Planning Policy & Built Heritage
Working Party
Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
12 September 2014
A meeting of Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party will be held in the Council Chamber
at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday 22 September 2014 at 10.00am.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running for
approximately one and a half hours.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the
order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information on
the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263 516010,
Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member of
the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be filmed
or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Arnold, Mr M Baker, Mr B Cabbell Manners, Mr N Dixon, Mrs A Green, Mrs P GroveJones, Mr P High, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Reynolds, Mr P Williams, Mr D Young
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting,
please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format
or in a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
3.
MINUTES
(Pages 1 – 3)
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Working Party held on 19
May 2014.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered
as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations
include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.
6.
OFFICER’S REPORT
(1) STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
Pages 4 - 5
This report provides an update in relation to preparation of a Strategic Housing Market
Assessment and explains how this will help to determine the quantity and types of
housing that are required in the District over the next 20 years or so.
(2) DUTY TO CO-OPERATE
Pages 5 - 8
This report explains the Duty to Co-operate when preparing Local Plans, what it
means, and the implications when preparing new Development Plans for North Norfolk.
(3) GROWTH STRATEGY BEYOND 2016
PROCESS AND TIMETABLE FOR LOCAL PLAN REVIEW
Pages 8 - 11
To consider the process and possible timetable for Local Plan review.
7.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution (if necessary):“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.”
8.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
19 MAY 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am when there
were present:
Councillors
M J M Baker
N D Dixon
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
P Williams
D Young
R Reynolds – observer
Officers
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
(15)
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN FOR THE MEETING
In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, it was proposed by
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green and
RESOLVED
That Councillor N D Dixon be appointed Chairman of the meeting.
(16)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies absence were received from Councillors Mrs S A Arnold and B Cabbell
Manners.
(17)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2013 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
(18)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Working Party.
(19)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
(20)
HOUSING LAND SUPPLY – PUBLICATION OF STATEMENT OF FIVE YEAR
SUPPLY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LAND
The Working Party considered the Officer’s report which provided an overview of the
amount of land which is available for housing development in the District, identifies
how much of this land might reasonably be expected to be developed over the next
five years and seeks authority to publish a statement of the Council’s position.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
22 September 2014
The Planning Policy Manager gave a presentation on the housing land supply. He
explained the importance of a five-year supply of housing land under the National
Planning Policy Framework, how the supply was calculated and the alternative
methodologies for preparing five year land supply statements. He explained the
different approaches which might be adopted in relation to determining overall
housing targets, dealing with historical shortfalls in provision, applying buffers to the
target figures, and what assessments were necessary to determine that sites had a
‘reasonable prospect’ of being built. He outlined that the overall position in relation to
land supply which had improved over the last year due in part to the commencement
of developments on some of the larger allocations and the impact of the Housing
Incentive Scheme.
The Planning Policy Manager answered Members’ questions.
 Whilst the Development Plan would shortly need to be reviewed, the housing
target in the Core Strategy was evidence based and could therefore be defended.
A Strategic Housing Market Assessment had been commissioned which would
give a number of scenarios which would help to determine what the annual
growth figure should be in the future .
 The Authority had a duty of co-operation with other authorities. The Strategic
Planning Officers from across the County had formed an Officer/Member forum
for considering strategic cross boundary issues. One idea was to align the
timetables for plan reviews, evidence gathering and the end dates of Plans.
More of the allocated supply was now deliverable because of improvements in
the housing market, planning permission being given in respect of large allocated
sites and the Housing Incentive Scheme.
 Changes in the Government’s rules on residential barn conversions meant that
some may not need planning permission in the future. There was a question as
to whether the Council’s barn conversion policy was in conflict and consideration
would need to be given as to whether or not this could wait until the plan review.
There was a presumption towards retention of commercial holiday lets in
locations outside the defined barn conversion zones.
 The Planning Policy Manager was not aware of any large windfall sites which
may become available, such as former military installations. However there
would always be windfall sites becoming available and these still represented a
useful supply of housing.
 Local Authorities could be housing providers.
This possibility had been
considered but the current approach was to work closely with RSL partners to
deliver an increased supply of affordable housing including the possibility of
providing funding through loans.
 Whilst the Housing Incentive Scheme reduced the percentage of affordable
housing required to be built on individual sites, more affordable housing
completions were taking place than ever before as a consequence of a general
upturn in development rates and a programme of rural exceptions developments.
There was a question as to whether this was because the Housing Incentive
Scheme had encouraged building or if it was a result of an improvement in the
housing market. Housing targets in larger settlements gave people some
certainty as to what was to happen, including infrastructure issues. However,
these were minimum numbers rather than fixed numbers.
The Planning Policy Manager requested authority to publish the statement.
RESOLVED
1.
That Cabinet be recommended to publish the Land Supply Statement.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
22 September 2014
2.
That the report be presented to Development Committee as an item of
information.
The Chairman stated that he had discussed with the Planning Policy Manager the
issue of ongoing maintenance of open space areas once the commuted sum paid to
the authority to cover maintenance work was exhausted. He considered that a
decision needed to be made regarding the future maintenance of these areas of land.
It was agreed that the Planning Policy Manager would prepare an issues and options
paper for consideration.
It was also agreed that a report on buildings at risk would be considered at a future
meeting.
The meeting closed at 11.25 am.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
22 September 2014
OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY – 22 SEPTEMBER 2014
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
1.
STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
This report provides an update in relation to preparation of a Strategic Housing
Market Assessment and explains how this will help to determine the quantity and
types of housing that are required in the District over the next 20 years or so.
Introduction
The National Planning Policy Framework states that Local Plans should meet all
objectively assessed needs for housing. The intention is that both the right quantity
and the right type of housing are provided over the period covered by any Plan. The
level of assessed need is established by a range of evidence including a Strategic
Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). This Assessment must be prepared in
accordance with published guidance which suggests that the starting point should be
nationally agreed population forecasts which should be used as a basis for
establishing the likely number of future households and hence the required amount of
housing in an area. As this methodology is essentially a projection of previous trends
consideration then needs to be given to the reasons for such trends and the
likelihood that they will continue into the future.
A Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is currently being prepared jointly
by five of the Norfolk District Councils (North Norfolk, Norwich City, Broadland, South
Norfolk and Breckland). It will provide up to date information in relation to housing
demand and need across much of Norfolk and in turn will help to inform decisions
concerning the scale and type of housing growth in North Norfolk for the next 10-15
years. Consequently, it will be a key element of the evidence which will underpin the
next Local Plan. The final report should be published in November/December 2014.
Some emerging findings.
As with previous studies of this kind it remains the case that population growth in the
district will be almost entirely driven by in-migration. This is because until very
recently the number of births and deaths in the District remained broadly in balance.
Only in the last few years have births exceeded deaths by a small margin. The actual
birth rate has not increased but as the population continues to age the number of
deaths each year is exceeded by the number of new births. Without net inward
migration into the District the population would remain broadly static.
Both nationally and locally, the number of people living in each property has been
gradually falling for many years as a consequence of smaller families, higher divorce
rates and an aging population. This long term trend now appears to have
slowed/stopped, probably as a consequence of men living longer and more children
staying at, or returning home after finishing education. Previous forecasts had
assumed that average household sizes would continue to fall meaning that a greater
number of dwellings would be required to accommodate the increase in population.
In addition it appears that previous assumptions in relation to inward migration levels
were higher than has actually proved to be the case.
At this stage in the study the consultants have only modelled some of the headline
trends in population growth. The initial indications (draft) are that by 2035 there will
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
22 September 2014
be in the region of 11,600 extra people resident in the district. This equates to an
approximate10% increase over existing levels (101,800 mid 2012 estimate). The
study will further analyse the main drivers of growth and will provide evidence in
relation to house type needs including tenure types and affordability thresholds.
Recommendation: This report is for information only.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, ext 6325)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR INFORMATION
2.
DUTY TO CO-OPERATE
This report explains the Duty to Co-operate when preparing Local Plans, what it
means, and the implications when preparing new Development Plans for North
Norfolk.
Introduction
Under Section 110 of the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework
(paras 178 to 181) local planning authorities are subject to a “duty to co-operate”
when preparing Development Plans on strategic issues that cross administrative
boundaries. This requires them to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis, with the expectation that on areas of common interest joint working is
undertaken diligently for the mutual benefit of the authorities. As well as working
with other local planning authorities the duty also extends to other public bodies.
Local Planning Authorities are expected to demonstrate that such co-operative
working has taken place for the examinations on the Local Plans that they produce.
This process of co-operation is intended to replace the strategic planning role
previously addressed via the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies and Structure
Plans.
The Norfolk local planning authorities already work together on planning and other
issues through a variety of processes ranging from informal officer level discussion to
joint preparation of Plans (GNDP). This will continue to be the case. More recently a
Working Group has been established, comprising Members and Officers from all the
Local Planning Authorities in Norfolk and representatives of other relevant public
bodies specifically to address the requirements of the Duty.
The Norfolk local planning authorities which participate in the Working Group are
Breckland District Council, Broadland District Council, Broads Authority, Great
Yarmouth Borough Council, Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk,
Norwich City Council, North Norfolk District Council, South Norfolk District Council
and Norfolk County Council (Minerals and Waste lpa).
In relation to some wider strategic issues the duty may also extend to many of the
Council‟s neighbouring Norfolk and other public bodies including Environment
Agency, English Heritage, Natural England, Mayor of London, Civil Aviation
Authority, Homes and Communities Agency, Clinical commissioning groups, NHS
Commissioning Board, Office of Rail Regulation, Highway Authority and Highways
Agency and the Marine Management Organisation.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
5
22 September 2014
Regard should also be had to the Local Enterprise Partnership (New Anglia); Local
Nature Partnership (Wild Anglia) and other LEPs if relevant.
How is the Duty discharged?
There is no specific guidance in relation to how the duty should be discharged but
when Plans are submitted for independent examination the appointed Inspector will
apply both a legal (Has there been co-operation) and a soundness (has co-operation
been effective) test. Authorities are required to demonstrate that:



Co-operation has taken place throughout the plan preparation process on an
on-going basis, not just tagged on just before examination.
Co-operation has involved both Officer and Member engagement in the
process.
Co-operation has been meaningful and has genuinely sought to address
cross boundary strategic issues. Note: The duty does not require agreement
to be reached but where there is no agreement Inspectors will expect to
understand why.
Which Plans are being prepared in Norfolk?
All seven Norfolk Planning Authorities are at slightly different stages in their post2004 plan-making, ranging from fully adopted (North Norfolk), partially adopted
(Joint Core Strategy adopted for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk; Core
Strategy and Thetford Area Action Plan adopted for Breckland; Core Strategy
adopted for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk); and nothing adopted (Great
Yarmouth; Core Strategy currently being examined). Apart from North Norfolk, all
other Norfolk authorities are preparing Local Plan documents at present.
In the case of Greater Norwich, the recently adopted modifications to the Joint Core
Strategy include a requirement for an early focussed review. This effectively
precludes an early unilateral decision from any of the three authorities to produce a
Local Plan as the form and content of any plan will be uncertain until there is clarity
about whether this review is being undertaken collectively or separately by each
Authority.
South Norfolk Council is currently at Examination for three Local Plan documents.
The Inspector has asked a number of questions, and in one of these questions he
has raised a concern that the „lifetime‟ of the Local Plan documents will, on adoption
be only 11-12 years (to 2026), not the 15-year lifetime preferred by the NPPF. He
has therefore asked whether there should be a commitment in the Local Plan to an
early review (i.e. this is a clear steer that the Local Plan will need to include provision
for an early review). Given that the Joint Core Strategy runs to 2026, it is likely that
both Norwich and Broadland will also need to consider reviews of their Local Plan
documents once adopted, though this will be dependent on issues related to the
focussed review policy. Similarly, North Norfolk District Council‟s Local Plan runs only
to 2021, so is highly likely to be in need of an early review.
It is therefore likely that most, if not all districts in Norfolk, will be producing the next
round of Local Plans to cover the period 2016 to around 2035, and to achieve this
that each Council will need to commence work on plan reviews over the next 2-3
years.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
6
22 September 2014
The DTC Schedule
The Working Group has recently produced a DTC Schedule which sets out a number
of different elements where co-operation may be desirable (attached for information,
Appendix 1). The purpose of the schedule is to:

identify the strategic level planning issues that cross administrative
boundaries (ie. affecting more than one local planning authority in Norfolk and
wider adjoining authorities if appropriate);

set out the processes for addressing such issues;

set out the processes for recording outcomes, monitoring and reporting.

To demonstrate at Local Plan examination that there has been an on-going
process of co-operation.
The Schedule is intended to be a living document that will be updated and revised as
matters progress, providing a “live” framework to ensure effective co-operation
amongst the lpa‟s for the Local Plan making and implementation / delivery process.
Nothing in the schedule is intended to obligate any of the authorities to co-operate in
relation to specific issues, or to reach agreement in relation to such issues. It remains
for each authority to determine to what degree, and in relation to what issues, it
should co-operate with others. However, it should be stressed that compliance with
the Duty is both a legal and soundness test at Local Plan examinations and an
increasing number of authorities have failed on examination due to their inability to
demonstrate how the Duty has been discharged.
Given the likely requirement for early reviews of various Norfolk Local Plan
documents, and the lengthy lead-in times for preparing such documents, Norfolk
planning officers are of the view that authorities should begin to turn their minds to
how the authorities could/should work together on three main fronts:
1. Timing and lifespan of Local Plan documents
Notwithstanding that authorities are at different stages of Local Plan document
production, there are benefits to be had from agreeing common start dates and end
dates for individual Local Plan documents. Having a common start date (say 2015 or
2016) and common end date (say 2036) would enable all evidence base documents
to be prepared to the same timeframes, irrespective of whether they are prepared
jointly or not. However, this may have serious implications for resources that would
need thorough consideration.
2. Evidence base studies
There are a range of evidence base studies that need to be undertaken when
preparing a Local Plan. Five of the Norfolk authorities including North Norfolk are
already working jointly on a Central Norfolk Strategic Housing Market Assessment
(see separate report) which is in effect one of the first pieces of work needed to
underpin a Local Plan. Officers feel that there would be benefits in setting out the
main strategic evidence base studies that are felt to be necessary (housing, flood
risk, employment, transport etc.), along with indicative timeframes when they
could/should start to be commissioned and areas which they should address. It is
also felt that provision should be made in any contracts to prepare such work to allow
for regular refreshing of the information (perhaps annually or biannually) to keep it up
to date and beneficial to all partners.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
7
22 September 2014
3. Strategic Framework
There are a number of strategic matters that inevitably cross district boundaries
potentially affecting a number of councils. These primarily relate to key strategic
infrastructure such as transport, utilities and education and also “green infrastructure”
and key environmental assets, such as international level nature conservation sites
and the potential impacts on these. Decisions on housing provision may also come
within this remit, subject to the information gained from Strategic Housing Market
Assessments.
Decisions on when, and if, it is desirable to progress this work remain with the
individual Authorities with the expectation that in the first instance issues will be
raised through this Working Party and if necessary referred to Cabinet for decision.
Recommendation: This report is for information only.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, ext 6325)
3.
GROWTH STRATEGY BEYOND 2016
PROCESS AND TIMETABLE FOR LOCAL PLAN REVIEW
To consider the process and possible timetable for Local Plan review.
1. Purpose
This report outlines the need to consider Local Plan review. It suggests an indicative
timetable which if agreed will allow for preparatory work and preparation of a detailed
project plan to be undertaken so that formal plan review could commence shortly
after local government elections in May 2015.
2. Context
In 2012 government published the National Planning Policy Framework which
requires LPAs to prepare and maintain up to date Development Plans which comply
with the revised national guidance and provide for all objectively assessed needs and
demands for development consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
Those with existing Plans were encouraged to consider review and if such reviews
were not completed within a one year transitional period full weight should be given
to the NPPF in subsequent decision making. Development Plans should plan for a
period of at least 15 years and ideally longer.
The Council considered the extent to which it‟s adopted policies were aligned with
the NPPF and over the period March 2012 to-date has made a small number of
policy adjustments via an informal process of Council resolution rather than via
formal Plan review. In particular, flexibility has been introduced in relation to the
inclusion of market housing on rural „exception‟ schemes, revised affordable housing
thresholds on smaller sites, and a more permissive approach to the re-use of rural
buildings as dwellings. With this flexibility, and measures such as the Housing
Incentive Scheme the adopted policies continue to provide an effective basis for day
to day decision making for the majority of planning applications.
The North Norfolk Core Strategy was adopted in 2008 and covers the period to 2021.
The Site Allocations Development Plan was adopted in 2011 and allocates land for
around 3,500 dwellings. Some of the allocated sites are unlikely to be developed by
2021 and current Plans include an allowance for housing delivery through to 2023/4
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
8
22 September 2014
on the basis that the housing allocations will continue to contribute to housing land
supply at the required rate beyond the current Core Strategy plan period. In relation
to housing provision the Council remains dependent, at least in part, upon continued
windfall developments to deliver the target number of dwellings. Although delivery
rates are behind target at this point in the plan cycle, mainly as a consequence of
recession, the Council has sufficient allocated development sites to meet current five
year requirements and, subject to positive market conditions and delivery rates
continuing to improve, expects to deliver close to the required minimum of 8,000
dwellings by 2021, and approximately 10,000 by 2026.
By 2016/17 the position in relation to future housing land supply is expected to be
very different. By this time it is likely that many of the existing housing allocations will
be either developed or will be under construction. By 2019 it is likely that most of the
larger allocated development sites, other than perhaps Fakenham, will be
substantially completed. Depending on the rates of new house building in the next
few years it is likely that by 2017/18 the Council will not be in a position to
demonstrate a five year housing land supply. New development sites should be
identified and allocated for development ideally before this time.
The number of jobs in the District increased in the early years of the current plan
period but following the closure of RAF Coltishall fell back to around the 2001 total of
37,500 jobs. The Core Strategy includes a jobs growth target of 4,000 new jobs over
the plan period. Unless there are further large scale business closures in the
remainder of the plan period it is likely that this target will be achieved. Designated
employment land in the District continues to be developed, albeit at a slow rate, and
the adequacy of supply in terms of quantity, location and choice will soon need
further consideration.
There are currently, and likely to be an increasing number of tensions between the
national planning policy context and the approach taken in local policy, not solely as
a result of the NPPF but also due to the changes made in relation to which types of
development require planning permission, initiatives such as Neighbourhood
Planning and the Community Infrastructure levy, and structural changes in the
national and local economy. Most notably national guidance arguably adopts a more
pro-development approach to sustainable development than that which underpinned
the preparation of the adopted Core Strategy.
As time progresses there will be increasing pressure to plan over the longer term, for
example, infrastructure providers will need to clearly understand the growth strategy
for the District to inform their long term investment programmes beyond 2021.
Hence, whilst the Council is well placed to deliver the planned growth over the short
term it is increasingly the case that some consideration needs to be given to the
desirability of, and possible timetable for, Plan review, particularly as such a review is
likely to take around three years to complete.
3. Process for Plan Review.
Development Plan documents can be prepared either as a single plan or as a
number of related documents. For example, North Norfolk‟s LDF comprises the Core
Strategy which incorporates the adopted Development Management policies and a
separate Site Allocations Development Plan. These are supported by other
supplementary planning documents such as the Design Guide and Landscape
Character Assessment.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
9
22 September 2014
All Development Plan documents essentially include three parts, a strategy, a set of
development management policies, and site specific development proposals. How
these three elements are prepared in terms of the number and content of Plans is a
matter for each planning authority to determine.
Irrespective of the approach taken the District should have comprehensive coverage
of up to date policies and proposals covering a period of at least 15 years and
preferably longer. Options which could be considered include:





A single plan including strategy, policy, and allocations for the entire District
within one document (Local Plan).
A plan prepared jointly with a neighbouring authority covering all or parts of a
district (e.g. GNDP Plans).
Separate Core Strategy, Development Management Policies, and Site
Allocation documents.(similar to the current LDF)
A number of plans covering smaller areas (Action Area Plans, Neighbourhood
Plans).
Single issue reviews of adopted policies (e.g. current Barn conversion policy).
Irrespective of the approach taken the process of plan preparation would necessitate
various stages of evidence gathering, preparation of options, stages of consultation,
and submission for independent examination in relation to each Plan that is
prepared. Additionally, the process is now also subject to a formal Duty to Cooperate (see separate report) with neighbouring authorities and more complex
processes for establishing levels of growth and viability testing. Much of the evidence
prepared to support the Core Strategy remains useful in terms of setting the scene
but it will need to be reviewed and updated to provide a robust evidence base for
Plan review and examination.
Taken at face value there is significant merit in preparing a single Development Plan
document for the entire District incorporating a Core Strategy, a set of Development
Management Policies, and a range of Site Allocations. Combining these three
elements within a single Plan would allow for all elements to be subject to
consultation and examination at the same time reducing the complexity and potential
costs associated with these stages. There are however risks to such an approach as
failure of any part of the Plan could result in the whole document being found
unsound. For example, if at examination the strategy was found to not provide for
sufficient development, or to distribute growth in an unsustainable way, it would be
likely to be necessary to remedy this prior to the Site Allocations element of the Plan
being considered by the appointed Inspector.
At this early stage Officers consider that the potential risks associated with preparing
a single plan, rather than multiple plans, are predictable and can be managed and
kept under review as part of the process. If it appears desirable the various elements
of the plan could be separated part way through the process.
4. Timetable
The timetable for Plan preparation will depend on the number and content of the
plans and decisions around whether these plans are prepared in sequence, or in
parallel, and the availability of resource. Previously, the Core Strategy and Site
Allocations Plans were prepared separately on an overlapping timetable. End to end
the process took around four years.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
10
22 September 2014
Officers consider that the optimum plan period covered by a new Plan(s) would be
April 2016 to 2035. This would be five years before the end of the current Core
Strategy period and would be a sufficiently long period to satisfy the requirement that
plans should cover a minimum of fifteen years. To achieve this it will be necessary to
prepare for the review and start to gather and test evidence during the remainder of
2014, prepare options for consultation during 2015/16 and have Draft Plan(s) ready
for submission and examination in 2016/17.
Recommendations.
1. That a recommendation is made to Cabinet that Local Plan review
should commence in May of 2015.
2. That a detailed Project Plan is prepared for consideration by the
Working Party.
(Source: Mark Ashwell, Planning Policy Manager, ext 6325)
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
11
22 September 2014
APPENDIX 1
The Schedule
ISSUES
ACTION
OUTCOME
RESULT /
MONITORING
1 Policy preparation &
implementation
Co-ordination of strategic growth and
infrastructure provision
Co-ordination of Local Plans
Preparation of a
strategic outline
reflecting existing Core
Strategies and
infrastructure
requirements.
Identify issues of
potential collaboration.
Framework to guide
lpas and
infrastructure
providers, evidence
for funding bids.
 Possible coordination of type
of documents and
timing.

Possible joint
documents
2 Evidence base preparation
and monitoring
Housing requirements
 Investigate
consistent approach
to SHMA (inc G&T
assessments) and
 Possible brief for
production of
SHMAs
 Possible combined
Key demonstration of the
DtoC for Examinations
‘objectively assessed
housing need’
working e.g
GTANAs
 Investigate
consistent approach
to housing
calculations
Housing distribution and delivery
Employment studies
Infrastructure studies
Annual monitoring reports

Investigate
consistent approach
to SHLAA

Possible brief for
production of
SHLAA

Investigate
consistent approach
to 5 yr supply.

Possible brief for
5yr supply
methodology

Possible combined
working
Investigate
consistent approach
to studies

Possible brief for
studies

Possible combined
working
Investigate
consistent approach
to studies

Possible brief for
studies

Possible combined
working

Possible brief for


Investigate consistent
Robust methodology and
figures to ensure the Plan
led approach over ad hoc
appeals
Show consistency with and
co-ordinated approach to
LEP planning
Appropriate requests for
new infrastructure to
support growth, consistent
across the county / area
new AMR’s inc
cross boundary
issues
approach

Possible combined
working
Transportation impacts
Investigate consistent
approach

Ensure all
authorities treat in
consistent way
and potentially
benefit from a
combined
approach e.g A47
issues
Promote cases for new
investment in a more
robust way
Green infrastructure and potential
recreational pressures on designated
nature conservation sites
Investigate consistent
approaches which
acknowledge the wider
impacts and benefits of
growth in population

Co-ordinated
approach to the
right type of
provision
Balancing of growth and
nature conservation issues

Co-ordinated
approach to
mitigation of
effects of growth to
meet Habitats
Regulations
Assessment ‘likely
significant effects’
Water issues - resources, quality,
drought management, flood risk
management and land management
(holistic approach)
Flood Risk Assessments
3 Scheme specific??
As and when particular items arise and
have cross boundary implications. E.g.
approach to the A47 improvements
research
Cumulative impacts
needs to be fully
assessed and
mitigation agreed.
Consider joint
assessments or
agreement to use the
same consultancy for
Local Plan reviews.

Co-ordinated
approach to the
right type of
provision

Co-ordinated
approach to
mitigation of
effects of growth to
meet Habitats
Regulations
Assessment ‘likely
significant effects’
Potential to review the
SFRA to reflect the
latest guidance and
climate change
predictions. Consider
joint assessments or
agreement to use the
same consultancy for
this.

Possible brief for
studies

Possible combined
working
Balancing growth and
water demands
Balancing growth with
relevant flood risks