Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 Report of the Public Local Inquiry into Objections and other Representations May 2005 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Glossary 2 1 Introduction & Sustainability 3 2 Green Belt & Countryside 16 3 Housing 65 4 Employment 103 5 Retailing & Town Centres 118 6 Greater Brookfield 128 7 Community, Leisure & Tourism 142 8 Heritage and Design 149 9 Transport 164 10 Implementation, Proposals Maps 177 Report Appendices Al 1 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report Glossary AIC At Inquiry Changes ASR Area of Special Restraint CD Core Document Dph Dwellings per hectare EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EA Environment Agency EIP Examination in Public FD First Deposit GOE Government Office for the Eastern region HMWT Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust HCC Herts County Council LDDs Local Development Documents LDFs Local Framework Documents LPA Local Planning Authority ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PDL Previously developed land PIC Pre Inquiry Change PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement RSS Regional Planning Guidance RTS Round table session AM Scheduled Ancient Monument SSSI Site of Importance for Nature Conservation SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance TPO Tree Preservation Order UCO Use Classes Order # paragraph 2 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report 1. INTRODUCTION & SUSTAINABILITY 1.1 INTRODUCTION Objections - First Deposit 933/08 K Fedorowicz 1001/042 Hertfordshire County Council 1006/03 Epping Forest District Council Objections - Second Deposit 1364/03 Landmatch Ltd Issues (a) Plan proposes too much development in the Borough. (b) The Plan should refer to the review of the Development Plan. (c) A different typeface should be used for policies. (d) Council should publish a further revised deposit plan (e) Plan policies contain too much scope for interpretation. Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 1.1.1 The purpose of the Plan is to direct development and set out land use policies in accordance with the strategic framework contained in Regional Guidance and the Hertfordshire Structure Plan, taking local needs into account. I deal with a variety of objections about the quantum and location of development throughout the report. In general, I am satisfied the Plan provides broadly the correct balance between the need to provide for a range of development proposals and to protect the natural resources of the Borough. 1.1.2 Although the reference to procedures in paragraph(#) 3 of the plan was correct at the time of writing, I concur with the Council that this section should be re-worded to reflect the current statutory position following the commencement of relevant parts of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004. I leave the presentation of the final document to the Council. 1.1.3 I agree with the Council that inviting representations on the second deposit version of the Plan did not prejudice the validity of objections to the first deposit. Although there were some significant changes, which hindered the clarity of the whole, in the circumstances the process followed allowed the Plan to proceed at as expeditiously as possible, certainly faster than preparing another completely revised deposit. 1.1.4 I consider that the policies of the Plan leave scope for interpretation in the usual way for documents covering a relatively wide area such as a Borough. 3 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report RECOMMENDATIONS INT.1 No modification, other than to update the background text concerning the Development Plan system. 1.2 SUS1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Objections - First Deposit 1001/55 Hertfordshire County Council 1011/1 English Heritage 1010/3 The Countryside Agency (E. England Region) Objections - Second Deposit 1296/1 Tesco Stores Ltd 1000/142 Government Office for the East of England 1001/68 & 69 Hertfordshire County Council 1016/11 Network Rail Issues (a) Important aspects relating to sustainable landscapes are not mentioned (b) Chapter should provide better coverage in relation to built environment (c) Plan does not include sustainability objectives for each chapter as stated in para 1.3.2 (d) Policy SUS1 duplicates structure plan policy and is unnecessary (e) Policy is more appropriate as a general objective of plan and supporting text needs more explanation (f) Plan not accompanied by a sustainability appraisal. (g) The benefits of rail freight are not mentioned. Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 1.2.1 I note that the Plan does contain full coverage of those issues relating to the built and natural environment in other chapters, notably Chapters 2, 7 and 8. I see no need for additional duplication in this section, which is rightly restricted to general principles and other detailed matters not covered elsewhere. 1.2.2 Although the sustainability principles of Structure Plan Policy 1 provide the fundamental basis for the Plan, I see no real need for the Policy SUS1 in the form proposed. The Structure Plan policy, which is part of the Development Plan, will continue to be applicable to any development proposals. Although not harmful, the wording of the policy is set out as a general objective rather than a policy with specific criteria which have to be met. If retained as supporting text it could continue to provide a context for Policy SUS2. As the Council suggest, I consider #1.3.2 should be amended to clarify that 4 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report sustainability objectives are reflected in the objectives for other Plan chapters. 1.2.3 I note that an Environmental Appraisal accompanied the first deposit Plan, which raised no objections. I consider that this complies with the government advice in PPG12 current at the time of preparation, and reflects in broad terms the requirements of both updated government policy, RPG9, the sustainability objectives of the Structure Plan and a raft of other guidance. 1.2.4 I see no need for specific mention of rail freight as a sustainable mode of transport in this chapter, but deal with the point in my discussion of objections to Chapter 9. RECOMMENDATIONS SUS.1 Modify the plan by deleting Policy SUS1 but include the wording as an overall Plan objective in the supporting text, with reference to sustainability objectives in other chapters of the Plan. 1.3 SUS2 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES Objections - First Deposit 1010/2 The Countryside Agency (E. England Region) 1296/2 Tesco Stores Ltd 1001/43 Hertfordshire County Council Objections - Second Deposit 1296/22 Tesco Stores Ltd 1000/109 Government Office for the East of England Issues (a) Policy title should be more widely defined (b) Policy should not rely directly on SPG. (c) No justification for sustainability checklist threshold for large scale developments, which is too low (d) Policy should be cross referenced to other parts of the Plan (e) Policy is unreasonably restrictive in current wording Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 1.3.1 I note that Herts CC do not object to the items contained within the sustainability checklist in #1.16. While the list may need to be updated in due course I see no reason why the current version should not be included within the Plan. Any revisions to accord with County-wide guidance could be incorporated into SPG at a later date, at which time they would be material 5 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report considerations in the determination of development proposals. 1.3.2 Policy SUS 2 does not impose an absolute requirement on developers to produce a full assessment against the checklist, but to have considered its contents. As the supporting text indicates, it would not be reasonable to expect for example detailed assessments against all items in support of proposals for residential developments just above the policy threshold. On balance I consider the threshold sets a reasonable limit on the scale of proposals for which some sustainability statement should be required, and that the wording of the policy would not allow the Council to impose a lengthy string of requirements unilaterally, without taking into account the scale of development proposed. However, I agree that the supporting text should be modified to refer to potential delays in processing, rather than failure to consider, applications without such statements. RECOMMENDATIONS SUS.2 Modify the Plan in accordance with PIC 001 1.4 SUS3 ENERGY Objections - First Deposit 1299/2 Terence O'Rourke Plc Issues (a) Paras. 1.6.6 - 1.6.8 would benefit from specific reference to PPG22 Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 1.4.1 Changes to the 2nd deposit of the Plan meet this objection. RECOMMENDATIONS SUS.3 No modification 1.5 SUS4 WASTE AND RECYCLING Objections - First Deposit 102/3 Mr & Mrs C West 1008/7 Environment Agency 1009/6 English Nature 6 Borough Of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011: Inspector’s Report Issues (a) Policy omits reference to the Landfill directive (b) Plan lacks reference to practical measures to implement this policy Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 1.5.1 The 2nd Deposit was changed to meet the objections of English Nature and the Environment Agency (EA). Practical ways of dealing with waste are not the direct concern of a land-use plan, but the point about adequate provision for waste vehicles is covered in Chapter 9 – Transport. RECOMMENDATIONS SUS.4 No modification. 1.6 SUS5 MINERALS Objections - First Deposit 1102/3 Goff's Oak Community Association Issues (a) Policy omits reference to the impact on neighbouring properties Inspector's Reasoning and Conclusions 1.6.1 Criteria for deciding applications relating to minerals extraction, including residential amenity considerations, are contained in the Herts Minerals Local Plan, to which # 1.8.1 of the Plan refers.