Date: 24th May 2018 Enquiries to: Robert Feakes Tel: 01473 260454 Email: [email protected] Waveney District Council Riverside 4 Canning Road Lowestoft Suffolk NR33 0EQ Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Waveney Local Plan, Final Draft Plan (Regulation 19) – Suffolk County Council Response Thank you for consulting Suffolk County Council on the submission version of the Waveney Local Plan. The County Council welcomes Waveney District Council’s efforts to promote sustainable growth in the District. The following comments cover matters of soundness, insofar as they relate to Suffolk County Council’s service responsibilities and policy objectives. All parts of the Plan are considered to meet legal and procedural requirements, and the District and County Councils have made extensive efforts to cooperate under s.110 of the Localism Act 2011. --------- Policy WLP1.4 – Amendment Proposed This part of the Plan does not meet the tests of soundness. This Part of the Plan is unsound because it is not effective. Policy WLP1.4 sets out that, generally, on site infrastructure will be funded through Section 106 and off site infrastructure through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This is not necessarily incorrect, but the supporting text should set out what the policy means by ‘generally’. In broad terms, Section 106 functions best as a means of mitigating site-specific impacts, and CIL as a means of mitigating cumulative, area-wide impacts. The Government has recently confirmed this in its consultation paper on reforming developer contributions, stating that Section 106 agreements are made on a site-by-site basis and that CIL ‘is used to address the cumulative impact of development in an area’.1 1 See ‘Supporting housing delivery through developer contributions’, page 8 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691182/Developer_Contributi ons_Consultation.pdf) Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk Site-specific impacts are frequently off-site, for example junction improvements. This is exemplified by the reference, in Appendix 1, to ‘Road improvements as outlined in Transport Assessments on sites above 80 dwellings’, which may be provided through Section 106 and Section 278 agreements. Paragraph 1.43 should set out that the on-site/off-site distinction between CIL and Section 106 is not absolute, and will be regulated by the District Council’s Regulation 123 List. Suggested additional text is set out below. Whilst the distinction between on and off-site infrastructure will not be absolute, it is envisaged that infrastructure directly related to development will be funded through Section 106 agreements, and mitigation for cumulative infrastructure impacts funded through CIL. The specific distinction will be regulated by the District Council’s Regulation 123 List. Adult Social Care Policy WLP8.31 – Amendment Proposed This part of the Plan does not meet the tests of soundness. This Part of the Plan is unsound because it is not effective, it is not justified by evidence and is not positively prepared to meet objectively assessed development requirements. The County Council welcomes the District Council’s efforts to meet the needs of the ageing population – through a policy which seeks to support the development of accessible/adaptable housing and to shape the design of the built environment around new residential development. However, it is not clear why the requirement to consider dementia friendly design principles only applies to residential development. The policy should be amended to ensure that these principles also apply to other forms of development effecting the public realm. ‘Proposals for retail, leisure, public realm, open space and housing developments of 10 or more dwellings… Furthermore, the policy should be amended to increase the proportion of dwellings which are to be built to the M4(2) standard, up from 40%. The SHMA identifies the significant demographic changes which are predicted in the Waveney Housing Market Area, and the need to meet the housing requirements of an increasing number of older people and people with physical disabilities. The Plan identifies, in paragraph 8.183, that the cost of achieving the M4(2) standard is not excessive and has a marginal impact on viability only. Whilst there may be a 40% increase in the number of households in which at least one resident is over 65, and the SHMA may indicate that 40% of all households have at least one resident with a disability, it must be acknowledged that the dwellings coming forward under this document will only make a relatively small contribution to the overall housing stock by the end of the plan period. Based on CLG’s 2014 household projections, the number of households in Waveney will increase from 51,388 to 57,996. The 6,214 new homes planned for by this Local Plan will only make up a small proportion of the total number of households in Waveney. In order to get closer to meeting the needs of older and disabled households, the percentage of homes built to M4(2) standard should be increased. Arguably, the proportion should be increased to 100%. Policy WLP8.2 – Support 2 Parts of this policy regarding sheltered and extra-care housing meet the tests of soundness and are supported by the County Council. The County Council welcomes the requirement that sheltered and extra-care housing be included as affordable units where needed and where practical. However, it should be noted that, in practice, extra-care housing schemes often require a proportion of the units to be sold or let on a market basis in order that the overall scheme be financially viable. The policy does not prevent this. Policies WLP2.4, 2.13, 2.16 and 3.1 – Support Parts of these policies regarding specialist housing for older people meet the tests of soundness and are supported by the County Council. The County Council welcomes the commitment to make provision for specialist housing for older people. The SHMA (Part 2) sets out the estimated overall need for different types of housing with care. It also, in paragraph 6.12, notes that ‘The actual numbers and type of specialist accommodation needed may depend on changes in patterns of demand and expectations and it is also recognised that Suffolk County Council are developing further accommodation typologies to best respond to future care needs, and it is therefore appropriate to consider this level of need with the acknowledgement that the form of accommodation delivered should not be too prescriptive.’ The County Council will work with the District Council, developers and housing associations to determine the specific housing requirements to meet the ‘retirement community’ responsibility in this policy. Archaeology Paragraph 4.45 – Amendment Proposed This part of the plan does not meet the test of soundness. This part of the plan is not sound because it is ineffective The first sentence of this paragraph explains that a planning application for the site described in policy WLP4.6 must be accompanied by an archaeological evaluation. However, the second sentence could imply that archaeology could be dealt with by condition, which is contradictory. In order to make this text sound the following sentence should be deleted: “There is potential for archaeology to be found on the site and any planning application will be subject to a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work.” It should be noted that it may still be appropriate to impose conditions on development with grant of planning permission following pre-determination archaeological assessment. Paragraph 7.57 This part of the plan does not meet the test of soundness. This part of the plan is not sound because it is not effective. A significant archaeological feature covering a large proportion of the site is a constraint at this site. The extent of the constraint, and measures for managing it, will be determined by the archaeological investigations required by policy WLP7.6. To make this part of the plan sound the following text, adding description of the archaeological feature, should be inserted into paragraph 7.57: 3 The site contains two ring ditches in the north east of the site, recorded from aerial photography, which are likely to be prehistoric burial monuments, possibly with associated later burials. Paragraph 7.79/ Policy WLP7.8 This part of the plan does not meet the test of soundness. This part of the plan is not sound because it is not consistent with national policy. In paragraph 7.79 it is stated that for site WLP7.8 an archaeological condition will be required to support a planning application. This is based on County Council advice provided in response to the issues and options consultation, however at this stage the site was smaller. The current extent of the site now includes more topographically sensitive land and an up-front archaeological assessment will be required. To make this part of the plan sound it is recommended that paragraph 7.79 is replaced with “The site has potential for archaeology and any planning application must be supported by the results of a programme of archaeological evaluation.” This requirement should also be included in policy WLP7.8, with the following wording added to mirror other policies: “Any planning application should include the results of a programme of archaeological evaluation, including appropriate fieldwork, and should demonstrate the impacts of development on archaeological remains and proposals for managing those impacts.” Policy WLP8.40 – Amendment Proposed This part of the Plan does not meet the tests of soundness. This part of the Plan is not sound because it is not effective and it is not consistent with national policy. These comments follow those made at Preferred Options stage. The policy is disproportionate, by requiring full archaeological assessment in respect of any proposal affecting archaeological remains.