainable local communities through protecting and enhancing Objective community sport, health, cultural, recreation and leisure facilities, including the public rights 13 of way network, and through the delivery of a multi-functional green infrastructure network across the district.
MM16 27 94 Add new objective:
16. To encourage the re-use and redevelopment of previously-developed land.
MM17 27 Policy SD1 Policy SD1 Sustainable Development
When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (or its successor), whilst having regard to the need to assess, and where appropriate, mitigate against, the likelihood of a significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. It will work pro-actively with applicants to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.
Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Development Plan (including, where relevant, policies in Neighbourhood Plans) will be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Where there are no policies relevant to the application or the most relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise, taking into account whether:
a) There are available and deliverable avoidance and mitigation measures in respect of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area; and
4
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
b) Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or
c) Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
a) The application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
b) Any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.
MM18 28 98 Amend paragraph 98:
Policy SS1 sets out the planned amount and location of new development (housing, employment and retail) to be built in Hart over the Plan period 2016 2014 - 2032.
MM19 28 Policy SS1 Amend policy as follows:
Policy SS1 Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Growth
Development will be focused within defined settlements, on previously developed land in sustainable locations, and on allocated sites as shown on the Policies Map.
New Homes
Subject to the availability of deliverable avoidance and mitigation measures in respect of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, provision is made for the delivery of at least
5
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
6,208 new homes (388 new homes per annum) between 2016 and 2032. These will be provided by the housing requirement in Hart is 423 homes per annum between 2014 and 2032 which equates to 7,614 dwellings. The supply of housing will come from the following sources:
a) Completions since 1st April 2016 2014 and delivery of housing commitments as of 6th October 2017 1st April 2018;
b) Permitting further development and redevelopment within the defined Settlement Policy Boundaries (subject to other Plan policies);
c) Delivery of Hartland Village for 1,500 dwellings, approximately 1,400 of which are expected to be within the plan period (Policy SS2);
d) Supporting the delivery of new homes through Neighbourhood Plans;
e) Permitting rural exception sites located outside of defined Settlement Policy boundaries in accordance with Policy H3, and other housing where it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside in accordance with Policy NBE1.
New Employment
New employment development will be focussed on existing Strategic and Locally Important Employment Sites listed at Policy ED2 and identified on the Policies Map.
New Retail
Hart’s hierarchy of retail centres will be maintained and enhanced by encouraging a range of uses, consistent with the scale and function of the centres in line with Policy ED4.
6
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Provision will be made for approximately 5,900 square metres (net) of additional convenience retail floorspace and 3,960 sq m (net) of additional comparison floorspace in the District over the Plan period. The majority of this additional floorspace will be focussed within Fleet Town Centre.
New local retail provision will be promoted within existing district and local centres and will also be provided as part of the mixed-use developments at Hartland Village. and the new settlement.
New Settlement Area of Search
To help address longer term growth requirements7, an area of search is identified in this Plan for a new settlement (see the key diagram and Policies Map). The new settlement will be brought forward through a separate development plan document (DPD) in accordance with Policy SS3.
MM20 30 Figure 3 - Remove Murrell Green/Winchfield Area of Search, and Gaps between Settlements. Key diagram See Appendix A for Key Diagram as proposed to be modified.
MM21 31 100 and Replace paras 100 and 101 as follows: 101 Delivering New Homes
100. We are planning to deliver at least 388 homes per annum in the District, which is 6,208 homes over the plan period 2016–2032.
101. In reaching this figure we have used as our start point the Government’s proposed approach to calculating local housing need8. We have considered the need for a contingency
7
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
(recognising that the housing need figures could change), the need for flexibility to allow for the non-delivery of sites, the need to deliver affordable housing and the need to ensure the best use is made of previously developed land. Appendix 2 sets out further detail as to how the annual housing figure was derived.
100. Hart’s housing requirement is 423 homes per annum in the District, which equates to 7,614 homes over the plan period 2014 –2032. This requirement comprises:
a) Hart’s objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) of 382 homes per annum identified in the Joint Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment for Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath, November 2016 (SHMA); plus
b) An additional 41 homes per annum (731 homes) to address an unmet housing need in Surrey Heath under the duty to cooperate. Surrey Heath is part of the Hart, Rushmoor/ Surrey Heath Housing Market Area. In June 2018 Surrey Heath Borough Council published a Draft Local Plan Issues, Options / Preferred Options consultation (the ‘Regulation 18’ stage) which identified a housing shortfall of 731 homes. Rushmoor Borough Council’s Local Plan (The Rushmoor Plan 2014-2032) is meeting its own objectively assessed housing needs as identified in the SHMA.
MM22 31 Para 102 Amend para 102 and insert new paragraph to follow:
The overall supply that is likely to come forward is set out at Table 1. At least 6,346 7,384 homes are expected to be built over the plan period from a combination of sources set out at Table 1. including sites within settlements, deliverable9 greenfield sites that are already permitted and an allocation for a new community at Hartland Village on previously developed land. Appendix 2 includes further details on the sources of supply and a housing trajectory. showing anticipated timings for delivery of these sites.
8
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
The anticipated housing supply falls short of the requirement by 230 dwellings. This shortfall arises in the final year of the Plan (2031/32) and will be addressed through a future review of the Plan.
MM23 31 Table 1 Amend Table 1 Sources of Housing Supply: Sources of Housing Source Homes Supply st a Homes completed between 1 April 2016 798 st 2014 to 6th October 2017 31 March 2018 2,217
b Sites with outstanding planning permission at 3,046
6th October 2017 1st April 2018 3,262
c Other deliverable sites10 504
d Sites within settlement boundaries, including 184 settlement boundaries identified in 150 Neighbourhood Plans11
12 e Hartland Village Site Allocation – Policy SS1 1,428 SS2) 1,368
f Sites in the Odiham and North Warnborough 11113
Neighbourhood Plan without planning th st permission at 6 October 2017 1 April 2018 g Small site windfall allowance14 275 276
9
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Total 6,346 7,384
10 This includes sites where there is a Committee resolution to grant permission subject to completion of a S106 Agreement as at 6th October 2017 and are listed in Appendix 2. 11 This is likely to be an underestimate as it is based only on known developable SHLAA sites within settlement boundaries (see Appendix 2). There is no double counting with other sources of supply. 12 The site is allocated for 1,500 dwellings (see Policy SS2) with 1,428 expected to be constructed within the Plan period (source: planning application Ref. 17/00471/OUT). 13 This is an adjusted figure to ensure no double counting with sites with planning permission. 14 See Appendix 2 for how the small sites windfall allowance is calculated.
MM24 32 103 Amend paragraph 103 as follows:
Policy SS1 and the table above identifies that one source of new homes will be from sites within settlement boundaries. Settlement policy boundaries will be reviewed through a future Development Plan Document and in some cases through Neighbourhood Plans.
MM25 32 104 and Delete paragraphs 104 & 105: 105 Planning ahead: new settlement 104. We recognise that additional land for housing and infrastructure, including a new secondary school, is likely to be needed in the longer term. Our preference for meeting future growth needs is to plan for a sustainable new settlement, which is of sufficient size to support longer term housing needs and larger scale infrastructure needs beyond the plan period.
105. Planning for a new settlement takes time to ensure that a sustainable, and high quality, community is created. An area of search is identified in this Plan for a new settlement with
10
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
issues such as the precise location, scale and mix of development to be developed through a separate development plan document (DPD)’. Further detail is set out in Policy SS3.
MM26 32 106 to 109 Delete paragraphs 106 to 109:
Duty to Cooperate
106. Under the Duty to Cooperate we are also working in cooperation with our Housing Market Area (HMA) partners (Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Councils) to ensure that the housing needs of the whole of the HMA is delivered.
107. The level of housing proposed in the Rushmoor Local Plan shows that it can exceed its identified housing needs, with a significant surplus compared to the Government’s indicative figures. Surrey Heath has indicated a potential housing shortfall in its area (compared to the Government’s indicative figures based on the proposed standard methodology for calculating local housing needs). However, its plan is at an early stage and thus the extent of any shortfall has yet to be independently tested or agreed.
108. The Hart Local Plan proposes a considerably higher amount of housing than the indicative Government figures for Hart require. In addition, the Council commits to planning for a new settlement at Murrell Green/Winchfield. Together these measures provide a substantial contingency to any increase in the Government figures that could, in theory, result in an unmet need arising in Surrey Heath.
109. The appropriate level of new housing and employment will be monitored, and a review undertaken five years after this Plan is adopted, unless evidence suggests that a review is needed before this the Plan reviewed and updated as necessary. Further detail on monitoring and reviewing the Local Plan can be found in the ‘Delivery, Monitoring and Review’ section of this Plan.
11
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM27 34 Policy SS2 Hartland Village, a site of approximately 54 hectares to the east of Fleet, is allocated for a new settlement, as shown on the Policies Map, that meets the following criteria:
a) The delivery of approximately 1,500 dwellings with an appropriate mix of sizes and types of accommodation including affordable housing and accommodation for older persons. The affordable housing shall be distributed throughout the site with each phase making an appropriate contribution towards the overall provision;
MM28 35 Policy SS2 b) The provision of a local neighbourhood centre comprising community and leisure uses, small scale local retail, service and food and drink facilities (Use Classes A1 to A5, B1, D1 and D2). Residential use may be appropriate above retail or commercial units providing the active frontage is not compromised and that satisfactory residential amenity can be achieved. The centre shall provide a focal point for the scheme with landmark buildings in appropriate locations and high quality public civic space.
f) The development must be well designed and include appropriate landscaping recognising its location within the Fleet to Farnborough Gap;
MM29 36 Policy SS2 k) Provide mitigation for impacts on the local highway network, footpaths, cycleway and bridleways (including the Basingstoke Canal) and promote sustainable transport. This will include measures to connect the site with Fleet, Fleet Station and Farnborough by sustainable transport modes;
MM30 36 121 In accordance with the approved hybrid planning permission (Ref: 17/00471/OUT), Tthe housing mix should comply with Policy H1 (a) and (b) which seeks a variety of house types and sizes, and specialist housing including housing for older persons. It also requires that 15% of dwellings are built to the standards of accessibility and adaptability as defined by Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations. Any future planning application that results in the total number of dwellings to exceed 1,500 will be subject to the requirements of Policy H1 in full.
12
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM31 36 & 122, 127 122. We will seek to achieve the maximum level of affordable housing provision in accordance 37 and 128 with Policy H2, but this should not be less than 20%. Each phase of the development will be subject to review. The affordable housing should be distributed throughout the development so that overly large concentrations of affordable housing are avoided, and that no later phases are rendered unviable as a result of under-provision in earlier phases.
The Fleet to Farnborough Gap
127. The site lies within the Fleet to Farnborough Gap (see Policy NBE2). Whilst development of this previously developed site is encouraged, a landscape strategy will be required that addresses the visual impact of the development within the Gap and includes appropriate long- term maintenance and management arrangements.
128. In addition to landscaping, consideration should also be given to the heights of buildings. A full landscape impact assessment will be required but any tall buildings should be sited where their visual impact is minimised. Consideration should also be given to the impact of lighting within the Gap.
MM32 39 to 139 to 162 Delete paragraphs 139 to 162 including Policy SS3. 45 New Settlement 139. As set out in Policy SS1, we want to start planning a new settlement to meet longer term development needs.
140. By the time this Plan is due to be reviewed, five years after adoption if not sooner, we think it is likely that the evidence base will have moved on, and that we may need to plan for more new homes and infrastructure than this Plan addresses. We also think that any significant additional growth is unlikely to be met on previously developed sites.
13
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
141. Our preferred option for delivering significant additional growth in future is a new settlement. This is supported by previous public consultations on strategic growth options and would mean a secondary school can be delivered as part of a comprehensively planned new community. It also means that a long-term solution to housing delivery can be established not only within this plan period, but beyond into future plan periods.
142. Planning and delivering a new settlement is a complex process, and a significant lead in time is needed to develop the proposals. We have therefore made a policy choice for a new settlement in this Plan, rather than leave the matter until the Plan is reviewed, by which time the opportunity to start the necessary planning process would be lost.
143. The most sustainable option for a new settlement is in the Murrell Green/Winchfield area16. In this plan we therefore identify an ‘area of search’ at that location (see key diagram on page 30).
144. Policy SS3 below sets out a clear commitment to plan for the new settlement within this area of search through a separate development plan document (DPD). This will provide the opportunity for community and stakeholder engagement as part of the process. The DPD, together with a masterplan developed by the key parties, will set out how a new settlement should take shape, including precise settlement boundaries and any designated ‘Gaps’ between settlements. We anticipate new homes and infrastructure being built from around 2024/25.
Vision 145. An early part of the process will be the development of a long-term vision for the new settlement. At this stage we have the following high-level ambitions for the new settlement:
Highly connected – electronically and physically, internally and externally, creating sociable neighbourhoods with walkable access to services, facilities and recreation assets, as well as innovative sustainable transport solutions.
14
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Community focussed - a comprehensive range of social, educational, retail and recreational facilities for the community, along with developing community pride through the stewardship and ownership of land, assets and facilities to ensure their management and maintenance for the long-term. Inclusive – the provision of a full range of housing needs, including for genuinely affordable social and market lifetime homes for a mixed and thriving community that respond to the needs of families, children and older generations. Forward thinking – through the innovative use of technology and design solutions. Sensitive – to the existing landscape character, important natural and built assets and the surrounding environment. Quality Infrastructure – includes a wide range of local and wider infrastructure needs including significant provision of green and blue infrastructure, and provision of a secondary school.
Policy SS3 New Settlement at the Murrell Green/Winchfield Area of Search
Permission will be granted for the development of a new settlement to be identified from the area of search identified on the Policies Map following the adoption of a New Settlement Development Plan Document and agreed comprehensive masterplan.
Development proposals will not be permitted which would prejudice the delivery of a new settlement in advance of a robust master planning process. The development of the new settlement proposals will be based upon the following high-level principles:
a) Of a scale to support long term development needs beyond 2032 and the provision of key infrastructure and community facilities including a secondary school; b) The potential to deliver new homes from the middle of the plan period; c) Comprehensively planned in consultation with existing communities and key stakeholders;
15
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
d) Delivery of a sustainable, inclusive and cohesive community promoting self-sufficiency and with high levels of connectivity, minimising separation of communities by existing barriers; e) Deliver innovative and forward-thinking solutions and technology to design, transport issues, telecommunications and measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change; f) Provision of a mix of housing in accordance with relevant policies in the local plan and most up to date evidence at the time for affordable housing, specialist provision for the elderly and self-build; g) Inclusion of measures to avoid and mitigate any adverse impact of the development upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area; h) Promote health and wellbeing and self-containment by providing the necessary supporting infrastructure including green infrastructure, community facilities, employment, education, retail and health care services; i) Providing the most appropriate location within the area of search for key infrastructure, particularly the new secondary school, having regard to maximising ease of accessibility and to catchments; j) A layout and form of development that avoids coalescence with existing settlements and does not undermine their separate identity; respects the landscape character and conserves and where possible enhances the character, significance and setting of heritage assets; k) Provide measures to avoid, mitigate or offset direct and indirect biodiversity impacts across the site, including opportunities for net gains in biodiversity where possible; l) Supported by a transport assessment and strategy, together with an infrastructure delivery plan that ensures the necessary supporting infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion and promotes sustainable transport modes; m) Measures to fully address flood risk and drainage issues.
The detailed framework setting the nature, form and boundary of the new community will be set out in a future Development Plan Document and Supplementary Planning Documents where required.
16
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Mechanisms will also be required which ensure that comprehensive master-planning is properly coordinated across site ownership boundaries to ensure that key items of infrastructure are delivered in a consistent and cohesive way regardless of landownership or phasing.
146. The strategic framework provided by this Policy gives the basis for the development of a separate development plan document and comprehensive master-plan. Matters to address will include:
further consideration of the constraints and opportunities within the area of search; assessment of infrastructure and phasing requirements; and viability considerations which will inform the parameters and boundaries of the new settlement, its capacity for new homes and associated infrastructure needs and delivery.
147. The ultimate scale of development that can be accommodated will be informed by this additional work. A critical mass of new homes and population will be needed to enable the larger scale infrastructure items, particularly the secondary school, to be viable. Having regard to the DPD and master-planning processes, it is anticipated that first completions of new homes on the site could take place from around the middle of the plan period.
148. The new settlement will be community focussed creating a strong sense of place around one or more neighbourhood centres. The new settlement will help to meet longer term housing needs, whilst also providing for local and wider infrastructure provision such as secondary school education needs. A range of more localised development needs will also be met, including primary school education requirements, business units for small businesses, community facilities including new shops, and green infrastructure.
149. In preparing the DPD and masterplan we will engage the community and key stakeholders as well as working with the land owners, promoters and developers to achieve a comprehensively planned community.
17
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Housing 150. The new settlement will provide a range of dwellings types and sizes at a mix of densities, to meet both the needs of the local housing market, and the need to ensure that the new community is both balanced and inclusive. The exact range of housing types and tenures will be set out in the DPD but will include a significant proportion of affordable housing. The development will include other forms of housing including specialist accommodation for the elderly, and a proportion of self and/or custom build plots.
Design 151. The new development will achieve high standards of sustainable design and energy efficiency and will be future-proofed to meet future communication needs. The Masterplan and DPD will set out the design parameters and indicate how the development will achieve the required standards of sustainable design. A design code may be used to ensure a joined- up approach to design.
Employment 152. In order to promote self-sufficiency and provide a sustainable development, provision of a range of employment opportunities should be provided. This may include the allocation of a specific site for B class uses but should also include other forms of employment opportunity within the development.
Transport 153. Master-planning of the new settlement should look to reduce reliance on travel by car and promote an accessible movement network and the appropriate location of housing, employment and leisure facilities. Cycling and pedestrian links between the new settlement and surrounding settlements and other key destinations should be provided.
154. The new settlement will also provide for good connections to bus and rail transport networks to help encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. Innovative transport
18
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
modes will be encouraged. New pedestrian and cycle links within the settlement must also ensure that all areas are well connected to new schools, local centres and to Winchfield Station.
Other Infrastructure 155. The new settlement will include the provision of other infrastructure including pre-school and primary education, and a new secondary school. Subject to discussions with the appropriate agencies, the development should include primary health care facilities. 156. A range of social infrastructure will also be required, including the provision of a community building(s). Provision will need to be made for all age groups. Given the likely diverse nature of the new community, a community development strategy should be put in place early in the planning process.
157. A Green Infrastructure Strategy will be required to inform the preparation of the DPD and the provision and maintenance of green infrastructure in the new community. The new settlement will need to include high quality, multifunctional green space.
158. The New Settlement DPD will include a detailed infrastructure delivery strategy, which sets out the full extent of the physical and social infrastructure required to support the new community, the phasing and the potential sources of funding. The phasing of housing delivery will need to be set against the need to ensure the delivery of appropriate infrastructure to support the new community.
Thames Basin Heaths SPA Mitigation 159. The site lies within the 5km buffer zone for the TBHSPA and measures to mitigate the potential impacts of recreational activities on this area will be required in line with Policy NBE4, including provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and contributions towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). Due to its size, proposals may need to be subject to a site-specific Habitat Regulations assessment which
19
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
would include investigating impacts relating to atmospheric pollution on European designated sites.
Biodiversity 160. Development of the new settlement must have regard to existing biodiversity assets on the site, including for example Biodiversity Opportunity Areas. Development should seek to deliver if possible a net gain in biodiversity through traditional and innovative measures. The masterplan must consider the location and quality of biodiversity assets in determining the most appropriate locations for development.
Landscape 161. There is potential for adverse landscape and visual impacts arising from the development. The new settlement must therefore, be designed to avoid or substantially mitigate these impacts, utilising and enhancing existing landscape features such as mature trees and woodlands wherever possible. Although a change to the landscape character is inevitable, the layout and design of the new settlement should provide attractive through routes that incorporate new green infrastructure and connect the site to its wider rural environs. The layout of development should also respect the landform and reduce the potential for visual impacts from surrounding residential areas.
Flood risk management 162. The Masterplan and DPD will be informed by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment that considers the areas at risk of flooding. Proposals must avoid locating development in areas at risk of flooding and must include appropriate flood mitigation measures such as sustainable drainage systems. An integrated water management strategy, including a detailed drainage strategy, should be prepared for the new settlement.
MM33 46 Policy H1 b) on sites of 5 or more dwellings, at least 15% of new market homes are accessible and adaptable homes as defined in by requirement M4(2) of the building regulations[Footnote];
20
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
c) provision is made for specialist/supported accommodation where appropriate having regard to the needs set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or other relevant evidence at the time an application is submitted.
MM34 47 170 - 172 In response to the ageing population and the significant increase in persons in advanced old age (85+ years), a proportion of new housing (at least 15% on sites of 5 or more dwellings) should meet Requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations. This is the requirement for ensuring that buildings are accessible and adaptable to changing needs. This requirement should be designed into the development at the planning application stage but will be implemented through Building Regulations.
If a proposal for 5 or more dwellings (gross) does not include at least 15% accessible and adaptable homes, applicants for planning permission will be expected to provide evidence in terms of the impact on project viability, or of physical or environmental factors (such as steep slopes or flooding vulnerability) that would make the site unsuitable.
The ageing population is also likely to create a need for additional specialist housing, to meet the healthcare requirements of older people (also see Policy H4 Specialist and Supported Housing). On larger sites new New residential developments will, depending on considerations such as scale, location, design and layout, be expected to incorporate housing/supported accommodation to meet the needs of older people and people with support needs, for example sheltered and extra care housing that falls within Use Class C3 (Residential), or residential care/nursing care which falls within Use Class C2 (Institutional Uses).
MM35 48 176 To support self and custom build housing, we will require up to 5 % of plots at least 5% of homes on larger sites (i.e. at least 20 or more dwellings gross) to be provided as serviced plots for self-build and/or custom-build homes where it is practical to do so. This policy will be applied flexibly recognising that it becomes easier to accommodate self and custom build plots the larger the site. Site suitability in criterion (d) will be considered on a case by case
21
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
basis and determined on their merits. Suitability considerations will include the scale of the development, its layout and the type of dwellings proposed. For example, for a block of flats, it would not be feasible to have a proportion of self build, as the flat(s) could not be separated for a self build purpose. However, applicants should show they have considered the provision of self and custom build plots. If self-build plots are not taken up by the public after being marketed for at least two one years, we will allow these to revert to conventional build plots.
MM36 48 178 The requirement in Policy H1 to provide self and custom build plots on larger sites is a specific measure to facilitate plots being made available. We will also:
support proposals for self-build and custom-build projects within settlement boundaries; require self and custom build plots as part of the proposed new settlement (see Policy SS3); and consider further policies and site allocations for self and custom build in a subsequent development plan document.
MM37 48 179 There is a significant need for additional affordable housing within the District. Affordable housing includes social rented /affordable rented and intermediate housing that is homes for rent or for sale that are available to households in the District whose needs are not met by the market, and which meet the Government’s definition at Annex 2 of the NPPF (this definition is provided at Appendix 1: Glossary). The cost must be low enough for eligible households to afford based on local incomes and house prices. The homes should be restricted for use by future eligible households. If these restrictions are lifted, the subsidy should be recycled for alternative affordable housing in the District.
MM38 48 Policy H2 On developments of 11 or more dwellings (gross), or of greater than 1,000 square metres gross residential floorspace irrespective of the number of dwellings, On major developments (i.e. developments where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5
22
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
hectares or more), the Council will require no less than 40% of the new homes to be affordable housing, to be provided in accordance with the following criteria:
MM39 49 Policy H2 c) the tenure mix of the affordable housing will be 65% social/affordable rented affordable housing for rent and 35% shared affordable home ownership unless superseded by the most up to date housing evidence concerning local housing need.
MM40 49 Policy H2 d) at least 15% of the affordable units will be accessible and adaptable as defined by requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations;
MM41 49 Policy H2 e) where evidenced by local need, a proportion of one or more of the affordable dwellings will be built as wheelchair user dwellings to meet, or exceed where justified, the requirements of Building Regulations M4(3);
MM42 49 Policy H2 Insert footnotes relating to both these criterion which states:
Or as otherwise amended by the Building Regulations.
MM43 49 Policy H2 Add new criterion:
g) the affordable housing for rent should be used solely for that purpose and remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or the subsidy should be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
MM44 49 Policy H2 Amend text as follows:
In exceptional circumstances, if Where it is robustly justified and it is clearly demonstrated that the provision of affordable housing on site is impractical, the Council may accept off-site provision, or a financial contribution of equivalent value in lieu of on-site provision.
23
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Only in exceptional circumstances, and only when fully justified, will the Council grant planning permission for schemes that fail to provide at least 40% affordable housing, or fail criteria a) to f) g) above. Any such proposals must be supported by evidence in the form of an open book viability assessment, demonstrating why the target cannot be met. In such cases the Council will commission an independent expert review of the viability assessment, for which the applicant will bear the cost. The Council will then negotiate with the applicant to secure the optimum quantity and mix of affordable housing that is viable and meets the identified housing need.
MM45 49 180 Delete Paragraph 180:
In applying this policy we will use the latest government definition of affordable housing.
MM46 50 182 Add text:
As much affordable housing as is viable (up to 40%) will be sought for specialist and supported housing, on a site by site basis.
MM47 50 183 To support the ageing population and the specific needs of people with mobility problems the Council expects a proportion of new housing (15%) to be accessible and adaptable by meeting Requirement M4(2) of the Building Regulations. On any particular scheme, 15% of the affordable homes should comply with Part M4(2). In addition, depending on identified need in the Council’s Housing Register and site suitability, there may be a requirement for one or more of the affordable homes to meet the standard for ‘wheelchair user dwellings’ (requirement M4(3) of the Building Regulations), or to exceed this standard where justified by the special needs of the identified household. This Wheelchair user dwellings will be negotiated on a site by site basis recognising viability considerations.
MM48 51 189 Amend as follows:
24
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
In circumstances where agreement cannot be reached, we will consider the use of compulsory purchase powers as a last resort to procure any land necessary for ‘exception’ development.
MM49 51 Policy H3 An element of market housing will be supported where at least 70% of the total number of proposed dwellings would be affordable housing solely for subsidised rent.
Some market housing will be supported as part of a rural exceptions scheme where it would facilitate the provision of subsidised rented accommodation to meet local needs.
MM50 52 191 and Amend text as follows: 192 Policy H3 allows for a proportion (not more than 30%) of market housing to come forward on rural exception sites if it helps to deliver the rest of the development as being for affordable subsidised rent. This is to incentivise the delivery of such sites.
The size of an exception site will depend on the level of need and site-specific considerations., but, as As a general rule exception sites are envisaged to be up to 20 dwellings but this would not preclude larger developments where there is an established local need. Rural exception sites should be well related to an existing settlement, for example in terms of impact on landscape, heritage assets, and the setting of the settlement. The development should also be well designed to be in keeping with the character of the settlement.
MM51 53 Policy H4 Policy H4 Specialist and supported accommodation
Proposals for specialist and supported accommodation that meets the needs of older persons or others requiring specialist care will be permitted:
a) on sites within settlement boundaries and within the new community at Hartland Village; and
25
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
b) on sites in the countryside provided:
i. there is a demonstrated need for the development; and there are no available or viable alternatives within settlement boundaries; and
ii. there are no available and viable alternatives within settlement boundaries; and
iii. the site is well related to an existing settlement with access appropriate access to services and facilities either on or off site.
MM52 53 199 Amend text:
Sequentially, sites within settlements are the preferred choice for meeting needs particularly at locations close to services and facilities. However, where there is proven unmet need, particularly for C2 accommodation (for which there is a need additional to general housing needs) specialist accommodation may, where justified, be permitted on suitable sites outside settlement boundaries. A proportionate level of evidence should demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within defined settlements, that are in the vicinity of the application site (it will not be necessary to investigate all settlements in the district). Such sites developments would need appropriate access to the necessary services (for residents and staff) and be well related to an existing settlement, for example in terms of impact on landscape, heritage assets, and the setting of the settlement. The nature of the care to be provided and the level of facilities proposed on the site will be important considerations in determining whether a proposed development will have suitable access to appropriate services.
MM53 54 200 Delete text:
200. Specialist and supported accommodation will also be required as part of the new settlement proposed under Policy SS3.
26
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM54 54 Policy H5 Amend Policy H5:
Existing permanent authorised Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites1 will be retained for the use of these groups unless acceptable replacement accommodation can be provided or it has been established that the sites are no longer required.
Proposals for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople will be supported where it has been demonstrated that the following criteria have been met:
a) there is a proven for sites located in the open countryside the applicant can demonstrate a need for the development and/or and the size/capacity of the site or extension can be justified in the context of the scale of need demonstrated to meet needs for further Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites, or extensions to existing sites;
b) the potential occupants are recognised as Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople in accordance with the planning definition set out in national planning policy;
c) services and facilities can be readily suitably accessed, including schools, medical services and other community facilities;
d) it has no unacceptable adverse impact upon local amenity and the natural and historic environment;
e) it can be adequately serviced with drinking water and sewage and waste disposal facilities;
1 Travelling showpeople sites are often called ‘yards’.
27
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
f) it is of a scale that does not dominate adjoining communities;
g) the site is not inappropriately screened without and does not createing a sense of isolation from adjoining communities;
h) it has safe and convenient access to the highway network;
i) it is of sufficient size to provide for accommodation; parking; turning and, where relevant, the servicing and storage of vehicles and equipment.
j) the site is not located in an area of high risk of flooding as defined by the District’s SFRA.
Any development granted under this policy will be subject to a condition limiting occupation to Gypsies, Travellers or Travelling Showpeople, as appropriate.
Planning conditions or legal obligations may be necessary to ensure that any replacement sites are provided. Any replacement site should normally be available before the original site is lost.
The Council will publish a new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment in 2020 and, within two years of this Plan being adopted or by January 2022 (whichever is soonest), submit to the Planning Inspectorate for examination a Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document addressing any identified needs. If the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document is not submitted for examination by this time Policy H5 will be considered out-of- date.
MM55 55 203 to 205 Amend text:
28
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople (travellers) are defined as persons that are leading or have led a nomadic life. Travelling showpeople differ from other gypsies and travellers as their employment and travel centres upon holding fairs, circuses or shows across the country. Therefore, different terminology is used when referring to their residential needs. Gypsy and traveller households tend to reside on a residential “pitch” within a traveller “site” whereas travelling showpeople tend to reside on mixed-use “plots” within a travelling showpeople “yard”.
The Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (August 2016 shows that there is currently no need to make any additional pitch provision for Gypsies and Travellers and that no additional plots are required for Travelling Showpeople. There is also no proven need to consider any new transit provision at this time. Policy H5 contains criteria against which the suitability of sites can be assessed should a need arise over the plan period.
Policy H5 sets out criteria against which planning applications for traveller sites will be determined. It applies to all proposals for traveller sites, including any for travellers that do not meet the Government definition2. The Council will consider the existing level of local provision and need for sites, the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants, and other personal circumstances of the applicant. Subject to a need being demonstrated, sites in the countryside will be acceptable where they meet the criteria in Policy H5.
Planning applications for new traveller sites, or the expansion of existing sites, will be permitted where they comply with Policy H5. The Council is also committed to publishing an up to date Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment in 2020, and within two years of this Plan being adopted or by January 2022 (whichever is soonest), submit for examination a Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document addressing any identified needs.
2 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, DCLG, August 2015 contains at Annex 1 Glossary definitions of ‘gypsies and travellers’ and ‘travelling showpeople’ for the purposes of planning policy. These definitions are also set out in the Glossary to this Plan.
29
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
We will continue to work collaboratively with our neighbouring local authorities to understand the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople so that we maintain an evidence base to plan positively and manage development.
MM56 56 Policy H6 Amend text:
Where planning permission is required development proposals for new homes must meet or exceed the nationally described space standard.
MM57 56 207 Amend text:
This policy applies to market and affordable housing, including conversions and change of use proposals. The internal space standards are set out at Appendix 3. Applicants are required to demonstrate how the internal space standards have been applied and are encouraged to provide dwelling plans not smaller than 1:100 scale, with metric room dimensions identified and the gross internal area (GIA) clearly identifiable. Proposals that do not meet the space standards will need to be justified by viability or other relevant evidence. Priority will be given to ensuring that wherever possible the affordable housing in a scheme meets the space standards.
MM58 56 208 New paragraph to follow 208:
In addition to meeting the nationally described space standards, residential proposals should also comprise, where relevant:
15% of market homes built to Building Regulations M4(2) - see Policy H1 (b) 15% of affordable homes built to Building Regulations M4(2) - see Policy H2 (d) One or more of the affordable homes built to Building Regulations M4(3) - see Policy H2 (e)
30
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM59 57 Policy ED1 Employment proposals (B Use Class) will be supported:
a) within Strategic or Locally Important Employment Sites defined on the Policies Map; or
MM60 57 Policy ED1 d) within the countryside provided they comply with Policies NBE1 and ED3 or otherwise demonstrate an overriding a need for the development at that location and the proposal complies with other plan policies.
MM61 57 213 Amend text:
In the countryside, proposals that help promote a strong rural economy will be supported where they accord with Policies ED3 and NBE1. In addition, there may be limited instances where although there is no quantitative evidence to support additional employment floorspace, there are other factors, such as the expansion of an established employer, or development to meet the strategic ambitions across the wider FEA and/or the LEP, which would justify new or expanded buildings outside existing settlement boundaries. Where this arises, applicants will need to show evidence of an overriding need for the development at that the location. Such proposals will be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account all the relevant plan policies.
MM62 58 Policy ED2 Add sentence to the start of Policy ED2:
Strategic and Locally Important Employment Areas are defined on the Policies Map.
MM63 58 Policy ED2 Delete reference to Bartley Wood, Hook as a Strategic Employment site and instead list it as a Locally Important Employment site.
1. Strategic Employment Sites
31
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
To contribute towards meeting the future economic growth needs of the District and the wider Functional Economic Area, the following sites are designated as Strategic Employment Sites and given the highest protection and safeguarding against loss to non-B-class employment uses by protecting them for B-class uses.
i. Bartley Wood, Hook ii. Bartley Point, Hook iii. Cody Technology Park, Farnborough iv. Meadows Business Park, Blackwater v. Osborn Way, Hook vi. Waterfront Business Park, Fleet
The redevelopment and regeneration of these sites will be supported to provide B-class employment floorspace that meets the needs of the market. Small-scale proposals for changes of use or redevelopment to non-B-class employment uses at the above sites will be supported where they would provide complementary use(s)3 that are not detrimental to the function and operation of the Strategic Employment Area.
2. Locally Important Employment Sites To contribute towards meeting the future economic growth needs of the District, the following sites are designated as Locally Important Employment Sites and will be given protection against loss to non-B-class employment uses by protecting them for B-class uses:
vii. Ancells Business Park, Fleet Bartley Wood, Hook viii. Blackbushe Business Park ix. Eversley Haulage Yard x. Eversley Storage
3 Such as small scale convenience retail and food and drink establishments which serve the employment area
32
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
xi. Finn’s Business Park, Crondall xii. Fleet Business Park, Church Crookham xiii. Grove Farm Barn, Crookham Village xiv. Lodge Farm, North Warnborough xv. Murrell Green Business Park xvi. Potters Industrial Park, Church Crookham xvii. Redfields Business Park, Church Crookham xviii. Optrex Business Park, Rotherwick xix. Beacon Hill Road, Church Crookham
In cases where planning permission is required, the change of use or redevelopment of land and buildings in defined Locally Important Employment Sites will only be supported if it can be demonstrated that:
a) there are no strong economic reasons to retain the employment use; b) market signals indicate that the premises / site are unlikely to be utilised for employment use; or c) the proposed use is of a similar character4 to employment uses in Use Classes B1, B2 and B8; or d) the site is not appropriate for the continuation of its employment use due to a significant detriment to the environment or amenity of the area.
MM64 59 Policy ED2 Add additional text to Policy ED2 to cover other employment sites:
3. Other Employment Sites
4 Use classes that are of a similar character will reflect the level of employment proposed, and the skills required and could include sui-generis uses but will not include town centre uses (e.g. uses in class A1 – A5).
33
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
The regeneration and intensification of other employment sites for B-class uses will generally be supported subject to compliance with other development plan policies.
Development which would result in the loss of an existing employment use within the B use class, outside of the identified Strategic or Locally Important Employment areas, will only be permitted where the loss of that use can be justified having regard to the following considerations:
• market signals indicate that the premises / site are unlikely to be utilised for employment use; or • the site is not appropriate for the continuation of its employment use due to a significant detriment to the environment or amenity of the area.
MM65 59 Policy ED2 Introduce new text at the end of the policy:
Access to Council owned or managed SANG
If a planning application meets the requirements of Policy ED2 then the loss of employment land would not be a reason for refusing an allocation of Council owned or managed SANG.
MM66 60 218 Amend text:
A number of premises within defined employment sites have been subject to changes of use from office to residential use under ‘permitted development rights’. In order to support the protection of employment sites, the Council will explore additional measures to provide protection for the designated sites. This includes the introduction of an Article 4 Direction.
MM67 62 227 Insert new paragraph after 227:
34
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Proposals for residential development that meet the requirements of Policy ED2 will need to provide mitigation against impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area in accordance with Policy NBE4. Applicants that seek to use Council controlled SANG capacity are advised to discuss access to this capacity at an early stage in the planning process. If a planning application meets the requirements of Policy ED2 then the loss of employment land would not be a reason for refusing an allocation of Council owned or managed SANG.
MM68 62 Policy ED3 Criterion b) are for a replacement building or extension to a building in line with Policy NBE1; or
Criterion d) provide business floorspace that would enable the establishment of rural enterprises; or
MM69 64 Policy ED4 Amend final paragraph of Policy ED4: & Development for retail and/or leisure main town centre uses, with a net gross floorspace Supporting exceeding 1,000sqm, in edge or out of town centre locations will be supported if, following an text Retail Impact Assessment, it would not have a significant adverse impact on existing centres. Paragraphs 239 to 241 Amend supporting text:
239. In considering proposals for main town centre uses (including retail, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural and office uses) there are two tests, notably the sequential test and retail impact assessment:
Sequential Test
240. In considering proposed developments of main town centre uses on sites outside of designated centres, or sites that are not allocated for such uses, the sequential test must be
35
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
applied unless they are located in the countryside and are for developments of less than 100 sqm.
Retail Impact Assessments
241. Even small-scale developments in the District may have cumulative impact implications and a significant adverse impact on smaller centres. Policy ED4 sets a local floorspace threshold for the preparation of retail impact assessments. All retail and leisure development exceeding 1,000 sqm gross floorspace that is not located within a Primary Shopping Area or centre boundary (as defined on the Policies Map) will be subject to an Retail Impact Assessment. This applies to all retail proposals on the edge of or outside of the District’s centres.
MM70 66 Policy ED5 Amend criterion b:
b) Be for a main town centre use, which retains or provides an active frontage. Residential use may be appropriate above retail or commercial units providing the active frontage is not compromised and that satisfactory residential amenity can be achieved;
MM71 66 Policy ED6 Amend criterion c:
c) The proposal is for a main town centre use, which retains an active frontage. Residential use may be appropriate above retail or commercial units providing the active frontage is not compromised and that satisfactory residential amenity can be achieved;
MM72 68 260 Amend text:
Countryside is the area lying outside the settlement boundaries and designated Strategic and Locally Important Employment sites and can be in a variety of uses including agriculture. It is
36
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
used for employment, recreation, leisure, and contains different landscapes, and ecological habitats and economic opportunities for its rural communities.
MM73 68 261 Amend text:
261. It is important to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The intention is to maintain the existing open nature of the countryside, protect and enhance rural landscape character, prevent the coalescence of settlements and resist the encroachment of inappropriate development into rural areas. The countryside is therefore subject to a more restrictive policy approach, than for development within the defined settlement boundaries and designated Strategic and Locally Important Employment sites, recognising its intrinsic character and beauty. There should be good reasons to site new development in the countryside and development will not be permitted that would be better situated in an urban location or which contributes little to the benefit of the countryside, or where the benefits to the countryside are greatly outweighed by the harm.
MM74 69 262 Amend text:
262. This policy applies to all areas of countryside, that is, all areas outside of settlement boundaries27 and designated Strategic and Locally Important Employment sites as defined on the Policies Map. 27 This includes land within the new settlement area of search identified under Policy SS3, until a settlement boundary is designated through the New Settlement DPD.
MM75 69 Policy NBE1 Amend text:
Development proposals within the countryside (defined as the area outside settlement policy boundaries and designated Strategic and Locally Important Employment sites, as defined by the Policies Map) will only be supported where they are:
37
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM76 69 Policy NBE1 Amend criterion g:
g) Providing either a replacement dwelling, or an extension to an existing dwelling or the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling.
MM77 69 Policy NBE1 Add footnote to criterion h:
An appropriate use in this context is one that is consistent with other Development Plan Policies.
MM78 69 Policy NBE1 Add new criteria:
l) to secure the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets (Policy NBE9);
m) of exceptional quality or truly innovative in design and which significantly enhances its immediate setting and is sensitive to the local character.
n) for traveller sites that comply with Policy H5.
MM79 70 267 Amend text:
267. An appropriate condition or legal agreement restricting occupancy will be required to ensure it remains for the purpose for which it was granted. Where there is insufficient evidence provided of need at the planning application stage, we will consider granting permission for temporary accommodation such as mobile homes for a period of up to three years. Applications which are primarily made on the grounds of providing security will not generally be supported need to be robustly justified clearly demonstrating the need for the development and why alternative security measures are inadequate.
MM80 71 271 Amend text:
38
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
The redevelopment of suitable previously developed land in the countryside will be encouraged provided that the site is not of proposal would not cause harm to areas of high environmental value and that the proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s rural context.
MM81 71 Policy NBE2 Delete policy and supporting text: & 273 to 278 Gaps between Settlements
273. The countryside around settlements plays an important role in helping to define their character and in shaping the settlement pattern of an area. In some parts of the District the towns and villages are relatively close together.
274. Gaps are designated to prevent the coalescence of settlements and maintain their separate identity. They can also provide green infrastructure benefits and support wildlife networks close to settlements. Many Public Rights of Way within Gaps are heavily used and of high value to those living in adjoining settlements and the reduction of a Gap can sometimes adversely affect the amenity of such rights of way.
Policy NBE2 Gaps between Settlements Development in Gaps will only be permitted where it does not lead to the physical or visual coalescence of settlements, or damage their separate identity, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed developments. The following Gaps have been identified:
i. Yateley/Blackwater/Sandhurst ii. Hawley to Farnborough
39
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
iii. Fleet to Farnborough iv. Fleet/Church Crookham to Crookham Village v. Church Crookham to Ewshot vi. Crookham Village to Dogmersfield vii. Eversley to Yateley viii. Eversley Centre to Eversley Cross ix. Hook to Newnham x. North Warnborough to Greywell xi. Odiham to North Warnborough
The Gaps are shown indicatively on the Key Diagram and the Policies Map. The precise boundaries of Gaps will be determined through a separate development plan document or through Neighbourhood Plans.
Additional Gaps will be designated through the preparation of the New Settlement DPD (see Policy SS3).
275. Development on the edge of settlements can reduce the physical extent of the Gaps and development within the Gaps themselves could reduce the visual separation of settlements. Both the individual effects of any proposals and the cumulative effects of existing and proposed development will be taken into account. Development that would result in a perception of the settlements coalescing and losing their separate identity will be refused.
276. Not all development is necessarily prevented within a Gap. In some circumstances limited development may be acceptable, for example where the proposal is of a rural
40
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
character, e.g. agricultural buildings, and has a minimal impact on the purpose of the Gap.
277. Through Neighbourhood Plans it is open to local communities to define existing and/or designate new Gaps. However, this does not apply where an existing Gap serves to prevent coalescence between settlements that lie in different parishes or Designated Neighbourhood Plan areas. In such circumstances the boundaries will be defined in a separate development plan document, or the respective parishes can jointly prepare a Neighbourhood Plan to coordinate the designation of a Gap.
278. Additional Gaps may be designated through the New Settlement DPD (see Policy SS3). This is in line with one of the key principles for the new settlement, which is that coalescence with existing communities is avoided and their separate identity retained.
MM82 73 Policy NBE3 Add new criterion e):
Development proposals must respect and wherever possible enhance the special characteristics, value or visual amenity of the District’s landscapes.
Development proposals will be supported where there will be no adverse impact to: a) the particular qualities identified within the relevant landscape character assessments5 and relevant guidance;
b) the visual amenity and scenic quality of the landscape; and
c) historic landscapes, parks, gardens and features; and
5 Namely the Hart Landscape Character Assessment 1997 and the Integrated Landscape Character Assessment (Hampshire County Council, 2012)
41
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
d) important local, natural and historic features such as trees, woodlands, hedgerows, water features e.g. rivers and other landscape features and their function as ecological networks;
and
e) it does not lead to the physical or visual coalescence of settlements, or damage their separate identity, either individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development.
MM83 74 282 New paragraph after 282:
Development in the countryside between settlements can reduce the physical and/or visual separation of settlements. Development that would result in a perception of settlements coalescing, or which would otherwise damage their separate identity, will be refused. Both the individual effects of any proposals and the cumulative effects of existing and proposed development will be taken into account. Policies to designate specific areas or ‘gaps’ between settlements can be prepared through subsequent Development Plan Documents and Neighbourhood Plans.
MM84 75 Policy NBE4 Amend Policy NBE4:
New development which is likely considered to have a likely significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures will be put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects.
c) Residential development of over 50 net new dwellings that falls between five and seven kilometres from the TBHSPA may be required to provide mitigation measures. This will be assessed on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Natural England and where appropriate
42
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
a full an appropriate assessment maybe required to ascertain whether the proposal could have an adverse effect on the SPA.
MM85 76 288 Amend text:
Within 400m to 5km zone
In the zone of influence, beyond the exclusion zone and up to 5km (linear) from the TBHSPA, a net increase in the number of homes is likely to lead to increased recreational use of the TBHSPA as visitor surveys produced by Natural England demonstrate that 70 percent of visitors to the TBHSPA come from within this distance. All net new dwellings between 400m and 5km from the SPA, are considered to have a likely significant effect and must undergo Appropriate Assessment to identify measures that as a first step avoid, and secondly mitigate any adverse effects. If these developments provide, or contribute to appropriate SANG and SAMM measures in accordance with Policy NBE4 and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy it is likely that it can be concluded that no adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA will occur as a result of increased recreational pressure. To ensure that new homes will not lead to increased recreational pressure on the SPA, new development must secure or provide Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and provide funding for Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) in line with our adopted TBHSPA Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy.
MM86 76 289 Amend text:
5 to 7 kilometre zone 'zone of influence'
80% of visitors come from within 7 kilometres of the TBHSPA. Developments which individually, or collectively in close proximity, deliver more than 50 net new homes in the five to seven kilometre zone may be required to undergo Appropriate Assessment and may be
43
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
required to provide or contribute to an amount of SANG, and make a contribution towards SAMM, to be determined on a case by case basis.
MM87 80 Policy NBE5 Amend criterion a):
a) It will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of an international, national or locally designated site including the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and National and Local Nature Reserves (NNRs and LNRs). The level of protection afforded to these sites is commensurate with their status within this hierarchy and gives appropriate weight to their importance and contribution to wider ecological networks.
MM88 81 Policy NBE5 Amend text:
If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, or, in the case of European Protected sites does not comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, then planning permission will be refused.
MM89 81 303 Amend text:
Plans or projects proposing development with significant effects on European designated sites (i.e. the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area), will require a Habitats Regulations Assessment to ensure that effects are avoided or adequately mitigated If the adverse effects cannot be avoided or mitigated, then reasons of overriding public interest must be demonstrated and compensation measures provided. and comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
MM90 83 Policy NBE6 Amend footnote to criterion a):
44
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
In accordance with Planning Practice Guidance on flood risk and coastal change Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 7-001-20140306
MM91 83 Policy NBE6 Amend criterion d):
d) If located within an area at risk from any source of flooding6, now and in the future, it is supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment and complies fully with national policy including the sequential and exceptions tests where necessary;
MM92 89 Policy NBE9 Amend policy:
Development proposals should protect, conserve and where possible or enhance heritage assets and their settings, taking account of their significance. , as well as the distinctive character of the District’s townscapes and landscapes.
Proposals that would affect a designated [insert new footnote 1] or non-designated [insert new footnote 2] heritage asset must be supported by a heritage statement (proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and the potential impact of the proposal) that describes demonstrates a thorough understanding of the significance of the heritage assets and their its setting, and identifies the nature and level of potential impacts on the significance of the heritage assets., and sets out how the findings of the assessment has informed the proposal in order to avoid harm in the first instance, or minimise or mitigate harm to the significance of the asset.
Where a proposal Proposals which would lead to the loss of, or harm to, the significance of a heritage asset and/or its setting, the Council will apply will not be permitted unless they meet
6 Including Indicative Flood Problem Areas defined in the SFRA as well as areas prescribed in national policy.
45
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
the relevant tests and assessment factors specified in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Footnote 1 – Designated assets include conservation areas, listed buildings, scheduled monuments and registered historic parks and gardens.
Footnote 2 – Non-designated assets include buildings and features identified on ‘local lists’, archaeological sites such as those identified on the Historic Environment Record and historic landscapes.
MM93 89 340 Amend text:
Development proposals should be planned and designed in a manner which responds appropriately to its historic context and, where possible, positively enhances the historic character of the locality and the distinctive character of the District’s townscapes and landscapes.
MM94 90 345 Amend text:
Conservation Area Appraisals/Management Plans have been prepared for many of the Conservation Areas, and these will be updated and reviewed as appropriate, for example in relation to supporting Neighbourhood Plans. These appraisals will guide the design of development and help determine the appropriateness of development proposals. It is important to consider the impacts both within and outside the designated Conservation Area to ensure that development does not adversely affect the Conservation Area in relation to its special architectural or historic interest, character, appearance or context.
MM95 91 Policy Amend Criterion b): NBE10
46
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
b) it provides or positively contributes to public spaces and access routes and public rights of way that are attractive, safe and inclusive for all users, including families, disabled people and the elderly; MM96 91 Policy Amend criterion g): NBE10 g) the design of external spaces (such as highways, parking areas, gardens and areas of open space) should be designed to reduce the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour and facilitates the safe use of these areas by future residents, service providers or visitors, according to their intended function;
MM97 93 Policy Amend criterion c): NBE11 c. the impact on heritage assets the significance or special interest of heritage assets.
MM98 94 Policy Amend text: NBE12 Development will be supported provided:
a) it does not give rise to, or would be subject to, unacceptable levels of pollution (including cumulative effects); and…
MM99 97 373 Insert additional text to 3rd bullet:
Green infrastructure: Waterways, parks, natural and semi-natural spaces, outdoor sports facilities, allotments, play areas, wildlife corridors/footpaths, public rights of way and green roofs
MM100 97 375 Insert new text:
47
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
375. The Hart Infrastructure Delivery Plan, prepared in partnership with infrastructure providers, identifies the key infrastructure projects required to deliver this local plan. The IDP sets out which projects are required, where they are required and by when, who will lead the delivery and how projects will be funded.
375. The Council has prepared, in partnership with infrastructure providers, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan. It identifies the lead agencies for different types of infrastructure, existing and planned provision, key issues for different types infrastructure, funding sources, and implications for the Local Plan. It also sets out a schedule of specific infrastructure schemes including costs, timing, responsibilities, and funding (where known). Some of the schemes in the IDP already have funding, whether through planning obligations or other sources. Other schemes do not have their funding secured but could be delivered as a result of:
Planning obligations that will either deliver, or contribute towards, particular projects where it is necessary to make that development acceptable;
The Community Infrastructure Levy (once adopted);
Funding by service providers as part of their programmes for improvements to infrastructure and service delivery (e.g. Hampshire County Council, the District Council, Town and Parish Councils, Highways Agency, Clinical Commissioning Groups, water companies);
Funding from other sources including Government funding, Single Local Growth Fund (via the Local Economic Partnership).
MM101 97 376 Amend text:
48
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
376. The purpose of Policy I1 is to ensure that developments make the necessary and appropriate infrastructure provision. The IDP will help to inform whether infrastructure should be provided or funded directly by a specific development, or whether developer contributions will be sought through Planning Obligations and/or, once adopted, through a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
MM102 97 Policy I1 Amend policy as follows:
All development that requires planning permission Where required to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable, development proposals must make appropriate provision for infrastructure, on and off-site, and/ or through financial contributions to off-site provision.
Planning obligations secured through Section 106 Agreements will be used to provide necessary site related infrastructure requirements such as new access arrangements, provision of open space and other community infrastructure, local highway/ transportation mitigation and environmental enhancements.
Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate waste water capacity and surface water drainage both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users.
The development or expansion of infrastructure facilities, will normally be supported, either where needed to serve existing or proposed new development provided that any adverse land use or environmental impact is avoided.
Necessary off-site infrastructure will continue to be secured through Planning Obligations and, once adopted, according to the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule to ensure that development makes an appropriate and reasonable contribution to the costs of infrastructure provision. Tariff style contributions will not be sought from developments of 10-
49
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area).
The provision of infrastructure will be linked directly to the phasing of development to ensure that planned infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion. This infrastructure will be co- ordinated and delivered in partnership with developers, public agencies, such as Hampshire County Council, and other authorities.
MM103 98 Policy I1 Add following paragraph to the end of the policy:
If an applicant considers that the requirements of this policy make the development unviable then this will be a matter for negotiation, informed by a robust viability assessment, which may be independently reviewed. The applicant will need to demonstrate the need for a viability assessment. Where the need for a viability assessment is accepted it will be taken into account as a material consideration when the planning application is determined.
MM104 98 379 Amend as follows:
379. Until we adopt a CIL Charging Schedule the level of any financial contributions will be determined on a site by site basis taking into consideration the size of the development, neighbourhood priorities, the impact on infrastructure provision in the surrounding area, and compliance with national policy and legislation. Tariff style contributions will not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area).
MM105 99 380 Insert new paragraph to follow paragraph 380:
If an applicant considers that contributions or on-site mitigation measures would render the proposal unviable then this will be a matter for negotiation, informed by a robust viability assessment, which may be independently reviewed. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate
50
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment will be considered on a case by case basis having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the Local Plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the Plan was brought into force. All viability assessments should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.
MM106 99 381 Amend as follows:
381. Developers will need to work with relevant providers to ensure that there is adequate water supply, surface water, foul drainage and sewerage treatment capacity to serve all new developments and that there will be no adverse effects on existing users. This should form part of an adopted or adoptable water network. In some circumstances, this may make it necessary for developers to carry out appropriate studies to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing infrastructure
MM107 99 382 Delete paragraph:
382. Where there is a capacity problem and no improvements are programmed by the water company, the Council will require the developer to set out how the appropriate infrastructure improvements will be completed prior to occupation of the development.
MM108 99 384 Amend 3rd sentence:
…As a network it includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, but also street trees, allotments, public rights of way and private gardens.
MM109 100 Policy I2 Amend policy:
51
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Development will be supported provided that a) it protects the green infrastructure network as shown on the Policies Map, avoiding any loss fragmentation or significant impact on the function of the network.
MM110 102 Policy I3 Amend first paragraph and criteria f) & h):
Development should promote the use of sustainable transport modes prioritising offer maximum flexibility in the choice of travel modes, including walking and cycling, improve accessibility to services and support the transition to a low carbon future.
f) do not have a severe impact on the operation, safety or accessibility to of the local or strategic highway networks;
h) protect and where possible enhance access to public rights of way subject to compliance with other relevant policies.
MM111 103 398 Amend as follows:
Where Travel Plans are required they should be robust, deliverable and achievable. Further information on Travel Plans can be found on Hampshire County Council’s website. Consideration should also be given to the Hampshire Countryside Access Plan and Rights of Way Improvement Plans.
MM112 103 Policy I4 Amend to read:
Development proposals will be supported where they enhance and improve the quality, capacity, accessibility and management of sports and recreational facilities including playing fields, built facilities and the open space network identified on the Policies Map.
52
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:
a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.
New residential developments should provide appropriate on-site provision for open space in accordance with the standards at Table 2, unless the development is of a size and/or in a location where a financial contribution, for the enhancement and management or creation of open space, for part or all of the open space requirement is considered more appropriate. Tariff style contributions will not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area).
Where open space or other facilities are provided on site they should be well located and designed with appropriate management arrangements in place.
MM113 104 403 Amend text:
403. New housing developments should make appropriate provision on site for open space, sport and leisure facilities having regard to the open space standards and any quantitative or qualitative deficiencies in existing provision identified in the supporting evidence base. The exact nature of any on-site provision will need to be agreed on a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, contributions to off-site improvements to open space, sports and recreational
53
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
facilities will be required., for example where the site is too small for the open space standards to be met on-site, or where it would be more beneficial to improve nearby existing facilities rather than create additional facilities. These matters will need to be considered on a case by case basis and applicants are encouraged to discuss open space provision with the Council prior to submitting a planning application. Tariff style contributions will not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area).
MM114 105 Table 2 Include in Table 2:
• Local area for play (LAP): Minimum activity zone is 100m2 • Local equipped area for play (LEAP): Minimum activity zone is 400m2 • Neighbourhood equipped area for play (NEAP): Minimum activity zone is 1000m2, comprising of features to enable formal play activities, and a hard surfaced area of at least 465m2 (the minimum needed to play 5-a-side football)
MM115 105 Table 2 Add new footnote after “Areas within the TBHSPA Zone of Influence: 8 ha per 1,000 head of population:
Natural and semi-natural space will not be requested in addition to the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) (either on-site or through financial contributions) where required to mitigate impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.
MM116 107 Policy I5 Amend criterion ii) to read:
ii. the existing premises are no longer required or viable and there is no alternative community use capable of meeting the needs of the local area.
MM117 108 Policy I6 Alter text:
54
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
The Council recognises the benefits that broadband can provide and will work with Hampshire County Council and the telecommunications industry to maximise access to superfast broadband, wireless hotspots and improved mobile signals for all residents, organisations and businesses; assisting them in delivering their investment plans and securing funding to address any infrastructure deficiencies or barriers.
All development should incorporate appropriate infrastructure to enable high speed broadband connectivity.
MM118 109 419 Amend to read:
As the take up of broadband and associated data services has increased, it has become apparent that people will demand a data service of a sufficient standard to meet modern needs. Developers are therefore expected to install within their site high speed broadband infrastructure as an integral part of the development. If such infrastructure is not provided it should be demonstrated why this is not feasible and other measures should be taken that facilitate its provision at a future date; for example, suitable ducting that can accept fibre optic cabling should be provided to the public highway. More information is available from Hampshire County Council including ‘Planning for Broadband – A Guide for Developers’.
MM119 110 427 to 429 Amend wording as follows: and 111 Review
The Council will commence a review of the Local Plan in 2021 unless triggered sooner by other factors. These could include:
55
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
The Council will review the policies in this Plan within five years of adoption to assess whether they need updating7. Policies will then be updated where necessary.
An early review (i.e. prior to the five-year period expiring) could be triggered by:
Results of annual monitoring on the effectiveness of the plan in line with the Plan’s Monitoring Framework and having particular regard to the monitoring of housing delivery;
Significant changes to national planning policy and/or legislation;
Duty to co-operate issues, particularly addressing housing and employment needs within the Housing Market Area / Functional Economic Area (which comprises Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath administrative areas); and
Any other reasons that render the Plan, or part of it, out of date.
The AMR will report on the issues above and whether these will trigger a review.
In addition, the Council has an aspiration to plan ahead for long-term growth needs. This would reduce the risk of policies (particularly housing policies) becoming out of date, and would provide greater certainty over the longer term. All reasonable growth options, including the potential for a new settlement, would need to be fully considered and evidenced in a future review of the Plan or a subsequent DPD.
MM120 111 Monitoring Delete reference to Policy SS3. Framework Objective 1
7 Reviews at least every five years are a legal requirement for all local plans (Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012)
56
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM121 111 Monitoring Alter text: Framework Objective Base Figure: 1a Net 798 2,217 homes completed between 1st April 2016 and 6 October 2017 1 April 2014 to 31 additional March 2018. dwellings
MM122 112 Monitoring Alter text: Framework Objective Base Figure: A supply of 3,374 3,087 dwellings at 6 October 2017 (9.3 years supply) 1 April 1b. 2018 (9.25 years supply)
MM123 112 Monitoring Correct the Target by 2032: Framework Objective 2 1,400 1,368 in line with the housing trajectory
Indicator 2a.
MM124 113 Monitoring Delete objective 3 from the monitoring framework Framework Objective 3.
MM125 114 Monitoring Annual monitoring target/process: Framework Objective 4 Delivery of housing in line with the housing trajectory. 15% of annual target residential units Indicator delivered as accessible and adaptable homes as defined by the Building Regulations. 4d
57
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM126 116 Monitoring Within ‘Key Local Plan Policies’ delete reference to SS3 New Settlement Framework Objective 7
MM127 117 Monitoring Amend objective 8 as follows: Framework Objective 8 Objective 8 - Through partnership working with the education authority (Hampshire County Council) to plan for the provision of sufficient primary and secondary school places. This will include new primary provision at Hartland Village as well as new primary provision and a new secondary school at the new settlement within the Murrell Green/Winchfield area of search.
Delete reference to SS3 New Settlement under ‘Key Local Plan Policies’:
Delete indicator 8d:
8d Delivery of educational facilities at the new settlement To be determined through the preparation of a new Settlement DPD.
MM128 119 Monitoring Within ‘Key Local Plan Policies’ delete reference to SS3 New Settlement Framework Objective 10 MM129 119 Monitoring Within ‘Key Local Plan Policies’ delete reference to NBE2 Gaps between settlements Framework Objective 11
MM130 123 Monitoring Within ‘Key Local Plan Policies’ delete reference to SS3 New Settlement Framework
58
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Objective 13
MM131 123 Monitoring Within ‘Key Local Plan Policies’ amend as follows: Framework Objective NBE1 – Development in the Countryside 14 NBE2 – Gaps between Settlements NBE3 Landscape
MM132 124 Monitoring Amend wording of indicator 14a as follows: Framework Objective 14a Development permitted within defined gaps contrary to criterion (e) of policy NBE3 14 Landscape.
Amend wording of Annual Monitoring Target/Process if indicator 14a as follows:
Zero planning permissions granted contrary to criterion e of policy NBE2 NBE3.
Amend wording of Target for indicator 14a as follows:
No physical or visual coalescence of settlements as a result of development within identified gaps.
MM133 124 Monitoring Add at end of the Monitoring Table: Framework Objective Objective 16: To encourage the re-use and redevelopment of previously developed land. 16 Key Local Plan policies: Policy SS1 – Spatial Strategy
59
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Policy NBE1 – Development in the countryside
Indicators Base figure Annual Target by Delivery (as at April Monitoring 2032 Partners 2017 unless Target/Process otherwise stated) The amount n/a To monitor the Permitted Developers of uptake of sites sites on the and development on the register are landowners granted brownfield commenced permission register within 3 and (completions years of completed and grant of on permissions) permission. previously developed Non- land. permitted sites receive planning permission.
MM134 125 Glossary Update the definition of affordable housing:
Affordable Housing: Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing should include provisions
60
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
Social rented housing is owned by local authorities and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the local authority or with the Homes and Communities Agency (now Homes England).
Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable).
Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.
Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.
The Housing and Planning Act 2016 includes Starter Homes within the definition of affordable housing, however, the mechanism for introducing the wider definition is to be subject to further legislation. Therefore, currently the definition provided within Annex 2 of the NPPF remains the most relevant.
61
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
Affordable housing: housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or is for essential local workers); and which complies with one or more of the following definitions:
a) Affordable housing for rent: meets all of the following conditions: (a) the rent is set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable);
(b) the landlord is a registered provider, except where it is included as part of a Build to Rent scheme (in which case the landlord need not be a registered provider); and (c) it includes provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. For Build to Rent schemes affordable housing for rent is expected to be the normal form of affordable housing provision (and, in this context, is known as Affordable Private Rent).
b) Starter homes: is as specified in Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and any secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a starter home should reflect the meaning set out in statute and any such secondary legislation at the time of plan-preparation or decision-making. Where secondary legislation has the effect of limiting a household’s eligibility to purchase a starter home to those with a particular maximum level of household income, those restrictions should be used.
c) Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.
d) Other affordable routes to home ownership: is housing provided for sale that provides a route to ownership for those who could not achieve home ownership through the market. It
62
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
includes shared ownership, relevant equity loans, other low cost homes for sale (at a price equivalent to at least 20% below local market value) and rent to buy (which includes a period of intermediate rent). Where public grant funding is provided, there should be provisions for the homes to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for any receipts to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision, or refunded to Government or the relevant authority specified in the funding agreement.
MM135 129 Glossary Amend definition for Gypsies and Travellers:
“Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excluding members of an organised group of Travelling Showpeople or circus people travelling together as such.” (Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, CLG, August 2015).
MM136 133 Glossary Amend definition of previously developed land as shown:
Previously Developed Land: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes:
land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures; land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time.
63
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
There is no presumption that land that is previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development or that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.
Previously developed land: Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.
MM137 139 Glossary Update definition of Travelling Showpeople:
Travelling Showpeople: Members of a group organised for the purposes of holding fairs, circuses or shows (whether or not travelling together as such). This includes such persons who on the grounds of their own or their family's or dependent's more localised pattern of trading, educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently, but excludes Gypsies and Travellers as defined above."(Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, CLG, March 2012 August 2015)
MM138 140 Appendix 2 Amend title of Appendix 2 to “Housing Trajectory”
Delete the ‘Introduction’ and the section titled ‘Deriving the Housing Requirement’
MM139 142 Appendix 2 Amend Housing Trajectory table and Housing Trajectory graph – see Appendix B. and 143
64
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM140 144 Appendix 2 Provide completion figures for years 2014-2018 – see Appendix C
MM141 144 Appendix 2 Update Outstanding Planning Permissions – see Appendix C
MM142 146 Appendix 2 Amend Sites within settlement boundaries section – see Appendix C
MM143 147 Appendix 2 Delete Deliverable Sites section – see Appendix C
MM144 148 Appendix 2 Amend Site Allocations section – see Appendix C
MM145 149 Appendix 2 Amend Small Site Windfall Allowance section – see Appendix C
MM146 153 Appendix 4 Delete reference to Policy SS3 New Settlement at the Murrell Green/Winchfield Area of Search
MM147 153 Appendix 4 Delete reference to Policy NBE2 Gaps Between Settlements
65
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
MM148 154 Appendix 5 Delete reference to Policy NBE2 Gaps superseding policies CON19, CON20 and CON21 relating to Strategic and Local Gaps. Clarify that CON19, CON20 and CON21 will be superseded by Policy NBE3 Landscape.
Policy in the Local Plan Saved Policies to be Strategy and Sites Proposed superseded Submission Version Policy NBE2 Gaps Between CON19 Strategic Gaps – general Settlements policy CON20 Strategic Gaps: Blackwater Valley, and CON21 Local Gaps
NBE3 Landscape GEN3 General policy for landscape character areas CON19 Strategic Gaps – general policy CON20 Strategic Gaps: Blackwater Valley, CON21 Local Gaps CON22 Setting of settlements and recreation
MM149 134 Glossary Retail Impact Assessment: An assessment of the impact of a proposal for retail and/or leisure development on town centre vitality and viability and on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the centre. which should include assessment of:
a) the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
66
Policy / Reference Page Main Modification Paragraph
b) the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).
67
Appendix A
MM20 - Figure 3 Key diagram with the New Settlement Area of Search (SS3) and Gaps Between Settlements (NBE2) deleted, and Bartley Wood, Hook re- designated as a Locally Important Employment Site (ED2).
68
Appendix B
MM139 - Proposed Modifications to Appendix 2: Housing Trajectory
The table below and the graph overleaf sets out Hart’s housing trajectory for the plan period. The following pages outline how the supply was calculated.
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 Totals 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 6,208 Annual Requirement 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 423 7,614
388 776 1,164 1,552 1,940 2,328 2,716 3,104 3,492 3,880 4,268 4,656 5,044 5,432 5,820 6,208 Cumulative Requirement 423 846 1,269 1,692 2,115 2,538 2,961 3,384 3,807 4,230 4,653 5,076 5,499 5,922 6,345 6,768 7,191 7,614
175 798 Completions 623 338 705 551 2,217
Projected Completions 418 494 580 520 481 230 220 103 3,046 from outstanding planning 567 547 580 568 396 285 233 86 3,262 permissions
Sites within settlement 23 23 22 22 10 11 11 10 184 18 10 8 8 8 boundaries 24 25 25 24 150
Deliverable sites 39 88 89 88 87 60 53 504
11 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 275 Windfall allowance 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 276
Allocated sites (including 40 100 120 133 106 106 99 109 111 116 116 124 134 125 1,539 Neighbourhood Plan 41 83 104 132 89 130 141 138 146 111 113 142 109 1,479 allocations)
69
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 Totals Total annual completions 593 534 753 773 747 468 445 295 195 143 156 148 154 164 155 6,346 623 and projections 338 705 551 567 588 686 695 551 421 411 275 185 187 144 144 173 140 7,384
Cumulative Projected 623 1,216 1,750 2,503 3,276 4,023 4,491 4,936 5,231 5,426 5,569 5,725 5,873 6,027 6,191 6,346
Completions 338 1,043 1,666 2,217 2,784 3,372 4,058 4,753 5,304 5,725 6,136 6,411 6,596 6,783 6,927 7,071 7,244 7,384
70
Updated Housing Trajectory graph
800 8000
700 7000
600 6000
500 5000
400 4000
300 3000 Number of dwellings ofNumber
200 2000 Cummulative number of dwellings ofnumber Cummulative 100 1000
0 0 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 Completions Projected completions from outstanding permissions Allocated sites (including Neighbourhood Plan sites) Sites within settlement boundaries Windfall Allowance Annual housing requirement Cumulative housing requirement Cumulative completions / projections
71
Appendix C
MM140 Completions
The table below lists the known dwellings completions from the start of the plan period. Of the 798 2,217 dwelling completions, 76 235 of these dwellings have been delivered from sites of 9 dwellings or less and 722 1,982 of these have been delivered from sites of 10 or more dwellings.
Year Completions 2014/15 338 2015/16 705 2016/17 623 2017/18 175 551 Total 798 2,217
MM141 Outstanding Planning Permissions
The total number of dwellings with outstanding planning permission at 6 October 2017 1 April 2018 is 3,378 3,652. Some applications have been removed from the housing supply due to uncertainty surrounding delivery. Five dwellings are from applications which have lapsed or believe to be lapsed. Some schemes with prior approval at 6 October 2017 1 April 2018 do not have any avoidance measures in place for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. As such they cannot be legally implemented until they have acquired Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). If a scheme does not have an agreed SANG solution then it has been removed from the housing supply. 327 385 dwellings have prior approval yet they do not have an agreed SANG solution at 6 October 2017 1 April 2018.
The following table sets out how the supply from outstanding planning permissions has been calculated, taking all permissions as the start point and subtracting lapsed permissions and prior approvals with no SANG. The total housing supply from sites with planning permission is 3,046 3,262 dwellings.
72
Number of Dwellings Sites with planning permission at 1 April 2018 3,378 3,652
Sites where the permission has lapsed since 1 5 April 2018 Prior approvals with no SANG 327 385
Sites with planning permission included in the 3,046 3,262 housing supply
73
The table below sets out the anticipated delivery rates for sites with planning permission over 100 dwellings. All sites of less than 100 dwellings are expected to come forward within the next five years.
Net dwellings
outstanding at 6
– Application Site
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32
October 2017 1 ------April 2018
Oct 17 Mar 18 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total 14/00733/MAJOR 48 100 110 110 90 90 North East Hook, London Road, Hook 548 548 17/01123/REM 10 60 100 100 100 100 78 07/02949/MAJOR 11/01040/MAJOR Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet 14 14 14 13/01083/MAJOR 13/01221/MAJOR 13/02513/MAJOR 160 17 50 50 43 160 15/00154/MAJOR Edenbrook extension, Hitches Lane, Fleet 196 40 40 50 50 16 196 17/00372/FUL 12/00236/MAJOR Queen Elizabeth Barracks, Sandy Lane, 183 48 79 56 183
13/00795/MAJOR Fleet 104 80 24 104 14/00504/MAJOR Land At Watery Lane, Fleet 300 50 60 60 60 50 20 300 16/01552/REM Hawley Park Farm, Hawley Road, 126 26 50 50 126 18/00334/FUL8 Blackwater 13/02633/MAJOR Guillemont Park, Minley Road 33 18 15 33 17/00771/FUL Sun Park/Guillemont Park, Minley Road 313 10 50 50 50 55 55 43 313 Providence House, 2 Bartley Wood 107 50 57 107 16/00883/PRIOR Business Park, Hook 29 29 29 Land Between Moulsham Lane and 14/02281/MAJOR 150 50 50 50 150 Broome Close, Yateley Land North of Netherhouse Copse, 50 83 16/01651/OUT 423 50 80 80 80 423 Hitches Lane, Fleet 10 80 43 16/03378/FUL Bartley House, Station Road, Hook 102 10 30 30 32 102
8 18/00334/FUL seeks permission for 158 dwellings. The extant permission is for 126 dwellings.
74
2,044 147 249 382 363 350 230 220 103 2,044 Total 2,291 169 300 440 472 306 285 233 86 2,291
75
MM142 Sites within settlement boundaries
One of the sources of housing supply set in Policy SS1 is ‘sites within settlements’. A figure of 184 150 dwellings from this source of sites is derived from sites within settlements identified within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) that are considered to be developable within the plan period. These sites are for 5 or more dwellings. They have not been allocated in the Local Plan as they are available and suitable for residential development and could gain planning permission through the planning application process. Note that small sites of less than 5 dwellings are dealt with under the small site windfall allowance. 150 dwellings is likely to be an underestimate from this source as it is based only on known developable SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) sites within settlement boundaries.
Notional SHLAA
Mar 18
Site Name Housing - Reference
Capacity 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
------
Oct 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Imac Systems SHL041 6 2 1 1 1 1 6
Land at Elvetham Heath SHL104 40 8 8 8 8 8 40
Fleet Thurlston House SHL113 16 4 3 3 3 3 16
140-150 Fleet Road SHL192 12 3 3 2 2 2 12
Admiral House SHL208 20 4 4 4 4 4 20
125-127 Fleet Road SHL320 (part) 40 10 10 10 10 40
50 13 13 12 12 50 Hook Rawlings SHL038 56 14 14 14 14 56
184 23 23 22 22 10 11 11 10 184 Total 18 10 8 8 8 150 24 25 25 24 150
76
MM143 Deliverable sites
At 6 October 2017 the following sites were the subject of a planning application and were deemed to be deliverable sites.
–
Planning
SHLAA Site Name application Reference
reference 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 32
------
Net no. of ondwelling application 7 October 2017 31 March 2018 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total Bartley House, Station Road, Hook n/a 16/03378/FUL 499 9 10 10 10 10 49
Edenbrook, Hitches Lane, Fleet n/a 17/00372/FUL 59 12 12 12 12 11 59 (additional capacity)
Land south of Riseley10 SHL092 16/02989/OUT 83 17 17 17 16 16 83
Sun Park, Guillemont SHL100 17/00771/FUL 313 10 50 50 50 50 50 53 313
Total 504 39 88 89 88 87 60 53 504
9 16/03378/FUL seeks permission for 102 dwellings. There is already a planning application granted on this site for 53 units. Therefore only 49 of the 102 dwellings for this application have been included in the deliverable sites list to avoid double counting. 10 16/02989/OUT was granted planning permission on 15 November 2017
77
MM144 Site Allocations
The table below details the housing allocations within Hart and estimated delivery rates.
Hartland Village is allocated in the Local Plan for 1,500 dwellings. The site is subject to a planning application reference 17/00471/OUT. The delivery rates set out below are those provided with the application by the developer i.e. 1,428 1,368 dwellings are expected to be delivered within the plan period, and 72 132 dwellings beyond the plan period.
Seven sites have been allocated in the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan. Only six of these sites are listed below as the allocation at Crumplins Business Court has already received planning permission and has been counted in the list of outstanding planning permissions. There is no trajectory for these sites in the Neighbourhood Plan and therefore phasing assumptions have been made.
Site Name
Mar 18
–
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
------
Oct 17 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total 40 100 120 130 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 110 120 118 1,428 Hartland Village 41 83 104 132 89 121 132 124 124 89 99 128 102 1,368 Odiham NP sites: Land at Longwood 2 2 2 2 1 9 4 Western Lane 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 Land at Albion Yard 3 3 2 2 2 12 Land at Dunleys Hill 6 6 6 6 6 30 Land at Hook Road 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 15 Land next to Crownfields 6 6 6 6 6 30
100 120 133 106 106 99 109 111 116 116 124 134 125 1,539 40 41 83 104 132 89 130 141 138 146 111 113 142 109 1,479
78
MM145 Small Site Windfall Allowance
A small site windfall allowance of 275 276 dwellings has been included in the housing supply set out in Policy SS1. This has been derived as follows:
1. The annual average supply from windfall sites of 1-4 dwellings (excluding garden sites) between 2012 and 2017 2018 is 22 23 dwellings per annum (see table below). This demonstrates that such sites are consistently being delivered and contributing to the housing supply.
Year Net windfall completions on small Net windfall completions on small sites sites (excluding garden sites)
2012-13 38 21
2013-14 29 21
2014-15 40 29
2015-16 36 17
2016-17 41 24
2017-18 45 26
Total 184 229 112 138
Mean per annum 37 38 22 23
2. From the base date of 6th October 2017 1 April 2018 to the end of the plan period (31 March 2032) is approximately 14 and a half years. To avoid double counting with planning permissions, no windfall allowance is made for the first two years (it is assumed that all windfall sites likely to be completed in the first two years will have already have planning permission). So the total period for a windfall calculation is 12 and a half years from October 2019 April 2020 to end of March 2032.
3. This means that the small site windfall calculation is 12.5 yrs * 22dpa = 275 dwellings 12 years * 23dpa = 276 dwellings
79
Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Hart Local Plan
SA Statement (also includes HRA Statement)
March 2020
SA of the Hart Local Plan
REVISION SCHEDULE
Rev Date Details Prepared by Review ed by Approved by
1 March SA Statement published alongside the Mark Fessey Steve Smith Steve Smith 2020 adopted version of the Hart Local Plan: Associate Director Technical Director Technical Director Strategy and Sites
Limitations
© 2020 AECOM Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Ltd. (“AECOM”) in accordance w ith its contract w ith Hart District Council (the “Client”) and in accordance w ith generally accepted consultancy principles and the established budget. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherw ise expressly stated in the document. AECOM shall have no liability to any third party that makes use of or relies upon this document.
AECOM Ltd. 2 Leman Street, London E1 8FA
SA STATEMENT i
SA of the Hart Local Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 THE PLAN-MAKING / SA ‘STORY’ ...... 2 2.1 Introduction ...... 2 2.2 Early plan-making / SA stages 2014 - 2017 ...... 2 2.3 SA Report (February 2018) ...... 5 2.4 Post-submission Interim SA Report (August 2018) ...... 11 2.5 SA Report Addendum (March 2019) ...... 11 2.6 Plan finalisation (February 2020)...... 12 3 MEASURES DECIDED CONCERNING MONITORING ...... 13 4 CONCLUSIONS ON THE SA PROCESS ...... 14
SA STATEMENT ii
SA of the Hart Local Plan
1 INTRODUCTION Background
1.1.1 Hart District Council submitted the Hart Local Plan: Strategy and Sites to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 18 June 2018 for examination by an appointed Planning Inspector. Although the 2018 NPPF had been published, the Plan was examined against the 2012 NPPF under transitional arrangements. The Planning Inspector issued his final report to the Council on 10th February 2020, finding the Plan ‘sound’ subject to certain modifications. The next stage will be for the Council to formally adopt the Local Plan.
1.1.2 A parallel process of Sustainability Appraisal (SA) was undertaken alongside plan-making. SA is a mechanism for considering and communicating the likely effects of an emerging plan, and reasonable alternatives, with a view avoiding negative impacts and maximising positives.
1.1.3 Also, at this point there is a need to briefly note the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) undertaken alongside plan-making, the conclusion of which is reported in Box 1.1.
Local Plan HRA Statement
The Local Plan was subject to HRA at key stages throughout the plan making process. This began with a draft HRA in late 2017, which was updated in February 2018 to take account of comments by Natural England. It was updated once more in June 2018 to take account of new case law. An HRA of the Inspector’s proposed main modifications was then produced in 2019. These documents are available at: www.hart.gov.uk/Local-Plan-Publication-2018 (for the February 2018 HRA) and www.hart.gov.uk/local- plan-examination-library-2018 for the June 2018 revision and the 2019 AECOM analysis of the Main Modifications. The HRA concludes that no adverse effects on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) or any other European site will result from the Local Plan, whether alone or in combination with other plans or projects. In line with statutory requirements, the Council consulted with Natural England who did not object to the findings. The Council is therefore satisfied that the Local Plan complies with the requirements of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).
SA explained
1.1.4 It is a requirement that SA involves a series of procedural steps. The final step in the SA process involves preparing a ‘statement’ at the time of plan adoption. This SA Statement presents:
1) The ‘story’ of plan-making / SA up to the point of adoption. Specifically, there is requirement1 to: “summaris[e] how environmental considerations have been integrated into the plan….and how the environmental report… the opinions expressed… and the results of consultations… have been taken into account… and the reasons for choosing the plan… as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with.”
2) Measures decided concerning the monitoring of plan implementation. Specifically, there is a need to explain “the measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the plan or programme.”
This SA Statement
1.1.5 This is the Hart Local Plan SA Statement, and considers (1) and (2) in turn. 1.1.6 This Statement concludes by presenting a checklist of legal requirements, with a view to demonstrating the legal compliance of the SA process undertaken with the SEA Regulations.
1 The information to be provided in the Statement is listed in Article 9 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC) and Regulation 16 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (SEA) Regulations.
SA STATEMENT 1
SA of the Hart Local Plan
2 THE PLAN-MAKING / SA ‘STORY’
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Key steps in the SA process were as follows:
1) Early plan-making / SA stages 2014 - 2017
2) The SA Report was published alongside the Proposed Submission Plan in February 2018
3) A Post Submission Interim SA Report was published in August 2018
4) An SA Report Addendum was published alongside proposed modifications in July 2019
5) The Inspector’s Report was published confirming required modifications in February 2020
2.1.2 Each step in the process is discussed, in turn, below. All SA documents are available at: www.hart.gov.uk/local-plan-examination-library-2018
2.2 Early plan-making / SA stages 2014 - 2017
2.2.1 A Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report was published for consultation in April 2014. This documented the key sustainability issues and problems, the baseline conditions, relevant policies, plans and programmes and the draft SA Framework against which the emerging plan, and reasonable alternatives, would subsequently be appraised.
2.2.2 The August 2014 ‘Housing Development Options’ consultation set out five strategic spatial options (not necessarily mutually exclusive) for accommodating new housing development in Hart: settlement focus strategy; dispersal strategy; focused growth strategy based on strategic urban extensions; new settlement strategy; and focused growth away from the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).
2.2.3 Subsequently, in November 2014 the Council confirmed its preferred approach for further testing. This involved a hybrid strategy drawing on various of the options set out above but with a preference for a new settlement at Winchfield for circa 5,000 homes, with around half of those provided in the plan period.
2.2.4 In February 2016, the Council then held a consultation on ‘Refined Options for Delivering New Homes’, which involved presenting a mutually exclusive set of broad spatial strategy alternatives. The document also notably: identified the sites in contention to deliver each of the spatial strategy alternatives; and clarified that a new settlement would be within an area of search centred on Winchfield. Whilst consultation responses were varied, it was possible to identify a broad order of preference. Most favoured was the option of ‘dispersal and a new settlement’, followed by the option of ‘strategic urban extensions and a new settlement’.
2.2.5 In spring 2017 the Council published a Draft Plan involving a new settlement at Murrell Green (within the area of search previously shown in the Refined Options consultation document), coupled with a number of smaller, dispersed site allocations. Six reasonable alternatives to this strategy were also subject to appraisal and consultation at the time (see the 2017 Interim SA Report), exploring strategies with a focus on one or more strategic urban extensions, and also exploring a strategy that would involve a larger new settlement centred on Winchfield. Presented below are maps showing two examples of the six reasonable alternatives from 2017 (specifically, the lowest growth option and the highest growth option)2 and the summary appraisal findings. The Interim SA Report also included a statement by the Council responding to the alternatives appraisal / setting out reasons for supporting the preferred option.
2 The blue and pink shaded areas in the maps indicate potential development areas
SA STATEMENT 2
SA of the Hart Local Plan
Reasonable spatial strategy option 1 from 2017 Reasonable spatial strategy option 6 from 2017
Summary spatial strategy alternatives appraisal findings from 2017
Categorisation and rank Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Small sites Small sites Grove Farm Owens Farm Pale Lane Winchfield Grove Farm Murrell Murrell Murrell Murrell Owens Farm Green Green Green Green Topic Pale Lane
Biodiversity 6 5 2 3 4
Climate change mitigation 6 5 2 2 2
Communities 3 3 2 2
Employment and the economy 3 2
Flood risk / climate change adaptation 2
Historic environment 6 3 5 2 4
SA STATEMENT 3
SA of the Hart Local Plan
Topic Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 1
Housing 4 3 2 2 4
Land and other resources 2 2 2 2 2
Landscape 2 2 2
Transport and 5 2 4 6 3 accessibility
Water 3 2 2
Summary and conclusions Whilst it is not the aim of this appraisal to conclude on the overall performance / sustainability of each option, the appraisal does serve to indicate that Option 1 (no new settlement) performs least well, on the basis that it does not stand-out as performing well in terms of any topic, and stands-out as performing poorly in terms of several. Differentiating the remaining five alternatives is more difficult. Taking notable topics in turn – • Biodiversity – a strategy relying on small sites performs less well given limited potential to deliver new SANG to as a means of avoiding recreational impacts to the TBHSPA, whilst Owens Farm and Murrell Green stand-out as the better performing strategic sites, i.e. the sites that are less constrained and/or offer some opportunity for biodiversity gains. • Climate change mitigation – maximum reliance on strategic scale development is supported, as economies of scale can make low carbon infrastructure more viable. • Communities – focusing growth at Fleet (i.e. the district’s main settlement) is supported, whilst small urban extensions are not, given limited or no potential for development to deliver community infrastructure. • Employment and the economy – options involving a Murrell Green new settlement are supported, as it is expected that the scheme would involve delivery of 3.7ha of new employment land. • Flood risk / climate change adaptation – there is a likelihood that flood risk can be addressed at all locations; however, Winchfield new settlement stands out as more constrained. • Historic environment – Murrell Green and Pale Lane stand-out as less constrained, and smaller sites are perhaps less likely to have significant impacts on the setting of heritage assets. Even the better performing options would lead to significant negative effects, recognising that Cross Farm - a larger site that is a constant across the alternatives - lies adjacent to Crookham Village Conservation Area. • Housing – All options perform well, as the OAHN figure assigned to the district by the SHMA would be met. A package of smaller sites is supported, as smaller sites are likely to be inherently ‘deliverable’ and dispersing development between settlements can help to ensure that settlement specific needs are met. • Land and other resources – the quality of agricultural land lost to development is the primary consideration, and in this respect it is noted that land quality in the Winchfield area may tend to be relatively low (albeit there may still be some land classed as ‘best and most versatile’). • Landscape - Options 2, 3 and 5 perform relatively well as development at the two worst performing sites - Owen’s Farm and Winchfield – would be avoided. • Transport and accessibility – sites are associated with a range of issues, which makes it a particular challenge to differentiate the alternatives. On balance, Option 2 is judged to perform best as it would not involve a strategic urban extension at Grove Farm, Owen’s Farm or Pale Lane, all of which are associated with notable issues. However, it is recognised that the package of smaller urban extensions under Option 2 involves some sites at smaller settlements, with high car dependency. • Water - there are few constraints to growth that would affect one option more than another, but two potential issues relate to capacity of Eversley WWTW, in the north of the district where two or three of the smaller urban extension sites would be located, and capacity of the sewer network at Pale Lane.
SA STATEMENT 4
SA of the Hart Local Plan
2.3 SA Report (February 2018) 2.3.1 As per the 2017 Interim SA Report, the SA Report was structured in three parts in order to answer the following questions: 1. What has plan-making / SA involved up to this point? – Including in relation to 'reasonable alternatives’. 2. What are the SA findings at this stage? – i.e. in relation to the draft plan. 3. What happens next? 2.3.2 Each part of the SA Report is considered in turn below, before a final sub-section discusses consultation responses received.
What has plan-making / SA involved up to this point? 2.3.3 The task was to explain how reasonable alternatives were established subsequent to a process of gathering evidence and examining/refining options, as summarised in the figure below.
2.3.4 The process of establishing the reasonable alternatives was discussed within Chapter 6 of the SA Report. As such, it is helpful to present a brief overview of each section within Chapter 6: • Section 6.1 - introduced the process and presented the above flow diagram. • Section 6.2 - presented a brief discussion of high-level issues/options, in particular focusing on the matters of: housing needs; other strategic considerations with a bearing on the quantum of homes to be provided for through the plan (e.g. providing for affordable housing needs); and high-level considerations in respect of the broad distribution of housing (primarily as understood on the basis of the three previous Local Plan consultations). • Section 6.3 - introduced the new settlement options that were available, and hence might potentially feature within the reasonable spatial strategy alternatives. • Section 6.4 - introduced the settlement edge and rural site options that were available, and hence might potentially feature within the reasonable spatial strategy alternatives. • Section 6.5 - drew together information from the three work-streams discussed above, in order to establish a single set of reasonable spatial strategy alternatives for appraisal. 2.3.5 Seven reasonable spatial strategy alternatives emerged from this process, varying in respect of: 1) the approach to growth at strategic urban extensions (Pale Lane and/or West of Hook); and 2) the approach to growth at non-strategic urban extensions (an indicative package of sites that was either delivered in full, or not delivered at all, across the alternatives).
SA STATEMENT 5
SA of the Hart Local Plan
2.3.6 The option of allocating a new settlement in the Murrell Green / Winchfield area through the Local Plan was ruled out as unreasonable, and hence did not feature in any of the reasonable spatial strategy alternatives. However, the SA Report recognised that there was the potential to identify an ‘area of search’ for a potential new settlement through the Local Plan (para 6.3.8). Appendix III of the report presented an appraisal of new settlement area of search alternatives. 2.3.7 Presented below are maps showing two examples of the seven reasonable spatial strategy alternatives from February 2018 (specifically, the lowest growth option and the highest growth option) and the summary appraisal findings.
2.3.8 The final section of Part 1 (Section 7) presented the Council’s response to the alternatives appraisal / reasons for supporting the preferred option. This is reproduced below.
Reasonable spatial strategy option 1 from February 2018 (note that this map shows existing settlements (light blue), omission sites (grey) and potential allocations (red))
Reasonable spatial strategy option 7 from February 2018 (note that this map shows existing settlements (light blue), omission sites (grey) and potential allocations (red))
SA STATEMENT 6
SA of the Hart Local Plan
Summary spatial strategy alternatives appraisal findings from February 2018
Categorisation and rank Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Do Non- Pale Lane West of Pale Lane+ West of Pale Lane minimum strategic Hook non- Hook + + West of strategic non- Hook Topic strategic
Accessibility 2 2 2 3 2 2
Biodiversity 2 2 2 3 3 3
Climate change 3 3 2 2 2 2 mitigation
Communities ======
Employment and the economy ======
Flood risk / climate 3 3 2 5 4 4 change adaptation
Historic 2 2 2 3 3 3 environment
Housing 3 2 2 2
Land and other 3 3 2 5 4 4 resources
Landscape 3 2 3 4 5 4
Transport and 3 3 2 5 4 4 accessibility
Water 3 2 2 3 3 2
Summary and conclusions The first point to note is that the appraisal shows Option 1 (“Do minimum”, i.e. allocate Hartland Park only) to perform well in terms of the majority of sustainability objectives, reflecting the identified constraints to growth within Hart. Higher growth options do perform better from a ‘Housing’ perspective; however, all options would result in significant positive effects as there would be a land supply in place to deliver the Government’s draft local housing needs figure in practice (i.e. with a sufficient ‘buffer’ for non-delivery, or delayed delivery, at one or more sites). Higher growth is supported because of the size of the buffer, with Options 5 and 6 performing particularly well as they would also involve a good mix of sites, in terms of size and distribution. Option 1 could potentially give rise to a degree of risk, in respect of ensuring a housing supply (potentially with knock-on implications for other sustainability objectives), given the degree of reliance on one site (namely Hartland Park); however, the risk is considered small. Also, the Council’s support for allocating land for a new settlement through a subsequent DPD helps to allay any concerns (see further discussion of the Council’s response to the alternatives appraisal findings within Chapter 8).
SA STATEMENT 7
SA of the Hart Local Plan
Focusing on other objectives - • Accessibility – there are a number of factors, but on balance it is fair to conclude that Option 6 is worst performing, due to concerns regarding secondary school capacity at Fleet, plus concerns regarding the distribution of growth amongst lower order villages, including several with limited or no bus service. • Biodiversity - both strategic sites are associated with significant constraints, as are certain of the smaller sites under consideration; hence ‘do minimum’ is the preferred option. Significant negative effects are predicted, for options other than the ‘do minimum’. • Climate change mitigation - Option 7 performs best as it would involve a concentration of growth at two strategic-scale schemes, giving rise to the potential to deliver innovative measures that enable per capita CO2 emissions from the built environment to be minimised. However, in practice, it is not clear that there are significant opportunities (going by the proposals submitted as part of current planning applications for these two sites), plus there is also a need to factor-in CO2 emissions from transport. • Communities – both of the strategic urban extension options (Pale Lane and West of Hook) give rise to certain concerns (e.g. in respect of noise pollution and safe walking/cycling) but issues are fairly limited. • Employment and the economy – None of the sites in question would involve delivery of new employment land, and hence the alternatives are judged to perform broadly on a par. • Flood risk / climate change adaptation – the ranking of the alternatives reflects an understanding that a strategic extension West of Hook gives rise to relatively limited flood risk concerns. • Historic environment – both strategic sites are associated with significant constraints, as are certain of the smaller sites under consideration; hence ‘do minimum’ is the preferred option. Significant negative effects are predicted, for options other than the ‘do minimum’, albeit with some uncertainty. • Land and other resources – the ranking of the alternatives, and the conclusion on ‘significant effects’, reflect an understanding that ‘West of Hook’ does not comprise ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land. • Landscape - the ranking of the alternatives reflects an understanding that a strategic extension at Pale Lane gives rise to relatively limited landscape concerns. • Transport – the ranking of the alternatives reflects an understanding that a strategic extension West of Hook gives rise to relatively limited transport concerns. • Water - the ranking of the alternatives reflects an understanding that a strategic extension West of Hook gives rise to relatively limited concerns in respect of water-related issues/objectives. In conclusion, all alternatives are associated with certain ‘pros and cons’. The intention is for the Council and stakeholders to take this understanding into account when considering how best to ‘trade-off’ between competing objectives, and establish the ‘most sustainable’ option.
The Council’s response to the appraisal of reasonable spatial strategy alternatives of February 2018
The preferred approach is Option 1, which involves allocating Hartland Park only, and therefore putting in place an overall land supply sufficient to provide 397 dwellings per annum (dpa) (assuming no delays in delivery). The plan commits to 388 dpa as a ‘target’ that delivery of the plan should be monitored against, and which should be used for the purposes of calculating the rolling ‘five-year housing land supply’ position. The appraisal finds Option 1 to have pros and cons, as per all the alternatives; however, it is apparent that Option 1 performs well in terms of the majority of sustainability objectives, which itself is a strong indicator of overall ‘sustainability’. The general message, for the majority of sustainability objectives, is that allocation of one or more additional sites (whether through a strategic extension or package of smaller extensions) would lead to conflicts, given the constraints that exist across Hart, and not lead to significant opportunities for delivering enhancements, particularly in relation to infrastructure delivery. The appraisal highlights that allocation of one or more sites, in addition to Hartland Park, would lead to stronger performance in terms of ‘Housing’ objectives; however, it is noted that Option 1 (i.e. allocation of Hartland Park only) would still lead to significant positive effects. Even if there were some unforeseen delay to delivery at Hartland Park, the size of the contingency under Option 1 (36%) means that, in all likelihood, local housing need (as currently understood, namely 292 dpa) would still be achieved; indeed, the likelihood is that ‘above local housing need’ would be delivered. Were ‘above local housing need’ to be delivered in practice, then the effect would be that affordable housing needs are met more fully (recognising that
SA STATEMENT 8
SA of the Hart Local Plan
delivering the local housing need figure will result in a shortfall in respect of affordable housing needs). It could also transpire that a modest amount of housing is available to address any unmet needs that may arise within the Housing Market Area; however, current understanding is that unmet needs are unlikely in the context of the Government’s proposed standard methodology for calculating housing needs. With a view to addressing any residual concerns, the Council will work closely with the Hartland Park site promoters to ensure timely delivery, and it is also important to note that a policy framework is proposed to support timely housing delivery. Specifically - • site specific policy for Hartland Park increases certainty, and should help to ensure smooth progression through the planning application process; • policy is proposed which is supportive of specialist accommodation in the countryside on suitable s ites (Policy H4), rural exceptions sites for affordable housing (Policy H5) and other housing in the countryside, where it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside in accordance with Policy NBE1; • the suite of proposed thematic policy should assist with successful delivery of windfall sites, and also timely progression of neighbourhood plans (which may choose to allocate sites for housing); and • most importantly, there is the commitment to commence work immediately on a new Development Plan Document, which will allocate land for a new settlement within the Murrell Green/Winchfield ‘area of search’ (Policy SS3), which in turn will deliver homes and infrastructure from around the middle of the plan period, ahead of 2032.
What are the SA findings at this stage?
2.3.9 Part 2 of the SA Report presented an appraisal of the Proposed Submission Plan under the SA framework, reaching the following conclusion: “In conclusion, the appraisal has highlighted the likelihood of the Proposed Submission Plan resulting in significant positive effects in respect of ‘Housing’ objectives (due to local housing needs being provided for, and potentially exceeded with positive implications for affordable housing delivery) and ‘Land’ objectives (due to the decision to focus housing growth entirely on brownfield land), with no ‘significant negative effects’ predicted.
A range of other issues and impacts are also discussed, notably - • Accessibility - the proposal to focus growth at Hartland Park is broadly supported, given the potential to deliver (or fund) new community infrastructure; however, it is noted that the site is not of a sufficient size to deliver a new secondary school. • Biodiversity - Hartland Park is a sensitive site, and hence there is a need to apply caution. Detailed measures are proposed to avoid, mitigate and compensate for impacts; however, the potential for additional measures to be in place can be envisaged. • Climate change mitigation - whilst a concentration of growth is supported, there remains a need for further work to ensure that opportunities for delivering ambitious low carbon energy infrastructure (and energy efficiency measures) are fully realised. • Economy and employment - the proposal not to allocate any new employment sites, despite the housing permission/allocation at Hartland Park is broadly in accordance with the findings of the Employment Land Review. Also, there is added comfort in the knowledge that there will be good potential to deliver new employment land in the future, as part of a new settlement in the Murrell Green / Winchfield area. It is also noted that a robust strategy is proposed in respect of safeguarding existing strategic and locally important sites. • Landscape and historic environment - the proposal to focus growth at Hartland Park, rather than allocate a package of smaller greenfield urban extension sites, is strongly supported; however, there are certain landscape sensitivities associated with Hartland Park. • Housing - in addition to the ‘headline’ matter of providing for local housing need, there is also a need to consider the mix of housing sites provided for by the plan, and also the potential for the allocated sites to deliver affordable housing. In this respect, Hartland Park has a risk attached in that it may prove costly to deliver, with implications for the number of affordable homes that can be delivered, and potentially also the timing of delivery.
SA STATEMENT 9
SA of the Hart Local Plan
• Transport - the proposal to focus growth at Hartland Park is supported, given that this site is relatively well located from a transport perspective, and there is the potential to deliver upgrades to transport infrastructure; however, detailed investigations are ongoing. • Water - there is some uncertainty regarding Wastewater Treatment Capacity to accommodate Hartland Park, which could feasibly have implications for phasing / delivery.
The appraisal is also strongly supportive of the decision to defer an allocation of land for a new settlement in the Murrell Green/Winchfield Area, i.e. the proposal to identify an area of search at the current time, and then undertake further work ahead of making a formal allocation through a separate DPD. This provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that issues are addressed (e.g. in respect of biodiversity, landscape, heritage, traffic and agricultural land quality) and opportunities fully realised (most notably in respect of secondary school delivery).
The Council, and the appointed Planning Inspector, can give consideration to these appraisal conclusions during the Examination. Similarly, consideration should be given to suggested specific changes to policy wording (highlighted as recommendations) covering - • Biodiversity - including around the matter of monitoring ‘no net loss’ and ‘net gain’; • Design at Hartland Park - the matter of the site’s boundaries, including implications for movement, might be more explicitly addressed through policy; • Housing mix at Hartland Park - the Council might consider whether this is a policy priority that deserves the establishment of more stringent requirements.”
What happens next?
2.3.10 Part 3 of the SA Report explained the subsequent process of publication (under Regulation 19 of the Local Planning Regulations) and then submission and examination.
2.3.11 It also presented ‘measures envisaged concerning monitoring’, in particular finding that: “This focus on monitoring of housing delivery, in light of changing understanding of housing needs, is appropriate. Other proposed indicators presented within the monitoring framework are also strongly supported, in light of the appraisal presented above (Chapter 10) - • Net affordable housing completions at Hartland Village • Provision of social and community infrastructure at Hartland Village • Delivery of educational facilities at the new settlement • Delivery of green infrastructure provision at Hartland Village • Quality and area of Sites of Important for Nature Conservation A focus of monitoring delivery at Hartland Park is supported; however, there might be the potential to go further, e.g. through specific monitoring targeted at ensuring no ‘net loss’ of biodiversity, potentially to include specific monitoring of the planned translocation and management of the on-site SINCs.”
A note on consultation
2.3.12 The SA Report was prepared taking careful account of consultation responses received at the Regulation 18 stage, notably: • Work to establish and appraise reasonable spatial strategy alternatives was informed by representations received from site promoters, site objectors and organisations with a more strategic interest, as evidenced by numerous references in Section 6 (e.g. see Figure 6.6) and Appendix V (e.g. see reference to Crondall Parish Council) of the SA Report. • The draft plan appraisal presented in Section 10 of the SA Report includes numerous quotes from consultees, including the local Clinical Commissioning Group, the Environment Agency, Hampshire Wildlife Trust, Hampshire County Council, Historic England and Thames Water.
SA STATEMENT 10
SA of the Hart Local Plan
2.4 Post-submission Interim SA Report (August 2018) 2.4.1 Concerns were raised through consultation that the reasonable spatial strategy alternatives varied only in respect of site allocations and did not vary in respect of the matter of establishing a new settlement area of search. As such, work was undertaken to update and reappraise the reasonable spatial strategy alternatives, and then present findings within a Post-submission Interim SA Report Addendum. Also, as a step along the path to arriving at updated reasonable spatial strategy alternatives, the opportunity was taken to present an updated appraisal of alternative new settlement areas of search (see Appendix I of the report).
2.4.2 The updated (August 2018) alternatives were as per those previously published in the SA Report (February 2018) except that: • support for a new settlement AoS at Murrell Green / Winchfield was added as a variable and, consequently, four new spatial strategy options were added that would involve support for the AoS, namely Options 1b, 2b, 3b and 4b; and • a new higher growth option was added.
2.4.3 The appraisal highlighted the “b” options (establishment of an AoS) to perform well relative to the “a” options (no AoS) in a number of respects, largely on the basis that a new settlement might negate the need to allocate problematic urban extensions in the future. The overall appraisal conclusion explained that: “In terms of a number of objectives… the new settlement AoS is supported (to varying degrees) despite the AoS being associated with notable issues/constraints. This is because, under a baseline scenario, an absence of a new settlement… would lead to increased pressure… for further urban extensions...”
2.4.4 However, it is important to note that the Inspector’s Report of February 2020 states that the Post-submission Interim SA Report should not be relied upon in support of the plan.
A note on consultation
2.4.5 The Post-submission Interim SA Report was prepared taking careful account of consultation responses received at the Regulation 19 stage. In addition to representations received from the respective site promoters, the two appraisal tables reference representations received from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Wildlife Trust, Historic England, Natural England, Rushmoor Borough Council, Surrey Heath Borough Council, Thames Water and Winchfield Parish Council.
2.5 SA Report Addendum (March 2019)
2.5.1 Following examination hearings, the Inspector wrote to the Council on 26th February 2019 confirming the need for modifications to the plan in order to make it ‘sound’.
2.5.2 Proposed modifications were then published for consultation with an SA Report Addendum published alongside. The SA Report Addendum presented an appraisal of the proposed modifications and also an appraisal of the ‘the plan as modified’.
Appraisal of proposed modifications 2.5.3 The appraisal reflected an understanding that the headline proposed main modification was MM19, which proposed two changes to Policy SS1 (Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Growth): • Firstly, it proposed to increase the housing requirement from 388 homes per annum from 2016 to 2032 to 423 homes per annum from 2014 to 2032, but with the housing supply unchanged. This change reflected the switch from Local Housing Need referred to in the 2018 NPPF to OAHN (objectively assessed housing need) in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment consistent with the 2012 NPPF. In addition the Inspector required Hart to accommodate Surrey Heath’s unmet housing need of 731 homes between 2016 and 2032 in order to meet the duty to cooperate. These factors resulted in the increase to 423 homes per annum.
SA STATEMENT 11
SA of the Hart Local Plan
• Secondly, it proposed to remove the new settlement area of search from the plan (leading to a number of consequential modifications).
2.5.4 However, it was a challenge to conclude with any certainty that either change leads to implications for the sustainability baseline / achievement of sustainability objectives. With regards to housing numbers, it is only increases in housing supply that enable sustainability considerations to be attributed with any certainty, although to increase the requirement would likely lead to a review of the Plan being needed sooner, which would be a positive from a housing perspective with tensions in respect of some community and environmental objectives.
2.5.5 With regards to the deletion of the new settlement area of search, this was effectively the deletion of a process to start a DPD, and not a deletion of a new settlement allocation. The DPD process may be replaced in time with a different process, most likely the next local plan, which would be subject to its own SA with a range of reasonable alternatives ‘on the table’.
2.5.6 The most notable ‘other’ proposed modification was MM82, which proposed deletion of Policy NBE2 (Gaps between Settlements); however, the appraisal concluded that the modification would have a neutral effect given a corresponding modification to Policy NBE3 Landscape which introduced a new generic criterion (e) preventing development that would lead to settlement coalescence or damage to the separate identity of settlements.
Appraisal of the submission plan plus proposed modifications
2.5.7 The SA Report Addendum concluded the following: “The overall conclusion reached by the SA Report (February 2018), in respect of the submission Local Plan as a whole (see Section 10.14 of the report), focused extensively on policy support for Hartland Park; however, the importance of that policy support is now more limited, because Hartland Park has outline planning permission, and the first phase has full planning permission (such that the only planning applications likely to be submitted are ‘reserved matters’ applications for latter phases). Also, whilst the SA Report (February 2018) concluded support for the new settlement AoS, the proposed modifications remove the AoS from the plan, a step that is justified in light of the Inspector’s letter to the Council of February 2019 (see discussion above on sustainability implications). However, broadly speaking, the conclusion of the SA Report that the Local Plan leads to limited tensions with sustainability objectives holds true for the submission plan plus proposed modifications. The key point is that the Local Plan provides for objectively assessed housing needs (and as modified accommodates an unmet need in Surrey Heath, and includes an uplift for affordable housing) without making any allocations over-and-above Hartland Park (which now has planning permission). It also proposes a robust framework of thematic policies to guide planning applications (i.e. reserved matters applications at Hartland Park, applications for windfall and rural exception housing sites, potentially applications for change of use at employment sites, and other applications with less potential for strategic sustainability implications).”
2.6 Plan finalisation (February 2020) 2.6.1 As part of the process of concluding on required modifications, the Inspector’s Report comments on a number of the issues that had been a focus of preceding SA, notably: • Housing requirement – the Inspector concludes that the Local Plan should provide for objectively assessed housing needs in full plus unmet needs from Surrey Heath Borough. • Spatial strategy – the Inspector concludes that the housing requirement can be met without any allocations over-and-above Hartland Park, which has planning permission. • New settlement AoS – the Inspector deletes the proposed AoS on the basis of insufficient evidence to demonstrate that an AoS is the most appropriate strategy for meeting housing needs in the long-term.
SA STATEMENT 12
SA of the Hart Local Plan
2.6.2 The Inspector’s Report also includes a section dedicated to discussing the SA process, as part of which the Inspector responds to issues raised through representations / consultation, notably: • “A number of criticisms have been made of the pre-submission SA (CD5a). I consider that the pre-submission SA does appropriately look at different spatial strategies. Whilst this is done through different site combinations, it is clear that the reasonable alternatives include a single new large settlement (Hartland Village), strategic sites and non-strategic smaller sites that are dispersed throughout the District or several combinations of strategic and non- strategic sites. I consider that this offers a reasonable range of differing spatial strategies.” • “I acknowledge the concerns of the promoters of some of the sites who set out that because their site was considered along with a combination of other sites and that the low scoring of other sites affected the overall ranking of the reasonable alternative in which their site was appraised. However, it is clear that to meet the housing needs of the District many of the smaller non-strategic sites would have needed to be delivered together. I consider that such an approach is therefore acceptable. Further, to consider every possible combination of sites available would have led to dozens of reasonable alternatives and would have made the pre-submission SA unmanageable. Overall, I consider that the pre-submission SA considers an appropriate range of reasonable alternatives.” • “To inform the selection of reasonable alternatives a large number of proposed sites were appraised using a Geographical Information System (GIS). I consider that this approach and the criteria adopted to be an appropriate way of appraising a large number of sites, including those in relation to SANG, SINC and ancient woodland. It is inevitable that many site promotors disagree with the scoring of their site. In many instances, judgement is needed, and some considerations are clearly subjective. I have considered carefully the concerns raised by site promotors and I am content that based on the information that the Council had before them at the time of producing the pre-submission SA, its scoring was reasonable.” • “Further, it has been suggested that some of the scores for the sites should have been updated to reflect additional information provided as part of planning applications or clarifications submitted by site promoters. This would require the SA to be regularly updated. This simply isn’t practical, and I am mindful that at some point the Council has to draw a line under the evidence base and submit a Plan for examination… Further to the above, I am particularly mindful that even if some of the scores were improved for the disputed sites, even significantly so, I am satisfied that Option 1 (Hartland Village only) would still be ranked the highest, given its location and previously developed nature.”
2.6.3 In respect of the SA process overall, the Inspector’s Report found that: “Overall, I am content that the pre-submission SA provides an adequate basis to inform the Plan.”
3 MEASURES DECIDED CONCERNING MONITORING
3.1.1 Part 3 of the SA Report (February 2018) included a discussion of the ‘measures envisaged concerning monitoring’, stating: “This focus on monitoring of housing delivery, in light of changing understanding of housing needs, is appropriate. Other proposed indicators presented within the monitoring framework are also strongly supported, in light of the appraisal presented above (Chapter 10) - • Net affordable housing completions at Hartland Village • Provision of social and community infrastructure at Hartland Village… • … Delivery of green infrastructure provision at Hartland Village • Quality and area of SINCs A focus of monitoring delivery at Hartland Park is supported; however, there might be the potential to go further, e.g. through specific monitoring targeted at ensuring no ‘net loss’ of biodiversity, potentially to include specific monitoring of the planned translocation and management of the on-site SINCs.”
SA STATEMENT 13
SA of the Hart Local Plan
3.1.2 The Inspector’s Report then addresses monitoring in detail, notably requiring a new monitoring indicator in respect of the proportion of homes delivered on previously developed land. The Inspector also highlights the importance of closely monitoring the delivery of a flood alleviation system at Phoenix Green, road side air quality monitoring in the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, delivery of new retail floorspace and housing for older people.
3.1.3 The Council will reflect the Inspector’s monitoring measures in its Annual Monitoring Report.
4 CONCLUSIONS ON THE SA PROCESS
4.1.1 This SA Statement demonstrates that a robust SA process has been progressed alongside plan- making, with appraisal findings and consultation responses feeding in to decision-making at key junctures. Most importantly, in terms of compliance with both the SEA Regulations3 and Local Planning Regulations,4 the SA Report was published alongside the proposed submission version of the Local Plan in February 2018, presenting the required information, namely the information required by Regulation 12 of the SEA Regulations. This report served to inform representations on the plan, and then served to inform plan finalisation.
4.1.2 This SA Statement is the final step in the SA process. Its aim is to explain the ‘story’ of the plan- making / SA process, and also present measures decided concerning monitoring. Table 4.1 serves to demonstrate that this report presents the required information.
Regulatory checklist
The SA Statement must… How has this Statement presented the required information?
This Statement has sought to provide examples of key sustainability Summarise how environmental considerations that have been highlighted through appraisal and (and wider sustainability) consultation and, in turn, integrated into the plan. considerations have been First and foremost, the relative merits of competing site options and spatial integrated into the plan strategy alternatives were appraised in terms of a range of sustainability issues/objectives, with a view to informing selection of a preferred option.
This statement seeks to explain an iterative process, particularly in respect of exploring reasonable alternatives. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 end with a discussion of how consultation responses received were taken into Summarise how the SA Report account, and the Inspector’s Report (Section 2.6) also discusses the and consultation responses influence of consultation responses. More generally, it is naturally the received, as part of the Draft case that all consultation responses were taken into account: A) by the Plan / SA Report consultation, plan-makers at the subsequent plan-making stage; and B) by the SA have been taken into account consultants, both when refining understanding of the SA scope, and when when finalising the plan. establishing / refining reasonable alternatives. Further information is available within the Council’s Consultation Statement – see www.hart.gov.uk/local-plan-examination-library-2018.
Summarise the reasons for Section 2 explains how the Council explicitly responded to the alternatives choosing the plan as adopted, appraisal ahead of the plan being finalised for consultation at the Draft in the light of the other Plan and Proposed Submission Plan / Publication stages. reasonable alternatives dealt The Inspector’s Report equally set out detailed reasons in support of his with. conclusion on plan soundness, with reference to reasonable alternatives.
Summarise the measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental See Section 3 effects of the implementation of the plan
3 Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 4 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
SA STATEMENT 14
PAPER F
APPENDIX 3
Soundness and Legal Tests for a Local Plan
The tests of soundness in the 2012 NPPF:
• Positively prepared (based on a strategy that seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development);
• Justified (the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence);
• Effective (the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities);
• Consistent with national policy (the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework).
The legal tests, in summary, are that the Plan must:
• Be prepared in accordance with the Council’s Local Development Scheme and its Statement of Community Involvement.
• Be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal, Strategic Environmental Assessment, and a Habitat Regulations Assessment.
• Include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.
• Be prepared in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.
• Comply with all other relevant legal requirements including the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the 2012 Regulations, which include following the necessary steps for consultation and publicity.
PAPER F
Appendix 4
Headline Main Modifications over the Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2032 as submitted for examination
The following list summarises the most notable Main Modifications to the Plan recommended by the Inspector:
1. An increase in the housing requirement from 388 homes per annum from 2016- 2032 to 423 homes per annum for the 18 year Plan period 2014-2032. This is so that the Plan addresses Hart’s objectively assessed housing need as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and accommodates Surrey Heath’s unmet housing need of 731 homes (which equates to 41 homes per annum from 2014-2032). However no additional sites needed to be allocated. This issue was considered by Cabinet in March 2019 following a letter from the Inspector in February 2019. Cabinet agreed to accept the Inspector’s recommendation in this regard.
2. The removal of Policy SS3 for a new settlement at Murrell Green/Winchfield due to concerns over the submitted evidence base. The Plan retains reference to planning strategically for the long term which could be delivered through a new settlement, subject to consideration of reasonable alternatives and a sufficient evidence base. This matter was also considered at Cabinet in March 2019. Cabinet agreed at the time to accept the Inspector’s recommendation.
3. The addition of a strategic objective to encourage redevelopment of previously developed land;
4. A change to the affordable homes policy site size threshold from 11 or more units to 10 or more units, to reflect the new NPPF 2019;
5. A commitment to prepare and submit for examination a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document by January 2022;
6. Bartley Wood, Hook changes from a ‘strategic’ employment site to a ‘locally important’ employment site;
7. The removal of Policy NBE2 Gaps Between Settlements. The Inspector had concerns over the effectiveness of the policy given the indicative nature of the boundaries, and he felt the evidence base was inadequate to define those boundaries. He recommended replacing Policy NBE2 with an additional criterion at Policy NBE3 Landscape designed to do the same job, i.e. prevent development where it would lead to the physical or visual coalescence of settlements, or damage their separate identity. The Inspector is not of the view that this change weakens the protection provided by the development plan (paragraph 195). Furthermore the Inspector supported a change to the text clarifying that Gaps could be designated through future Development Plan Documents and Neighbourhood Plans. PAPER F
APPENDIX 5 Saved policies that will be superseded by the Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032
The table below lists those saved policies that will be superseded by the Hart Local Plan 2032 (HLP32). The first column lists policies from HLP32, the second column lists the policies that will be superseded by the new policy.
Policy in the Hart Saved policies to be superseded Local Plan 2032 Policies are from the Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 except those with an ALT prefix which are from the First Alterations to that Plan. SS1 Spatial Strategy and RUR20 Housing in rural settlements Distribution of Growth DEV2 Queen Elizabeth II Barracks area, Church Crookham DEV5 West of Hitches Lane, Fleet DEV6 Holt Lane, Hook DEV8 Land South East of Queen’s Road, North Warnborough ALT DEV9 Dilly Lane, Hartley Wintney DEV23 Reserve Housing site, West of Hitches Lane, Fleet
SS2 Hartland Village DEV12 Pyestock A
H1 Housing Mix URB12 Residential development criteria
H2 Affordable Housing ALT GEN 13 Affordable Housing ALT URB 14 Sheltered and supported accommodation
H3 Rural Exception Sites RUR 22 Affordable Housing
H5 Gypsies, Travellers and RUR 38 Provision of Gypsy sites Travelling Showpeople
ED1 New employment URB2 Business development – general URB6 Expansion of employment sites
ED2 Safeguarding URB7 Loss of employment sites Employment Land and RUR16 Loss of employment uses Premises (B-Use Classes) PAPER F
Policy in the Hart Saved policies to be superseded Local Plan 2032 Policies are from the Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 except those with an ALT prefix which are from the First Alterations to that Plan. DEV3 Land adjacent to Redfields Industrial Estate, Church Crookham DEV4 Martin Lines, Church Crookham DEV10 Guillemont Barracks, Hawley DEV13 Pyestock B DEV14 Blackwater Industrial Estate DEV15 Redfields Garden Centre DEV16 Waterfront Business Park ALT DEV17 Clarke’s Farm DEV21 Sandhurst Road, (employment and leisure) DEV22 Sandhurst Road (employment)
ED3 The Rural Economy RUR12 Businesses in rural settlements RUR13 Business in open countryside
ED4 Town, District and URB3 Town, district and local centres: Business above Local Centres ground floor URB4 Town, district and local centres: business above ground floor URB5 Provision of small businesses URB8 Shopping in urban areas and rural centre URB10 Out of centre retailing
URB15 Town, district and local centres1
ED5 Fleet Town Centre F1Fleet town centre – general policies F2 Fleet town centre Primary Retail F3 Fleet town centre – Secondary retail area F4 Fleet town centre – Area F4 F5 Fleet town centre – Area F5 F6 Fleet town centre – Area F6 F7 Fleet town centre – Area F7
1 Concerning changes of use to or from residential above ground floor PAPER F
Policy in the Hart Saved policies to be superseded Local Plan 2032 Policies are from the Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 except those with an ALT prefix which are from the First Alterations to that Plan. F8 Fleet town centre – Area F8 F9 Church Road Car Park F10 Victoria Road Car Park F11 Fleet town centre – rear servicing
ED6 District and Local Y1 Yateley town centre - general Centres Y2 Yateley town centre – Harpton Parade Y3 Yateley town centre – Gayton House Y4 Yateley town centre – Uses Y5 Yateley town centre redevelopment Y6 Yateley town centre – Martins Parade - uses Y7 Yateley town centre: Rear of Royal Oak Y8 Yateley town centre: South of Reading Road B1 Blackwater town centre: retention of retail uses B2 Blackwater town centre: Redevelopment of Green Lane car park B3 Blackwater town centre: Redevelopment of White Hart Parade B4 Blackwater town centre: Redevelopment of garage site
H1 Hook Village Centre: Area H1 H2 Hook Village Centre: The Acorn H3 Hook Parade: Redevelopment H4 Hook Village Centre: Area H4 H5 Hook Village Centre: Area H5
NBE1 Development in the RUR2 Development in the open countryside – general Countryside RUR3 Development in the open countryside - control RUR4 Re-use of rural buildings – general RUR5 Re-use of rural buildings - residential PAPER F
Policy in the Hart Saved policies to be superseded Local Plan 2032 Policies are from the Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 except those with an ALT prefix which are from the First Alterations to that Plan. RUR11 Agricultural developments RUR23 Replacement of existing dwellings RUR24 Renovation and extension of existing dwellings RUR30 Informal recreation facilities DEV18 RAF Odiham
NBE3 Landscape GEN3 General policy for landscape character areas CON19 Strategic gaps – general policy CON20 Strategic gaps: Blackwater Valley CON21 Local Gaps CON22 Setting of settlements and recreation
NBE4 Thames Basin Heaths CON1 European designations Special Protection Area (TBHSPA)
NBE5 Biodiversity CON2 National designation CON3 Local designation CON4 Replacement Habitats CON5 Species protected by law CON6 Heathlands
Policy NBE6 Managing GEN11 Areas affected by flooding or poor drainage Flood Risk
Policy NBE7 Water Quality GEN8 Pollution
NBE9 Historic Environment CON11Archaeological sites and scheduled monuments
CON12 Historic Parks and Gardens CON13 Conservation areas – general policy CON14 Conservation areas – demolition of buildings
CON17 Listed buildings and buildings of local interest – extension or alteration PAPER F
Policy in the Hart Saved policies to be superseded Local Plan 2032 Policies are from the Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 except those with an ALT prefix which are from the First Alterations to that Plan. CON18 Listed buildings or buildings of local interest – change of use
NBE10: Design GEN4 General design policy GEN12 Design against crime URB16 Extensions URB17 Annexes for dependent relatives T11 Public access for mobility impaired
NBE11 Renewable and Low GEN10 Renewable Energy Carbon Energy
NBE 12 Pollution GEN7 Policy for noise sensitive developments GEN8 Pollution GEN9 Contaminated land
I1Infrastructure T16 Improvements made necessary by development
I2 Green Infrastructure RUR31 Blackwater Valley DEV7 Holt Lane, Hook and Whitewater Valley
I3 Transport T1 Land use and transport T2 Public transport: General T3 Public Transport: Fleet town centre T5 Highway network T7 Fleet Inner Relief Road T8 Highway network east of Fleet T9 Road and junction improvements T10 Safeguarding land for cycleway and footpath networks T12 Public car parking: safeguarding T13 Traffic Management T14 Transport and development T15 Development requiring new or improved access T16 Improvements made necessary by development PAPER F
Policy in the Hart Saved policies to be superseded Local Plan 2032 Policies are from the Hart District Council Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 except those with an ALT prefix which are from the First Alterations to that Plan. T17 Ewshot/QEII Barracks DEV11 Land on B3014 Fleet to Cove Road
I4 Open Space, sport and URB21 Loss of amenity and recreation open space recreation URB22 Change of use of small open space areas URB23 Open space requirements with new developments
I5 Community Facilities URB20 Retention and provision of local services and community facilities RUR17 Protection of rural shops and post offices RUR18 Small scale shopping development RUR35 Social Infrastructure and services URB9 Retail: local needs
I8 Safeguarded Land for DEV19 Land between Dunley’s Hill, North Education Warnborough, and Robert Mays School, Odiham DEV20 Land at Jubilee Fields, Hartley Wintney
PAPER F
APPENDIX 6
Saved Policies that will not be superseded by the Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032
The following list identifies those policies in the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 which will continue to be 'saved' following the adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032. They will continue to form part of the adopted development plan until such time as they are superseded by a subsequent Development Plan Document or are otherwise formally withdrawn from use.
GEN 1 General Policy for Development GEN 2 General Policy for change of use GEN 6 Policy for Noisy/ Un-neighbourly developments CON 7 Riverine Environments CON 8 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows: Amenity Value CON 10 Basingstoke Canal CON23 Development affecting Public Rights of Way RUR 1 Definition of areas covered by RUR policies RUR 8 Advertisements in the Countryside RUR 10 Telecommunications RUR 32 Basingstoke Canal RUR 33 Camping and Caravanning RUR 34 Horse related development RUR 36 Motor Sports RUR 37 Use of dwellings for B1 use URB 1 Definition of areas covered by URB policies URB 11 Shop fronts URB 18 Residential densities in North Fleet and Yateley Conservation areas URB 19 Yateley Conservation Area URB 24 Signs and advertisements T 6 Safeguarding land for schemes
PAPER F
Appendix 7
Changes needed to the adopted Policies Map upon adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032
Below is a summary of the changes to the adopted Policies Map that will be needed upon adoption of the Hart Local Plan 2032: 1. Delete designations associated with the saved policies to be superseded listed at Appendix 2
2. New allocation for development at Hartland Village and adjoining SANG (Policy SS2)
3. Designation of Strategic and Locally Important Employment Areas (Policy ED2)
4. Updated town and district centre boundaries (Policies ED4, 5 and 6)
5. Primary Shopping Area in Fleet Town Centre (Policy ED4 and 5)
6. Updates to settlement policy boundaries
7. Changes to the area defined as ‘countryside’ as a result of settlement boundary updates and the designation of employment areas outside settlement boundaries (Policy NBE1)
8. Addition of Green Infrastructure (Policy I2)
9. Addition of Public Open Space (Policy I4)
10. Land safeguarded for a flood alleviation scheme at Phoenix Green (Policy I7)
11. Land safeguarded for school expansion at Robert May’s Secondary School in Odiham and Calthorpe Park Secondary School at Fleet (Policy I8)
PAPER F
APPENDIX 8
The ‘development plan’ for Hart upon adoption of the Local Plan 2032
1. Upon adoption of the Plan the development plan for Hart will comprise of the following plans and policies:
• The Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032
• The ‘saved’ policies from the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and ‘First Alterations’ to that Plan listed at Appendix 3.
• ‘Made’ Neighbourhood Plans:
o Rotherwick Neighbourhood Plan (made December 2016) o Winchfield Neighbourhood Plan (made April 2017) o Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan (made June 2017) o Fleet Neighbourhood Plan (made November 2019) o Hartley Wintney Neighbourhood Plan (made November 2019) o Dogmersfield Neighbourhood Plan (made September 2019) o Hook Neighbourhood Plan (if made at Council in February 2020)
• Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, New Forest National Park & South Downs National Park Minerals and Waste Plan (adopted October 2013)
• South East Plan Policy NRM6 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (adopted May 2009).
2. It is anticipated that Neighbourhood Plans for Crondall and Crookham Village (and potentially others) will be added to this list.
PAPER G
CABINET
KEY DECISIONS/ WORK PROGRAMME, AND EXECUTIVE DECISIONS MADE
March 2020
Cabinet is required to publish its Key Decisions and forward work programme to inform the public of issues on which it intends to make policy or decisions. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee also notes the Programme, which is subject to regular revision.
Report Title Date Outline/Reason for Original Revised Key Cabinet Service * This item Report/Comments Due Due Decision Member (Note 3) item agreed Date Date Y? (Note may for Note 1 2) contain report Exempt Inform- ation
Budget Monitoring Quarterly Post consideration by Overview & Mar 20 JR F Scrutiny Committee, to consider a Sept 20 report on Quarterly Budget Dec 20 Monitoring
Crondall Neighbourhood June 19 To consider the examiners’ Nov 19 Mar 20 GC P Plan report.
Local Plan - Inspector’s Jan 20 To consider the Inspector’s Mar 20 GC PP Report recommendation and recommend to Council that the Plan be adopted
PAPER G
1 PAPER G
Report Title Date Outline/Reason for Original Revised Key Cabinet Service * This item Report/Comments Due Due Decision Member (Note 3) item agreed Date Date Y? (Note may for Note 1 2) contain report Exempt Inform- ation
Crookham Village June 19 To consider the examiners’ Nov 19 Extra GC P Neighbourhood Plan report. Cabinet 26 Mar
Allotments/Community Jan 20 To agree the release of funding to Mar 20 Apr 20 Y AO E Gardens develop Edenbrook Community Gardens, post consideration by Overview and Scrutiny
Service Plans Annual Post consideration by Overview & April 20 DN All Scrutiny Committee, agree the 2019/20 Service Plans
Community Infrastructure Aug 19 To consider if it is beneficial to Feb 20 June 20 GC P Levy (CIL) introduce CIL rather than retain the current S106 arrangements
Update on Peer Review Dec 18 Post consideration by Overview Jan 20 June 20 DN JCX further to revisit of LGA and Scrutiny - to consider the outcomes of the revisit of the LGA.
Planning Management Aug 19 To consider the Action Plan for Feb 20 June 20 GC P PAPER G Development Peer Review Planning Management post the Peer Review
2 PAPER G
Report Title Date Outline/Reason for Original Revised Key Cabinet Service * This item Report/Comments Due Due Decision Member (Note 3) item agreed Date Date Y? (Note may for Note 1 2) contain report Exempt Inform- ation
Outside Bodies Annual Post consideration by Overview & June 20 DN JCX Scrutiny Committee of the effectiveness of the Council’s involvement in outside bodies, to confirm the Council representatives for 2020/21
Food and Health and Safety Annual Recommend to Council that the July 20 SK RS Service Plan annual Food Safety Plan be adopted
Revenue and Capital Outturn Annual Post consideration by Overview & Aug 20 JR F 2019/20 Scrutiny Committee, to consider the Annual report on outturn.
Treasury Management Annual Post consideration by Overview & Aug 20 JR F 2019/20 Scrutiny Committee, to consider the Annual report on Treasury (Annual Report) Management Activities 2019/20
Medium Term Financial Annual Post Consideration by Overview Dec 20 JR F Strategy and Scrutiny to consider the Medium Term Financial Strategy PAPER G
3 PAPER G
Report Title Date Outline/Reason for Original Revised Key Cabinet Service * This item Report/Comments Due Due Decision Member (Note 3) item agreed Date Date Y? (Note may for Note 1 2) contain report Exempt Inform- ation
Treasury Management Annual Post consideration by Overview & Dec 20 JR F 2019/20 Scrutiny Committee, to consider a (Half Year Report) Half Year review report on Treasury Management Strategy 2019/20
Draft 2020/21 Revenue Annual Post consideration by Overview & Feb 21 JR F Budget, Capital Programme Scrutiny Committee, to agree to and Council Tax Proposals recommend to Council the 2020/21 Revenue Budget, Capital Programme and Council Tax Proposals.
Draft 2020/21 Capital Annual Post consideration by Overview & Feb 21 JR F Strategy, Treasury Scrutiny Committee, to agree to Management Strategy recommend to Council the Statement and Asset 2020/21 draft Capital Strategy, the Management Plan 2020/21Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Asset Management Plan
Note 1
A “key decision” means an executive decision which, is likely to - PAPER G a) result in Council incurring expenditure or the making of savings which amount to £30,000 or 25% (whichever is the larger) of the budget for the service or function to which the decision relates; or
4 PAPER G
b) be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards within the area of the district of Hart.
Note 2 Cabinet Members DN Leader SA Digital RQ Commercialisation (Cn) SB Community (Cy) SK Regulatory AO Environment JR Finance and Corporate Services GC Place
Note 3 Service: JCX Joint Chief Executive CS Corporate Services P Place Services CSF Community Safety PP Planning Policy TS Environmental & Technical Services F Finance H Community Services SLS Shared Legal Services MO Monitoring Officer
Note 4 * This item may contain Exempt Information - Regulation 5 of the Local Authority (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS
27/02/20 Cllr Neighbour Release of S106 funding to Winchfield Parish Council for construction of two defibrillators Not called in
PAPER G
5