kineton parish council kineton - stratford-on-avon district ndp... · 3 summary i have been...

Kineton Parish Council

Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan to 2031 Independent Examiner’s Report By Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) Dip Mgmt (Open) PGC (TLHE)(Open) MRTPI FHEA FRSA AoU

11 January 2016

Contents

Summary 31.0 Introduction

2.0 Appointmentoftheindependentexaminer

3.0 Theroleoftheindependentexaminer

4.0 CompliancewithmattersotherthanthebasicconditionsQualifyingbodyPlanareaPlanperiodExcludeddevelopmentDevelopmentanduseofland

666666

5.0 Theexaminationprocess

6.0 Consultation

7.0 ThebasicconditionsNationalpolicyandadviceSustainabledevelopmentThedevelopmentplanandemergingplanningpolicycontextEuropeanUnion(EU)obligationsStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentHabitatsRegulationsAssessmentEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)OtherDirectives

101111111212

8.0 DetailedcommentsonthePlananditspolicies

1Introduction2TheNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan3Kineton–HistoryandFuture4KinetonVisionStatement5Policies5.1Housing5.2Jobs5.3Design5.4Environment5.5Infrastructure5.6SiteSpecificBriefsAppendicesMaps

1212131417191926283543485253

9.0 ConclusionsandRecommendations 53

Appendices

SummaryIhavebeenappointedastheindependentexamineroftheKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan.Thepreparationofaneighbourhoodplanisamajorundertaking.ThisPlanhasbeenpreparedagainstabackdropofsomeuncertaintyastheDistrictCouncilpreparesitsCoreStrategywhichisnowatexamination.TheCoreStrategymakesprovisionforalargeamountofdevelopmentandKinetonisidentifiedasoneofeightMainRuralCentreswhereasignificantamountofdevelopmentislikelytotakeplace.AccordinglytheParishCouncilhassoughttomanagethisgrowthbyallocatingfoursiteswithintheParishandsafeguardingafurthertwo.ThisisproactiveanditisimportantforthePlantoacknowledgethestrategicneedsoftheDistrict.ThePlanrightlyseekstoprotectandenhancethekeyfeaturesofthearea.AswellastwoConservationAreasandahostoflistedbuildings,thehistoricEdgehillBattlefieldisanimportantnationalasset.EnsuringthatdevelopmentrespectstheseassetsandthetopographyandlandscapeoftheParishisakeythemerunningthroughoutthePlan.Inplacesthoughthereisalimitedamountofevidenceforthepoliciesandthereareanumberofinstanceswhenthesupportingtextcouldbeconstruedasintroducingpolicy.ThereareelementsofthePlanthatcouldhavebeensharpeneduporincludedaspolicy,butregrettablytheopportunitytoincludetheseelementshasnotbeentaken.AsaresultithasbeennecessaryformetosuggestalargenumberofmodificationstoensurethatthePlansetsoutapositivevisionforthefutureofKinetonandprovidesasetofpoliciesthatplanpositivelytoensurethatthebasicconditionsaremetsatisfactorilyandthatthePlanisclearandconsistenttoenableittoprovideapracticalframeworkfordecision-making.Subjecttothosemodifications,IhaveconcludedthatthePlandoesmeetthebasicconditionsandalltheotherrequirementsIamobligedtoexamine.IamthereforepleasedtorecommendthattheKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlangoforwardtoareferendum.InconsideringwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheNeighbourhoodPlanareaIseenoreasontoalterorextendthisareaforthepurposeofholdingareferendum.AnnSkippersAnnSkippersPlanning11January2016AnnSkippersPlanningisanindependentplanningconsultancythatprovidesprofessionalsupportandtrainingforlocalauthorities,theprivatesectorandcommunitygroupsandspecialisesintroubleshooting,appealworkandneighbourhoodplanning.Wwww.annskippers.co.ukEann@annskippers.co.uk

1.0 IntroductionThisisthereportoftheindependentexaminerintotheKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan(thePlan).TheLocalismAct2011providesawelcomeopportunityforcommunitiestoshapethefutureoftheplaceswheretheyliveandworkandtodeliverthesustainabledevelopmenttheyneed.Onewayofachievingthisisthroughtheproductionofaneighbourhoodplan.KinetonParishhastwomainsettlements,KinetonandLittleKineton,andliesabout12kmfromStratford-upon-Avon.TheParishhasapopulationofabout2300.AswellasofferingarangeofamenitiesthetwovillageseachboastaConservationArea.TherearetwoscheduledmonumentswithintheParish;KingJohn’sCastleandthemedievalsettlementatBrookhampton.Aregisteredbattlefield,thelocationforthe1642BattleofEdgehill,fallswithintheParish.TheRiverDeneisthemainwatercourse.2.0 AppointmentoftheindependentexaminerIhavebeenappointedbyStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncil(SDC)withtheagreementofKinetonParishCouncil,toundertakethisindependentexamination.IhavebeenappointedthroughtheNeighbourhoodPlanningIndependentExaminerReferralService(NPIERS).Iamindependentofthequalifyingbodyandthelocalauthority.IhavenointerestinanylandthatmaybeaffectedbythePlan.Iamacharteredtownplannerwithovertwenty-fiveyearsexperienceinplanningandhaveworkedinthepublic,privateandacademicsectorsandamanexperiencedexaminerofneighbourhoodplans.Ithereforehavetheappropriatequalificationsandexperiencetocarryoutthisindependentexamination.3.0 TheroleoftheindependentexaminerTheexaminerisrequiredtocheck1whethertheneighbourhoodplan:

! Hasbeenpreparedandsubmittedforexaminationbyaqualifyingbody! Hasbeenpreparedforanareathathasbeenproperlydesignatedforsuchplan

preparation

1Setoutinparagraph8(1)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)

! Meetstherequirementstoi)specifytheperiodtowhichithaseffect;ii)notincludeprovisionaboutexcludeddevelopment;andiii)notrelatetomorethanoneneighbourhoodareaandthat

! Itspoliciesrelatetothedevelopmentanduseoflandforadesignatedneighbourhoodarea.

Theexaminermustassesswhetheraneighbourhoodplanmeetsthebasicconditionsandothermatterssetoutinparagraph8ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended).Thebasicconditions2are:

! HavingregardtonationalpoliciesandadvicecontainedinguidanceissuedbytheSecretaryofState,itisappropriatetomaketheneighbourhoodplan

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciescontainedinthedevelopmentplanforthearea

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplandoesnotbreach,andisotherwisecompatiblewith,EuropeanUnion(EU)obligations

! Prescribedconditionsaremetinrelationtotheneighbourhoodplanandprescribedmattershavebeencompliedwithinconnectionwiththeproposalfortheneighbourhoodplan.

Regulations32and33oftheNeighbourhoodPlanning(General)Regulations2012(asamended)setouttwobasicconditionsinadditiontothosesetoutinprimarylegislationandreferredtointheparagraphabove.Theseare:

! ThemakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisnotlikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansite3oraEuropeanoffshoremarinesite4eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,and

! Havingregardtoallmaterialconsiderations,itisappropriatethattheneighbourhooddevelopmentorderismadewherethedevelopmentdescribedinanorderproposalisEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentdevelopment(thisisnotapplicabletothisexaminationasitreferstoorders).

Theexaminermustthenmakeoneofthefollowingrecommendations:

! Theneighbourhoodplancanproceedtoareferendumonthebasisitmeetsallthenecessarylegalrequirements

! Theneighbourhoodplancanproceedtoareferendumsubjecttomodificationsor

! Theneighbourhoodplanshouldnotproceedtoareferendumonthebasisitdoesnotmeetthenecessarylegalrequirements.

2Setoutinparagraph8(2)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)3AsdefinedintheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations20124AsdefinedintheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations2007

Iftheplancanproceedtoareferendumwithorwithoutmodifications,theexaminermustalsoconsiderwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheneighbourhoodplanareatowhichitrelates.Iftheplangoesforwardtoreferendumandmorethan50%ofthosevotingvoteinfavouroftheplanthenitismadebytherelevantlocalauthority,inthiscaseStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncil.Theplanthenbecomespartofthe‘developmentplan’fortheareaandastatutoryconsiderationinguidingfuturedevelopmentandinthedeterminationofplanningapplicationswithintheplanarea.4.0 CompliancewithmattersotherthanthebasicconditionsInowcheckthevariousmatterssetoutaboveinsection3.0ofthisreportthatrelateprimarilytoprocess.QualifyingbodyKinetonParishCouncilisthequalifyingbodyabletoleadpreparationofaneighbourhoodplan.ThisisalsoconfirmedintheBasicConditionsStatement.PlanareaThePlanarea,shownonamaponpage5ofthePlan,iscoterminouswiththeKinetonParishCounciladministrativeboundary.StratfordonAvonDistrictCouncilapprovedthedesignationoftheareaon20May2013.TheBasicConditionsStatementhelpfullyconfirmsthatthePlanrelatestothisareaanddoesnotrelatetomorethanoneneighbourhoodarea.PlanperiodThePlanstatesintheintroductorypagesthatitcoversa17-yearperiodfrom2015to2031;thefrontcoverindicatesthatthePlanis“to2031”andtheBasicConditionsStatementconfirmsthatthePlanperiodis2015to2031.ThereisnocompulsionforthePlantocoverthesametimeperiodastheLocalPlanoranyemergingplanatDistrictlevel.Thisrequirementissatisfactorilymet.ExcludeddevelopmentThePlandoesnotincludepoliciesthatrelatetoanyofthecategoriesofexcludeddevelopmentandthereforemeetsthisrequirement.DevelopmentanduseoflandPoliciesinneighbourhoodplansmustrelatetothedevelopmentanduseofland.Sometimesneighbourhoodplanscontainaspirationalpoliciesorprojectsthatsignalthe

community’sprioritiesforthefutureoftheirlocalarea,butarenotrelatedtothedevelopmentanduseofland.WhereIconsiderapolicyorproposaltofallwithinthiscategory,IhaverecommendeditbemovedtoaclearlydifferentiatedandseparatesectionorannexofthePlanorcontainedinaseparatedocument.Thisisbecausewidercommunityaspirationsthanthoserelatingtodevelopmentanduseoflandcanbeincludedinaneighbourhoodplan,butnon-landusemattersshouldbeclearlyidentifiable.5Subjecttoanysuchrecommendations,thisrequirementcanbesatisfactorilymet.5.0TheexaminationprocessItisusefultobearinmindthattheexaminationofaneighbourhoodplanisverydifferenttotheexaminationofalocalplan.IamnotexaminingthePlanagainstthetestsofsoundnessusedforLocalPlans,6butratherthesubmittedPlanmeetsthebasicconditions,Conventionrightsandtheotherstatutoryrequirements.Thegeneralruleofthumbisthattheexaminationwilltaketheformofwrittenrepresentations.7However,therearetwocircumstanceswhenanexaminermayconsideritnecessarytoholdahearing.Thesearewheretheexaminerconsidersthatitisnecessarytoensureadequateexaminationofanissueortoensureapersonhasafairchancetoputacase.Iamsatisfiedfromthedocumentationthathasbeensubmittedtome,andwiththehelpoftheclarificationthatIhavereceivedfromtheParishandDistrictCouncilsinresponsetosomefactualqueries,thattheexaminationcanbecarriedoutsatisfactorilyonthebasisofwrittenrepresentationsandthatahearingisnotnecessary.IundertookanunaccompaniedsitevisittoKinetonanditsenvironson2December2015.Ihavealsospecificallyreferredtosomerepresentationsandsometimesidentifiedthepersonororganisationmakingthatrepresentation.However,Ihavenotnecessarilyreferredtoeachandeveryrepresentationinmyreport.NeverthelesseachonehasbeenconsideredcarefullyandIreassureeveryonethatIhavetakenalltherepresentationsreceivedintoaccountduringtheexamination.

5PPGpara0046NPPFpara1827Schedule4B(9)oftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990

6.0ConsultationTheParishCouncilhassubmittedaConsultationStatementwhichprovidesdetailsofwhowasconsultedandhow,togetherwiththeoutcomeofthatengagementprocess.ThePlanbuildsonanearlierVillagePlanof2003.AWorkingGroupwasformedinMay2012.ItisclearthatavarietyofactivitieshavebeenundertakenrangingfromaVillageSurveyearlyonintheprocesstoopendaysandstakeholdermeetingsthroughouttheprocess.Innovatively,aDevelopersForumwasheldwiththreedeveloperstakingupthemantleandover120peopleattended.CommunicationhasprimarilybeachievedthroughtheuseoftheParishmagazineandthelocalnewspaper,butawebsite,FacebookandTwitterhavealsobeenused.Pre-submission(Regulation14)consultationtookplacebetween7December2014and18January2015.ThedraftPlanwaspublicisedusingamixtureofonlineandpapermediums.Afterthisperiodhadended,itbecameapparentthatthehousingfiguresputforwardinSDC’semergingCoreStrategywouldincrease.Asaresultafurthertargetedconsultationwascarriedoutbetween3Apriland15May2015.TheConsultationStatementdescribesthisasbeingfor“additionalsites”.AttheveryleastthisdemonstratesthePlanmakershaverespondedtochangingcircumstances.TheConsultationStatementhighlightsthecontinuousdialoguewhichhasbeenheldwithSDCthroughouttheprocessandthisistobecommended.Submission(Regulation16)consultationwascarriedoutbetween23Julyand4September2015.Somerepresentationsquerythetransparencyandfairnessoftheprocess;otherssuggestthePlancouldhavegonefurtherinitscoverageorincludedotherpolicies.ThislatterpointislargelyamatterforthequalifyingbodyandshouldthePlanbereviewedIfeelsuretheParishCouncilwillbearthesepointsinmind.Whilstmorecanalwaysbedone,thePlanhasemergedasaresultofseeking,andtakingintoaccount,theviewsofthecommunityandotherbodies.7.0ThebasicconditionsNationalpolicyandadviceThemaindocumentthatsetsoutnationalplanningpolicyistheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(NPPF)publishedin2012.InparticularitexplainsthattheapplicationofthepresumptioninfavourofsustainabledevelopmentwillmeanthatneighbourhoodplansshouldsupportthestrategicdevelopmentneedssetoutinLocalPlans,planpositively

tosupportlocaldevelopment,shapinganddirectingdevelopmentthatisoutsidethestrategicelementsoftheLocalPlanandidentifyopportunitiestouseNeighbourhoodDevelopmentOrderstoenabledevelopmentsthatareconsistentwiththeneighbourhoodplantoproceed.8TheNPPFalsomakesitclearthatneighbourhoodplansshouldbealignedwiththestrategicneedsandprioritiesofthewiderlocalarea.InotherwordsneighbourhoodplansmustbeingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesoftheLocalPlan.TheycannotpromotelessdevelopmentthanthatsetoutintheLocalPlanorundermineitsstrategicpolicies.9On6March2014,theGovernmentpublishedasuiteofplanningguidance.Thisisanonlineresourceavailableatwww.planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk.TheplanningguidancecontainsawealthofinformationrelatingtoneighbourhoodplanningandIhavehadregardtothisinpreparingthisreport.ThisisreferredtointhisreportasPlanningPracticeGuidance(PPG).TheNPPFindicatesthatplansshouldprovideapracticalframeworkwithinwhichdecisionsonplanningapplicationscanbemadewithahighdegreeofpredictabilityandefficiency.10PPGindicatesthatapolicyshouldbeclearandunambiguous11toenableadecisionmakertoapplyitconsistentlyandwithconfidencewhendeterminingplanningapplications.Theguidanceadvisesthatpoliciesshouldbeconcise,preciseandsupportedbyappropriateevidence,reflectingandrespondingtoboththecontextandthecharacteristicsofthearea.PPGstatesthereisno‘tickbox’listofevidencerequired,butproportionate,robustevidenceshouldsupportthechoicesmadeandtheapproachtaken.12Itcontinuesthattheevidenceshouldbedrawnupontoexplainsuccinctlytheintentionandrationaleofthepolicies.13TheBasicConditionsStatementconsiderseachofthe12coreplanningprinciplesinturnandoffersausefulcommentaryonhowtheneighbourhoodplanpoliciesrelatetoeachoftherelevantsubsectionsoftheNPPF.SustainabledevelopmentAqualifyingbodymustdemonstratehowaneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.TheNPPFasawhole14constitutesthe

8NPPFparas14,169Ibidpara18410Ibidpara1711PPGpara041refid41-041-2014030612Ibidpara040refid41-040-2014030613Ibid14NPPFpara6whichindicatesparas18–219oftheFrameworkconstitutetheGovernment’sviewofwhatsustainabledevelopmentmeansinpractice

Government’sviewofwhatsustainabledevelopmentmeansinpracticeforplanning.TheFrameworkexplainsthattherearethreedimensionstosustainabledevelopment:economic,socialandenvironmental.15TheBasicConditionsStatementoffersahelpfulexplanationofhowthisparticularPlancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.ItfocusesonthespecificsofthePlanwhichistobewelcomedratherthantakingamoregeneralisedapproach.ThedevelopmentplanandemergingplanningpolicycontextTherelevantbasicconditiononlyreferstothedevelopmentplan.Inthiscase,thedevelopmentplanconsistsoftheStratfordonAvonDistrictLocalPlanReview1996-2011(LP)adoptedin2006.TheLPidentifiesasettlementhierarchy;Stratford-upon-Avonasthemaintown,MainRuralCentres(MRC),LocalCentreVillagesandallothersettlements.KinetonisidentifiedasoneofeightMRCsandwasnewlyidentifiedassuchinthatLP.Itisdescribedassupportingagoodrangeofservicesservingalocalcatchmentareaincludingasecondaryschoolandanestablishedindustrialestate.TheLPinmakingsuchadesignationsoughttopromoteandenhancetheroleofKinetonincludingsatisfyinghousingandemploymentneeds,supportingruraldiversification,tourismandleisure.Itseeksto“underpintheretailandcommercialsector...toensurepublicservicesareretained,tosupportexistingbusinessesandattractnewones,topromoteenvironmentalenhancementandtoimprovepublictransportlinkswithneighbouringvillages”.16TheBasicConditionsStatementalsoreferstotheemergingStratfordonAvonDistrictCoreStrategyProposedSubmissionJune2014(CS).ItdetailseachoftherelevantpoliciesinthedevelopmentplanandtheemergingCSandnotesthatsubsequentmodificationstotheemergingCSendorsedbySDCforformalconsiderationbytheCSInspectorandadoptedonaninterimbasisfordevelopmentmanagementpurposeswillnotimpactonthePlan.ThehearingsessionsintotheCSresumeinJanuary2016.WhilstthisexaminationdoesnotconsiderthisPlanagainsttheCS,thePlanhasusefullytakenaccountoftheemergingplanningcontext.IntheemergingCS,KinetoncontinuestobeidentifiedasaMRC.TheMRCsareregardedassuitablelocationsforgrowthandtheyalsoserveas‘hubs’forthewiderarea.LittleKinetonisaseparatesettlement.ItisnotdefinedasaLocalServiceVillageintheemergingCS.Ihavenotreferredtoeachandeverypolicyofrelevanceinthisreport,particularlyinthoseinstanceswherethemorerecentNPPFshouldhavemoreemphasis,butIconsiderthePlanasawholecanbesaidtobeingeneralconformitywiththestrategicdirectionandpoliciesoftheLP.

15NPPFpara716LPpage88

Somerepresentationscontendthatthe(neighbourhood)PlanshouldnotproceeduntilthereisanuptodateadopteddevelopmentplanonwhichthePlancanbebasedortestedagainst.BasedonadviceinPPG17andajudgmenthandeddowninajudicialreview,18itiswidelyacceptedthataneighbourhoodplancanbedevelopedbeforeoratthesametimeastheproductionofalocalplan.IacceptthoughthatboththeLPAandthequalifyingbodyshouldworkproactivelytogethertominimiseanyconflicts.19EuropeanUnionObligationsAneighbourhoodplanmustbecompatiblewithEuropeanUnion(EU)obligations,asincorporatedintoUnitedKingdomlaw,inordertobelegallycompliant.StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentDirective2001/42/EContheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainplansandprogrammesontheenvironmentisrelevant.Itspurposeistoprovideahighlevelofprotectionoftheenvironmentbyincorporatingenvironmentalconsiderationsintotheprocessofpreparingplansandprogrammes.ThisDirectiveiscommonlyreferredtoastheStrategicEnvironmentAssessment(SEA)Directive.TheDirectiveistransposedintoUKlawthroughtheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammesRegulations2004.AscreeningexercisehasbeencarriedoutbyLepusConsultingwhohavealsocarriedoutsustainabilityappraisalworkontheemergingCoreStrategy.Thisscreeningopinion,datedJune2015,concludesthatanenvironmentalassessmentisnotrequired.ThescreeningassessmenthasbeenconsideredbyNaturalEngland,HistoricEnglandandtheEnvironmentAgency.Noneofthethreestatutoryconsulteesdisagreewiththeconclusionofthescreeningreport.InadditionSDChasalsoconsideredwhetheraSEAisneeded(astheScreeningDocumentbyLepusConsultingwaspreparedonbehalfoftheNeighbourhoodPlanSteeringGroup)andconcurswiththeviewthataSEAisnotrequired.SDCconfirmsthattheRegulationshavebeencompliedwithandIamsatisfiedthatthePlandoesnotrequireaSEAtobecarriedout.HabitatsRegulationsAssessmentTherearenoEuropeansiteswithinthePlanarea.TheSEAScreeningDocumentconfirmsthattherearenointernationallydesignatednatureconservationsiteswithin10kmofthePlanarea.

17PPGpararefid41-009-2014030618GladmanDevelopmentsLtdvAylesburyValeDistrictCouncil[2014]EWHC4323(Admin)19PPGpararefid41-009-20140306

EuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)TheBasicConditionsStatementcontainsashortstatementthatthePlanhashadregardtofundamentalrightsandfreedomsguaranteedundertheECHRandcomplieswiththeHumanRightsAct1998.ThereisnothinginthePlanthatleadsmetoconcludethereisanybreachoftheConventionorthatthePlanisotherwiseincompatiblewithit.OtherDirectivesIamnotawareofanyotherEuropeanDirectiveswhichapplytothisparticularneighbourhoodplanandintheabsenceofanysubstantiveevidencetothecontrary,IamsatisfiedthatthePlaniscompatiblewithEUobligations.8.0DetailedcommentsonthePlananditspoliciesInthissectionIconsiderthePlananditspoliciesagainstthebasicconditions.WhereIrecommendmodificationsinthisreporttheyappearinboldtext.WhereIhavesuggestedspecificchangestothewordingofthepoliciestheyappearinbolditalics.ThePlanstartsoffwithaveryhelpfulcontentspage.1IntroductionTheintroductorypagesindicatethatthePlancoverstheperiodfrom2015to2031.SDCmakethepointthattheCScoverstheperiodfrom2011–2031andnot2015–2031asindicatedinparagraph1.1.ItissensiblethatthePlanextendstothesameperiodastheCoreStrategy.Aminorchangeisthereforerecommendedonthispoint.Paragraph1.5referstothe“verysignificantweight”thePlanwillhaveoncemadeinrelationtothedeterminationofplanningapplications.Whilstonafairreadingthisphraseologywouldnotgenerallybeofconcern,theamountofweighttobegiventoaplanningpolicyisamatterforthedecisionmaker.Thereforetoavoidanyconfusionamodificationisrecommendedtothisparagraph.ThissectioncontainsthevisionforKinetonbuildingonworkbroughtforwardfromtheVillagePlanproducedin2003.Thisstatesthat:

“…thecommunitywantsKinetonParishtocontinuetothriveasavibrantanddistinctivevillage,tocontinuetorespectandreflecttheviewsofitscommunity,toevolveandexpandwhilstretainingitsuniqueanddistinctivecharacterandtoprovideanoutstandingqualityoflifeforcurrentandfuturegenerationsofresidents.”

Thisvisionisarticulatedwellandisunderpinnedbyanumberofbulletpointsindicatinghowthismightbeachievedandbyanumberofobjectivesinparagraphs1.7and1.8respectivelywhichprovidetheframeworkforthepoliciesinthePlan.Theonlybulletpointswherethereissomeconcernisthethirdoneinparagraph1.7andthefirstoneinparagraph1.8;bothrefertothehousingneedsoftheParishwhichcouldbeinterpretedasbeingoverlyrestrictiveandthereforenothelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Amodificationisthereforesuggestedtodealwiththisconcern.TheParishboundaryisshownonpage5.Itisusefultoincludethismapearlyoninthedocument.ThisisthesameastheareacoveredbythePlan.ItisimportantthattheareathePlancoversisclearlyidentifiedandsotwominormodificationsarerecommendedtoensurethatitiscleartheParishboundaryissynomouswiththePlanareaandtoensurethattheboundarystandsoutmore;Ifoundthethinblacklinequitehardtodistinguishsoitmightbeusefultomakethisadifferentcolourorbolderperhaps.Theserecommendationsaremadeintheinterestsofclarity.

! Change“2015to2031”to“2011to2031”inparagraph1.1

! Rewordthelastsentenceinparagraph1.5toread:“OncethePlanismadeitwillbecomepartofthedevelopmentplanfortheareaandwillbeanimportantconsiderationinthedeterminationofplanningapplicationsasthesemustbedeterminedinaccordancewiththedevelopmentplanunlessmaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.”

! Add“andstrategic”after“…tomeetlocal…”andbefore“…requirement”inthe

thirdbulletpointinparagraph1.7

! Rewordthefirstbulletpointinparagraph1.8toread:“DeliveryofahousinggrowthstrategythatreflectsboththeneedsoftheParishandwiderareaandistailoredtothecontextofKInetonParish”orsimilar

! Changeoraddtothemaptitleonpage5tomakeitclearthatthemapshows

thePlanarea

! MakethePlanareaboundaryonthismapmoredistinctiveandeasiertoread2TheNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanThisisausefulsectionthatsetsouthowthePlanfitsintothewiderplanningframework.Paragraph2.1usesthephrase“…thePlanmustbeusedinlawtodetermineplanningapplicationsinKineton.”Iunderstandwhatthisphraseseekstodo,butitisoddlyphrasedandcouldbedeemedtobealittlemisleading.ThereforeIsuggestitisalteredtobetterreflectthelegalposition.

Thelastsentenceonpage6indicatesthatthemapreferredtointheprevioussectionappears“onpage5opposite”.Againthisjustneedsaminoramendmentwhichshouldbemadeintheinterestsofclarity.

! Changethesentenceinparagraph2.1whichreads“...thePlanmustbeusedinlawtodetermineplanningapplicationsinKineton.”to“…asthePlanwillthenbecomepartofthedevelopmentplanfortheareaandthedeterminationofplanningapplicationsmustthenbemadeinaccordancewiththedevelopmentplanunlessothermaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.”

! Ensureparagraph2.4onpage6tiesupwiththestructureandlayoutofthe

Plan3KIneton–HistoryandFutureWhilstthissectionisinterestingmuchoftheearlytextatleastbearsresemblancetothatintheemergingCS.20Paragraph3.8containsthephrase“puttingpropertyatriskinthevillage”.SDCcommentsthatitisnotclearwhichpropertiesareatriskandthatthisseemstobecontradictedlateroninthesection.IwouldurgetheParishCounciltoconsidertheuseandeffectofsuchphrases,toensuretheyareaccurateandclearandsubstantiatedbyevidence.Paragraph3.12hasasentenceabouttheinclusionofpedestrianandcyclelinkstoschoolsandshopsfromnewdevelopment.Whilstthisisaworthyaim,itisnotappropriatetointroducewhatareineffectstatementsofpolicyinthesupportingtextasthisdoesnotprovidethepracticalframeworknationalpolicyandguidanceseekandcouldbeconstruedasmisleading.Ifanissueisofparticularimportitshouldhavebeenincludedinthepolicy.ThisishowevernotamodificationIcanreasonablymakeasitwouldchangethestatusoftherequirementwhichhasnotbeenconsulteduponasapolicy.Theparagraphalsoreferstomeasurestolimittheimpactofvehiclesinthevillageandtrafficmanagementschemes.Thisprinciplecanofcoursebesupported,butwithoutsubstantiveevidenceitisdifficulttodetermineingeneraltermswhatsuchschemesmightlooklike.TohelpensurethePlanretainssufficientflexibilityandtoaddresstheconcernoutlinedabove,modificationsarerecommended.Paragraph3.14containsasentencethatcouldbeinterpretedaspreventinganydevelopmenttothesouthorsoutheastofthevillage.WhilstthisareaincludestheRiverDenevalleyandtheBattleofEdgehillHistoricBattlefieldandtheopennessofthislandcontributestotheseparationbetweenKinetonandLittleKineton,aspreviouslyindicateditisnotappropriatetointroducestatementsofpolicyinthesupportingtext.WhilstIhaverecommendeddeletionofthesentenceinquestion,arepresentation21suggestsanalternativeformofwordingwhichwouldalsobeacceptable.20CSpage149andfollowing21FramptonsonbehalfoftheRosconnGroup

Paragraph3.15referstoaLandscapeSensitivityStudy2011(LSS).TheLSShasbeencommissionedbySDCaspartoftheevidencebaseunderpinningthepreparationoftheemergingCS.TheLSSwasextendedin2012tocoverarangeofsmallersettlements.ThemainaimoftheLSSistoexaminethedegreetowhichlandscapewithinandontheedgeofsettlementsissensitivetochangethatwouldarisefromhousingorcommercialdevelopment.TheLSStookitsleadfromearlierworkonaCountyLandscapeAssessment.RepresentationshavealludedtothelackofevidenceforthePlanindicatingtheLSSisoneofthefewdocumentsreferredto.AsageneralcommentIagreethatifrelianceisplacedonanydocumentitisnecessarytoensurethatanyquotesorreferencesareaccuratelyportrayed.Againthetextintroducesapolicystatementthatretainstheindustrialestatesandexistinglevelofemploymentinthearea.Thissectionalsocontainsanumberof“coreprinciples”inparagraph3.17.IaskedforclarificationabouttheseandtheirrelationshiptothevisionandobjectivesfoundearlierinthePlanandthevisionstatementsthatfollowinthenextsectionofthePlan.TheParishCouncilhelpfullyexplainedthattheoverarchingvisioninparagraph1.6isbroughtforwardfromthe2003ParishPlan(incidentallyreferredtoastheVillagePlaninthatparagraphandsothisshouldbeconsistentwhicheveritisintheinterestsofaccuracy)andthattheobjectivesinparagraph1.7providetheframeworkforthePlan.Thecoreplanningprinciplestakethese“onestepfurther”Iamadvised,butarenotpolicy.ThevisionstatementsinthenextsectionofthePlanprovidesmoretopicbasedvisions.DespitetheadvicefromtheParishCouncil,Ihavefounditquiteconfusingnottomentionrepetitivetohaveaseriesofvisionsandobjectives;notleastbecausetheneachpolicytopicsectionisalsoprecededbyfurtherstrategicobjectives.IhavecommentedoneachoftheseasseparateentitiesasIgoalong,butitisessentialforthepresentationofthePlantobemuchcleareraroundthevisionandobjectives.Inadditionsomereadaspolicy,othersdonothaveapolicysittingalongsidethemandsomedonotrelatetodevelopmentanduseoflandmatters.ManyappeartoduplicateprinciplesintheemergingCS;22thisisnotinitselfanissueastheCSmightnotsurviveinitscurrentformat.Fortheavoidanceofanydoubt,noneofthecoreprincipleshavethestatusofplanningpolicy.Solookingfirstatparagraph3.17onwards,thefirstbulletpointreferstoanAreaofRestraint;IunderstandthatthisisaproposalatDistrictlevelintheemergingCS.Apartfromafurtherreferencetothisareainparagraph4.10,thePlancontainsnopoliciesaboutit.MyunderstandingisthattheLPdoesnotdesignateanAreaofRestraintforKineton.ThereforegivenitisaproposeddesignationandonethatwillbeputforwardbySDC,itmighthavebeenpreferableforthePlantoputforwarditsownAreaofRestraint.HoweverthePlandoesnotdothisandsogiventherearenopoliciesrelatingtosuchanarea,itwouldbeclearertodeleteanyreferencestoit.

22CSPolicyAS.5(page151)

Bulletpointtwounder(b)SocialreferstoanemergingCSpolicy.GiventhatthestagetheemergingCSisatandthatpolicynumbersandcontentsmaychangeitwouldbepreferabletoremovesuchreferencessothePlandoesnotbecomeoutofdatequickly.ReferencestospecificsitesatBrookhamptonLaneandLandEastofSouthamRoadineffectsetoutpolicyforthesesites.Itisinappropriateforanysitetobesingledoutincoreprinciplesgiventhatthesesitesarenotsubjecttosite-specificpoliciesinthePlanandinthelightofthemodificationsrecommendedtopoliciesthatmayaffectthesesites.Thepenultimatebulletpointonpage11ofthePlanreferstotheconstructionofalinkroad.IsoughtclarificationfromtheParishCouncilaboutthis.Iunderstandthatamainconcernofthecommunityconcernstrafficandwhilstacceptingsomedevelopmentthecommunityiskeentotaketheopportunitytoprovidesomeformofmitigation.Whilsttherehavebeensomedifficultiesinprovidingspecialistinput,anoutlineapplication23inthevillageallowsforthisconcepttobetakenforward.NeverthelessthisisabroadcoreprincipleandreferencestothelinkroadaretobefoundthroughoutthePlan.Thereissomesupportfromthedevelopmentindustryforthiswhilstothersdisputetheneed,buteitherwaythePlanitselfdoesnotputforwardrobustevidenceeitherforitsneedoritsdeliveryandthereforethiscanonlyberegardedasacommunityaspiration.Thisthenneedstobeinaseparateappendixordocument.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Considerthevisionandobjectives,coreplanningprinciples,visionstatementsandstrategicobjectivesagainwithaviewtoamalgamatingthemintoonesection(perhapssectionfour?)andensurethattheyareclear,relatetodevelopmentanduseoflandmatters,relatetothepoliciesinthePlanorareclearlyindicatedascommunityaspirations

! Amendthesentence“Anynewdevelopmentsshouldincludepedestrianand

cyclelinkstotheschoolsandshops.”inparagraph3.12to“Newdevelopmentshouldconsidertheprovisionofappropriatepedestrianandcyclelinkstofacilitiesandservices.”

! Addtheword“Appropriate”atthestartofthethirdsentenceinparagraph

! Deletethesentence“Theseconstraintsmakedevelopmenttothesouthandsoutheastunsuitableallowingagreenspacetoberetained.”fromparagraph3.14

(continuedonnextpage)

23Ref15/03101/OUT

! CheckthereferencetotheLSSinparagraph3.15isportrayedaccuratelyandinsertthewords“tryand”after“…itisimportant…”andbefore“…retainthealreadyestablishedindustrialestates…”

! Deletethefirstbulletpointunder(a)Environmentalonpage10oratleast

removethereferencetotheproposedAreaofRestraint

! RemovethereferencetoPolicyCS.24fromthesecondbulletpointunder(b)Socialonpage10

! Deletethefirstbulletpointunder(c)Economiconpage10oratleastremove

referencestotheretentionoftheindustrialestateatBrookhamptonLaneandsupportforaproposedschemeatLandEastofSouthamRoad

! Deletethereferencetoalinkroadfromthecoreprinciplesandincludeit,if

desired,inthePlanbutclearlylabeledasacommunityaspirationandinaseparatesectionofthePlanoranotherdocument

4KInetonVisionStatementIhavealreadymentionedtheneedforgreaterclaritybetweenthevision,objectives,coreprinciplesandvisionstatements.Ihadassumedthatthevisionarticulatedonpage3wasthevisionforthisPlan,buthereinparagraph4.1another(wellworded)visionisputforward.Thisisthenfollowedbyanumberof“visionstatements”foreducation,health,housing,business/services,conservation,leisure,tourism,transportandinfrastructure.Itisapparentfromthiscomprehensivelistthatthissectionoffersaverymuchmoredetailedvisionthanthepreviouslyarticulatedvisionandobjectivesfoundonpages3and4ofthePlanorthecoreprinciplesonpages10and11.Thevisionstatementsreadalmostasiftheyareplanningorotherpolicies(assomedealwithnondevelopmentandlandusematters);somedetailwhatwillorwillnotbepermittedandaspreviouslystateditisnotappropriatetointroducepolicy(intentionallyorunintentionally)inthisway.OthersprovideusefulbackgroundinformationforinstanceabouttheConservationAreas.Paragraph4.4referstohousing;SDCcommentthatthepreferenceexpressedherefor“smallerdevelopments”couldbeseentobeatoddswiththeproposedallocationsandIagreetherecouldbesomeconfusion.InanycasethereisnopolicyinthePlanthatfollowsthisthrough.Isuggestaphrasewhichhopefullydealswiththisissue.OnceagainthereisreferencetomeetinglocalneedsandwhilstIunderstandthisdoesnotnecessarilypreventwiderneedsbeingaddresseditreadsasarestrictionandshouldberemoved.Paragraph4.8referstothetwoConservationAreas(CA)ofKinetonandLittleKineton.ItreferstotheprotectionandwherepossibleenhancementofthecharacterofbothCAs.Thisphrasecouldbetterreflectthestatutoryprovisionswhichreferto

preservationorenhancementofthecharacterorappearanceofCAs.ThisparagraphalsoindicatesthatthePlanwillrecommendboundarychangestoeachCAandencourageArticle4directionsaswellasseekingtoimprovetheCAsthroughplanningapplications.Itisnotappropriatetoseektodothesethroughaneighbourhoodplan.Paragraph4.9againintroducesapolicybystatingthat“developmentwillnotbeallowedtoclimbPitternHill,inordertosafeguardthesettingofthevillage.”Ifthiswassought,thenthisshouldhavebeeninapolicywithappropriateevidencetosupportthis.Asitstandsitshouldberemoved.Paragraph4.10referstoaproposedAreaofRestraintwhichIhavealreadydiscussedintheprecedingsection.Thisreferenceshouldbedeletedintheinterestsofclarity.Paragraph4.12referstoan“identifiedneed”formoreplayingfields,butthereislittleevidenceforthisstatementandsothisshouldberemoved.Paragraphs4.13,4.14and4.15readparticularlywell,butitisregrettabletherearenopoliciesthatfollowthroughsomeoftheseideas.Paragraph4.17referstothelinkroad.Asdiscussedearlier,itshouldbemadeclearthatthisisacommunityaspiration.Arepresentation24suggestthatitwouldbehelpfultorefertotheseparationofsurfacewateraswellashighwaydrainagefromthefoulsystemandwhilstthisisnotamatterIneedtomodifyinrelationtomyroleandremit,IfeelsuretheParishCouncilwillwishtoincorporatethishelpfulsuggestion.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Deletethewords“smallerdevelopments”fromparagraph4.4andreplacethemwith“developmentsofanappropriatesizeandwithanappropriatedensityofhouses.”

! Deletethelastsentenceinparagraph4.4whichreads“Theprovisionof

housingshouldmeettheidentifiedneedsoftheneighbourhoodarea.”! Spellingofmedievalinparagraph4.6shouldbecorrected

! Reviseparagraph4.8toreflectCAstatutoryprovisions,removereferencesto

CAboundarychangesandArticle4DirectionsormakeitclearthatthisisanaspirationratherthananaimofthePlanandremovethereferenceto“controls”

24WarwickshireCountyCouncil

! Deletethesentence“…anddevelopmentwillnotbeallowedtoclimbPitternHill,inordertosafeguardthesettingofthevillage.”fromparagraph4.9

! Deleteparagraph4.10

! Deletethereferenceto“anidentifiedneed”fromparagraph4.12changingit

to“thereisadesiretohavemoreplayingfields…andadditionaltenniscourts.”5NeighbourhoodPlanPolicies5.1HousingThehousingsectionstartswithastrategicobjective.However,Iamnotclearwhatitmeans;inparticularthephrase“withoutbreakingdownexistingstructures”isnotcleartome.Inadditionthestrategicobjectiveseemstosuggestthatonly“localdemands”willbemet.GiventhatKinetonisaMRCandindeedasasubsequentparagraph,5.1.2,inthePlanacknowledges,paragraphs5.1.1and5.1.2requireamendmenttobringtheminlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance,togenerallyconformwithKineton’spositionintheDistrict’ssettlementhierarchyandtohelpachievesustainabledevelopment.

! Rewordparagraphs5.1.1and5.1.2toread“Tomeettheeconomic,socialandenvironmentalneedsofKinetonanditscontributiontotheoverallhousingrequirementsoftheDistrictthroughsustainablegrowth.”asthestrategicobjectiveforthissection

PolicyH1HousingSupplyThispolicyseekstodoanumberofthings;itsetsatargetof“around200newdwellings”inthePlanperiodwithinthesettlementboundary;itsuggeststhata100newdwellingsarethereforerequiredas100dwellingsalreadyhavepermission;itrequiresaffordablehousinginlinewiththeDistrict’semergingCSPolicyCS.17andreferstofoursitesallocatedinotherpoliciesofthePlan.Giventhatitiswidelyrecognisedthereisaneedtoboosthousingsupplyandthatplanningshouldbeplan-led,itiswelcomethatnewgrowthisaccepted.However,anumberofissuesandconcernsarisewiththispolicy.Firstofallthepolicyrefersto“continuousbutcontrolledgrowth”andIamnotsurewhatthismeans.Secondly,thepolicyrefersto“principles”.Itisappropriateforthepolicytoindicateanumberofdwellingsanditseemsthatthe200‘target’isbasedonhousingfigures,andastudyundertakenbytheDistrictCouncilofthecapacityofvillagestoaccommodategrowthandtheemergingCS,whichofcourseisyettobeadopted.YetthePlanseeks

toplanpositivelyforgrowthreflectingKineton’sdesignationasaMainRuralCentrealthoughofcoursesomerepresentationsindicatethisfigureistoolowandperhapsshouldtakeaccountoftheJaguarLandRoverandAstonMartinsiteswhilstothersconsiderittobetoohigh.SDCdonotofferanycommentonthefigureof“around200newdwellings”.Whilstreferenceismadetothe100orsounitsthatalreadyarecompletedorcommittedandsoasimplecalculationsuggestsa100orsomorenewdwellingsareneeded,inordertoplanpositivelyforgrowthitisimportantthattheoverallfigureisnotcapped.Criterionc)simplyreferstoaCSpolicyandgiventhestagetheCShasreachedthereissomeelementofriskincross-referencingandrelyinguponsuchpolicies.Inanycase,PolicyH3alsodealswithaffordablehousingandsothereseemslittlemeritinrepeatingtherequirementhere.AsotherpoliciesinthePlanproposetheallocationofthesitesreferredtoincriteriond)thereislittlevalueinrepeatingthatherealbeitthesesiteswillaccommodatemorethanthe100orsodwellingsthispolicyconsiderswillbeneeded.PolicyH2‘standsonitsowntwofeet’andsoagaincross-referencingseemssuperfluous.Finally,thepolicyrestrictshousingdevelopmentoutsidethesettlementboundaryunlessthatdevelopmentwouldbesupportedbyanotherpolicy.ThisisunnecessaryasthePlanwillbereadasawholeanddoesnotprovideforthenecessaryflexibilityinrespondingtochangingcircumstances.Turningnowtothesupportingtext,thereissomeconfusionbetweenreferencesto“thisPlan’whichonemightreasonablytaketomeantheneighbourhoodplanandreferencestotheCS.Thesupportingtextalsoseekstoprevent(additional)large-scalegreenfielddevelopment(otherthanontwooftheproposedallocations)oranyupliftinhousingnumbersinparagraphs5.1.4and5.1.5respectively.Inadditionitreferstotwooftheproposedallocationsasbeing“previouslyused(currentlywaste)sites”andagainitisnotcleartomewhatthisphrasemeans.Therearethereforeanumberofshortcomingswiththispolicy.Thepolicyreferstothesettlementboundary.Iaskedforclarificationaboutthisissue.TheParishCouncilconfirmthatthePlanseekstochangetheexistingsettlementboundaryforKinetonandintroduceanewoneforLittleKineton.EssentiallythenewboundaryforKinetonincludestheproposedallocationsandreflectsanewdevelopmentwhichiscurrentlyunderconstruction.Itisimportantforapolicytositalongsidethesenewdesignations.WhilstthereseemstobelittleopportunityformuchotherthanwindfallsitesinKineton,thiscannotalsobesaidofthenewsettlementboundaryforLittleKineton.

Inordertomeetthebasicconditions,includingtheneedtoavoidduplicationandtoprovideapracticalframework,anumberofmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! RewordPolicyH1asfollows:

“ThePlandesignatessettlementboundariesforKinetonandLittleKinetonandtheseareshownonthemapentitled“SettlementBoundaries”.Withinthesesettlementboundariesthedevelopmentandreuseoflandandbuildingsforhousingwillgenerallybesupported.InthePlanperiodtheprovisionofaminimumof200dwellingsissupportedtomeettheDistrict’soverallhousingsupplyupto2031.”

! Changethetitleofthepolicyto“HousingDevelopmentandSupply”

! Changethetitleofthemapto“SettlementBoundariesforKinetonandLittleKineton”andconsiderincludingitwithinthemainbodyofthePlan

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillberequired

PolicyH2PrioritisingtheUseofBrownfieldLandThispolicysupportstheredevelopmentofbrownfieldlandchimingwithacoreplanningprincipleintheNPPFtoencouragetheeffectivereuseofpreviouslydevelopedland.However,neitherthepolicynorthesupportingtextrecognisesthatpreviouslydevelopedlandcanbeofhighenvironmentalvalueandsometimesthatvaluemightexceedthatofagreenfieldsite.Theassumptionthatbrownfieldis‘better’todevelopthangreenfieldarticulatedinparagraph5.1.7isacommonmisconception.Thepolicysetsoutanumberofcriteria.Thefirstandsecondcriteriarelatetothecompatibilityoftheusewithsurroundingusesandtheneedforremedialworkstoremoveanycontaminationfromthesitesandintroducesuitablesafeguards.ThethirdcriterionseeksanenhancementtothecharacterandappearanceofthesiteandshouldbeexpandedtoincludetheNPPF’srecognition25thatsometimessuchlandwillhaveahighenvironmentalvalue.ThefinalcriterionreferstootherpoliciesinthePlanandisunnecessaryasthePlanwillbereadaswholeanyway.Thefinalparagraphofthepolicyintroducesapresumptionagainstthedevelopmentofgreenfieldlandrequiringexceptionalcircumstancestobeshowninorderfordevelopmenttoberegardedfavourably.ThisgoesagainstthegrainofthepresumptioninfavourofsustainabledevelopmentintheNPPFandasaresultdoesnothaveregardtonationalpolicyandwillnothelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.

25NPPFpara111

Thesupportingtextwillalsoneedsubstantialamendmenttorecognisethatbrownfieldlandcanbeofhighenvironmentalvalue,toremovetheprioritisationgiventopreviouslydevelopedlandandreferencetootherpoliciesinparagraph5.1.7andtoalterparagraph5.1.8tobringitinlinewiththemodificationsrecommended.Moregenerallyotherrevisionsmightalsobeneededincludingthereplacementof“previouslyundevelopedland”referredtoinparagraph5.1.7withamoresuitablyphrasesuchasgreenfieldandtheremovaloftheword“linear”assuggestedbySDC.Arepresentation26suggeststhatitshouldbeclearthispolicyrelatestohousingdevelopment.ThisisnotanunreasonablesuggestiongiventhepolicyappearsinthehousingsectionofthePlanandwouldhelpwithclarity.Thereforeinorderforthispolicytomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsneedtobeundertaken:

! Removetheword“Prioritising”fromthetitleofthepolicy! Insertthewords“tocreatenewhomes”after“…brownfieldland…”andbefore

“…willbesupported…”inthefirstsentenceofthepolicy! Addattheendofcriterionc)…”wouldnotresultinthelossofanylandofhigh

environmentalvalue.”

! Deletecriteriond)

! DeletethefinalparagraphofPolicyH2whichbegins“Unlessspecificallyallocated…”toend

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneeded

PolicyH3AffordableHousingThispolicyseekstosecureprovisionofaffordablehousinginlinewith(emerging)CoreStrategyPolicyCS.17andthroughS106legalagreements.ItintroducescriteriaforlocaloccupancysetoutinaHousingNeedsSurvey2013.Arepresentation27queriestheneedforthepolicyifitduplicatesSDCpoliciesandsuggeststhatreferencestoCSPolicyCS.17oftheemergingLocalPlanwouldbebetterasagenericreferencegiventheuncertaintywiththeemergingPlan.Thisisasensiblesuggestion.

! RemoveanyreferencestospecificpoliciesintheemergingCoreStrategy(continuedonnextpage)

26GladmanDevelopmentsLtd27GladmanDevelopmentsLtd

! Changethefirstsentenceinthesecondparagraphinthepolicytoread“Affordablehousingwillbesecuredinperpetuitythroughplanningobligationsorotherappropriatemechanisms.”

! Addtheword“generally”after“…willnot…”andbefore“…besupported.”in

thethirdparagraphofthepolicyPolicyH4UseofGardenLandTheonlybulletpointthatisnotappropriatetoretainisthelastonewhichreferstoPolicyH1.ThisisbecauseIhaverecommendedmodificationstoPolicyH1.Otherwisethepolicyaccordswiththebasicconditions.ThereforeinordertoensurethatPolicyH4isclearerthefollowingmodificationisrecommended:

! DeletelastbulletpointofPolicyH4thatreads“areinaccordancewithPolicy

H1ofthisPlan”PolicyH5HousingMixWhilstthispolicyistitledhousingmix,itisabouttenureaswellassizeofproperty.Itseekstoensurethatthetypeofhousingneededisprovided.Nationalpolicyseeksthedeliveryofawidechoiceofhighqualityhomesandencouragesamixtobeprovided.28Thiswillhelptowidenhousingopportunitiesandcreatesustainableandmixedcommunities.Thepolicysetsathresholdoftenormoreunitsbeforeitapplies,butitisnotcleartomewhythethresholdhasbeensetatthisfigureandtheimplicationfordoingso,butthisdoestakeitsleadfromLPPolicyCOM.14whichreferstoamixofdwellingtypesandhassomeconsistencywiththeNPPF.ThepolicyreferstoevidenceforitsrequirementsintheStrategicHousingMarketAssessmentortheHousingNeedsSurveyandrequirementssetoutinTable1inthePlanwhichseemtobetakenfromtheemergingCSPolicyCS.18,butdonottieupexactlygiventhatthesituationhaschangedatDistrictlevelintheinterveningmonths.GiventhattheCSisanemergingdocument,itisdifficulttorelyonthisandinanycasethetableofferslittleflexibilitygiventheexplanationandaimsofthePlan.ThesupportingtextexplainstheissuefortheParishandIfeelrightlytriestodrilldowntomeetingtheneedsoftheneighbourhoodaswellasthewiderneedsoftheDistrict.However,giventheintentofthepolicy,theneedforflexibilityandtheoft-changingcircumstancesacrossalongPlanperiodthatwillbebasedonlocalneedsbutalsothe

28NPPFpara50

needsatawiderDistrictlevel,someamendmentsarenecessaryforthepolicytoaccordwiththebasicconditions.Paragraphs5.1.15and5.1.18alsoexplainthattenuremixshouldbeintegratedthroughoutdevelopmentsandwhathappensondevelopmentsoflessthantenunits.Bothoftheseparagraphsascurrentlywordedcouldbeconfusedforpolicyandsorequiresomeamendment.

! RewordPolicyH5toread:

“Developmentsof10ormoreunitsshouldmeetthehousingmix,includingsizeandtype,andtenurerequirementsidentifiedbyuptodateevidenceinformedbytheStrategicHousingMarketAssessment,localHousingNeedsSurveysorothersourcesofevidence.Considerationshouldbegiventochangingdemographictrends,markettrendsandtheneedsofdifferentgroupsinthecommunity.”

! Rewordparagraph5.1.15toread:“Itisimportanttoensurethatdifferenttenuresareintegratedthroughoutthelayoutandforthatreasonintegrationwillbestronglyencouragedandconcentrationsoftenurediscouraged,particularlyinareasofpoorerenvironmentalquality.”

! Rewordparagraph5.1.18toread:“Whilstsmallerscaledevelopmentsofless

thantenunitsarenotcoveredbyPolicyH5,encouragementwillbegiventothoseschemeswhichcontributetomeetingtenureneeds.”

PolicyH6SafeguardedLandTwosites;a)LandwestofSouthamRoadandb)landeastofLighthorneRoadaresafeguardedbythispolicyforfuturedevelopmentifthereisanidentifiedlocalhousingneedfortheirrelease.Thesitesareidentifiedonamapentitled“PotentialHousingSites”.Thismapshouldberenamedtobetterreflectitscontents.Itisnotablethatthepolicydoesnotactuallymentionhousing,butitisclearfromthemapandsupportingtextthatthisisitsintention.WhilstsomerepresentationssuggestthesesitesareallocatedratherthansafeguardedorshouldbeallocatedinsteadofthesitesproposedforallocationinLittleKineton,asiteassessmenthasbeencarriedout.ThesupportingtextexplainstherationaleforthesafeguardedsitesandgiventhelevelofuncertaintywiththeemergingCoreStrategythisseemsasensiblewayforwardtoexpressthecommunity’spreferencesforthedevelopmentofcertainsites.Thereleaseofthesesitesisdependentonthefourproposedallocationsbeingbroughtforward(criterionh)ofthepolicy.WhilstIunderstandthatthisisdesignedtoensure

thatthefourallocationsareimplementedfirst,thereareamultitudeofreasonswhythismightnottakeplaceandthereforethiscriterionmayhindertheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.Giventhetenorofthepolicycentresuponanidentifiedneedforrelease,Iconsiderthisissufficient.However,theidentifiedneedrestrictsthistoa“localhousingneed”andthisshouldbealteredtoincludethestrategicdevelopmentneedsoftheDistrictinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance.Thereisalonglistofrequirementsinthepolicy.Whilstsomeoftherequirementsareinlinewithgoodplanningprinciplessuchashighqualitydesignandlandscape,Iamconcernedthatsomesetaveryhighbarthatmayaffecttheviabilityanddeliverabilityofthesesites.Theseincludetherequirementtousethemostuptodatetechnologiesinbuildingconstructionandalinkroad.WhilstIrecognisetheambitionforhighqualitydevelopmentshouldnotbethwartedanditisnotnecessaryforadetailedsite-by-siteassessmenttohavebeendoneatthisstage,itisnonethelessimportanttoensurethatsustainabledevelopmentcanbedelivered.Tothisendamodificationisrecommendedrecognisingtheissueofviability.Ihavealreadydiscussedthelinkroad.Thelastparagraphofthepolicyissuperfluous.Paragraph5.1.21indicatesthatthetwositeswillbereleasedinorderofappearance;presumablymeaningH6abeforeH6b.Thereappearstobenoreasonorjustificationforthisandsothisstatementshouldbedeleted.Arepresentation29statesthatthe‘safeguarded’siteH6adoesnotaccuratelyreflecttheownershipofthetwoparcelsoflandaspartofH6aisunderH6b’sownership.Therepresentationincludesaplanshowingtheboundaries.Itdoesdifferinextentfromthesitesshownontheaccompanyingmap.Aswellasensuringthatthetitleofthismapmoreaccuratelyreflectsitscontents,anydraftingerrorsshouldbecorrected.Thereforethispolicymeetsthebasicconditionssubjecttothefollowingmodifications:

! Addthewords“residential-led”before“development”inthefirstparagraph! Delete“local”fromthesecondparagraphwhichbegins“Theabovesites…”

! Change“Developmentonthesesiteswillonlybepermittedprovidingthe

followingrequirementsaremet:”to“Developmentonthesesiteswillbeexpectedtocomplywithallthefollowingrequirementssubjecttoarigorousviabilityassessment:”

! Delete“…utilisingthemostuptodatetechnologiesinbuildingconstruction

andrenewableenergytechnology…”fromcriteriona)

! Deletecriterionb)(continuedonnextpage)

29RichboroughEstates

! Deletecriterionh)

! DeletethelastparagraphofPolicyH6whichbegins“Alldevelopmentproposals…”

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededincluding

thedeletionofthesentence“Ifsuchaneedisestablishedthenthesiteswillbereleasedforhousingdevelopmentinorderofappearance,dependingonthelevelofneed.”fromparagraph5.1.21

! Renamethemap“SiteAllocationsandSafeguardedLand”addingtherelevant

policynumbers

! AmendtheextentofthetwoparcelsofsafeguardedlandH6aandH6btocorrectanyerrorsmadeinrelationtolandownershiponthetwosites

5.2JobsParagraphs5.2.1and5.2.2setthescenewellforthenexttwopolicies.PolicyJ1EmploymentSitesPolicyJ1supportsnewemploymentsitesandthegrowthoflocalemployment.Italsoresiststhelossofexistingemploymentlandfromchangeofuseorredevelopmentsubjecttoanumberofclearlywordedcriteria.TheNPPFindicatesthateconomicgrowthshouldbesupportedinruralareasandthatthesustainablegrowthandexpansionofalltypesofbusinessesandenterpriseshouldbesupported.30Italsoadvisesagainstthelong-termprotectionofemploymentsiteswherethereisnoreasonableprospectofasitebeingusedforthatpurpose.31ThispolicystrikesanappropriatebalancebetweenflexibilityandsupportforemploymentwithitsfivecriteriaprovidingapplicantswithanopportunitytodemonstratewhythereisnoreasonableprospectofasitebeingusedforemploymentpurposesinlinewiththeNPPF.However,thefirstandsecondcriteriaofthepolicyareinterdependentandthiswouldleadtothepotentialstagnationofsomesitesbasedonanoverallsupplyrequirement.Forthatreasonthe“and”attheendofthefirstcriterionshouldbecomean“or”andcriterionb)modifiedtobringitinlinewiththeNPPF.OnceagainthereferencetootherpoliciesofthePlanisnotneeded.Subjecttothesemodifications,thepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.

! Delete“…consistentwithotherpoliciesinthisPlanand…”fromparagraphoneofthepolicy(continuedonnextpage)

30NPPFpara2831Ibidpara22

! Replacetheword“and”attheendofcriteriona)withtheword“or”

! Addthewords“orwherethereisnoreasonableprospectofthesitebeingusedforemploymentuses”attheendofcriterionb)beforethe“or”

! Addattheendofthepolicyasanewparagraph“Wherethereisnoreasonable

prospectofasitebeingusedfortheallocatedemploymentuse,planningapplicationsforalternativeuseswillbetreatedontheirmeritshavingregardtomarketsignalsandtherelativeneedfordifferentlandusestosupportsustainablelocalcommunities.”

PolicyJ2HomeWorkingHomeworkingisanincreasingphenomenaandthispolicysupportstheprovisionofflexiblespacewithinnewdwellingstoaccommodatehomeworkingandcablingtosupportbroadband.Iconsiderthespacesuggestedcouldbetheabilitytoconvertaroomtoanoffice,aloftextensionorspacewithinagardenandsotogetherwithachangetogivingencouragementratherthanrequirement,thepolicyisflexibleratherthanbeingoverlyprescriptive.Asarepresentation32pointsoutsometimescablingisnotnecessaryandsoIsuggestamodificationtoensurethepolicyhassufficientflexibility.Thesecondelementofthepolicysupportsliveworkunitssubjecttoanumberofcriteria.Whilstsomeofthecriteriaaredetailed,thesupportingtextexplainsthatthisisaformofsustainabledevelopmentthatotherwisewouldnotbesupportedinrurallocations.IamalsomindfulthattheNPPFsupportsflexibleworkingpracticessuchastheintegrationofresidentialandcommercialuseswithinthesameunit33andthatthispolicytakesitsleadfromLPPolicyCOM.18whichhassomeconsistencywiththeNPPF.Thereforegiventhatthiselementofthepolicytakesaproactivestance,Iconsiderthat,onbalance,itmeetsthebasicconditions.IdohoweveragreewithSDCthatcriteriaf)isconfusedandasaresultitshouldbedeleted.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Replacethewords“mustinclude”inthefirstsentencewith“areencouragedtoprovide”

! Add“whereappropriate”after“and”andbefore“incorporatecabling…”in

thefirstparagraph

! Deletecriteriaf)

32GladmanDevelopmentsLtd33NPPFpara21

Ialsonotethatarepresentation34suggeststhatthepolicycouldusefullybedividedintotwoseparateones;whilstthisisnotamodificationneededinrelationtothebasicconditions,itisahelpfulsuggestionworthyofconsideration.5.3DesignThenextsectionofthePlanconsidersdesignthroughasuiteofpoliciesaimedatensuringdevelopmentinthePlanareaisofahighquality.PolicyD1DesignandCharacterThisisasimpleandwell-wordedpolicythatseekstoensurethatdevelopmentisofahighqualityandinclusive.ThisreflectsthestanceintheNPPFandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.AsaresultitcomplieswiththebasicconditionsandnomodificationsarerecommendedalthoughIamatalosstounderstandwhythispolicymightonlyapplytotheruralareas.PolicyD2RespondingtoLocalCharacterThispolicyseekstoensurethatnewdevelopmentrespectslocalcharacter.Thepolicyanditssupportingtextrecognisethereisaneedtoensurethatinnovativedesignisnotstifled,butthatlocaldistinctivenessandcharacterberespected.ThisisinlinewiththegeneralthrustoftheNPPFandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Inconsideringthedetailsofthepolicy,itrequiresademonstrationof“howlocalcharacterhasbeentakenintoaccount…inaccordancewiththefollowingprinciples…”.Theseprinciplesareexpressedascriteriaandarewiderangingcoveringdensity,heritageassetsandsurfacewateramongstotherthingsaswellasopengreenspacesandviews.Whilstsomeoftheprinciplessuchastranquilityanddarkskiesmaybelesstangiblefeaturestoassesstheyarerecognisedplanningmattersandimportantcharacteristics,particularlyofmoreruralareas.ThereforewhilstIrecognisethereissomeoverlapwithotherlegislationorpolicies,thepolicyaccordswiththebasicconditionsapartfromsomechangesnecessarytobringitinlinewithexistinglegislationinrelationtoConservationAreasandnationalpolicyandguidance.Criteriona)referstotheretentionofopengreenspacesinthesettlement.Whilstthisisareasonableaim,thereisnoflexibilityanditisnotrecognisedthatonoccasiondevelopmentofagreenspacecanthenresultinenhancedprovisionelsewhere.Given

34GladmanDevelopmentsLtd

thepolicyisaboutlocalcharacter,Isuggestamodificationthataddressesmyconcerninthisrespect.Criterione)referstotheconservationofviews,skylinesandsweepingviews.Thisneedssomemodificationtoensurethatitdoesnotstifledevelopment.Paragraph5.3.4indicatesthatdevelopmentatoddswithlocalcharacterwillbe“treatedcautiously”.Iamnotsurewhatthismeansassurelysuchdevelopmentshouldberesisted.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Addtotheendofthesentence“Existingopengreenspaceswithinthesettlementshouldberetained.”thewords“wheretheymakeanimportantcontributiontothecharacterandlocaldistinctivenessofthearea.”incriteriona)

! Changethephrase“preserveandenhanceheritageassets…”to“preserveor

enhanceheritageassets…”incriterionc)

! Changethephrase“protectandenhancelandscapeandbiodiversity…”to“protectorenhancelandscapeandbiodiversity…”incriteriond)

! Changecriterione)toread“Keyfeaturesofviewstoandfromhigherslopes,

skylinesandacrossthewiderlandscapecancontinuetobeenjoyed;”

! Replacethewords“treatedcautiously”attheendofparagraph5.3.4to“resisted.”

PolicyD3UseofDesignCodesandMasterPlanningReadingthepolicyandthesupportingtexttogether,PolicyD3firstofallrelatestolargescaledevelopmentsdefinedastenormoredwellingsor1000squaremetresormoreofnon-residentialfloorspace,requiringappropriateuseofdesigncodes.Asthepolicydoesnotincludethisthresholditisnotparticularlyclearwhenthispartofthepolicywouldapply.Ihavethereforerecommendedamodificationthatseekstoremedythisconcern.ThesecondelementofPolicyD3relates(only)todevelopmentsoftenormoredwellingsandrequiressuchschemestobeaccompaniedbyamasterplanoracontextualplanaswellasaTransportAssessment.Masterplanningcanhelptoraisethestandardsofurbandesignandcreatequalityplacesthroughtakingastructuredapproach.Whilstitmightbearguedthatthethresholdoftenormoredwellingsislowforamasterplan,theydonothavetobecome

anundueburdenandifdonewellandappropriatelycanpromotesustainabledevelopment.TheuseofdesigncodesissupportedbytheNPPF35wherethiswouldhelptodeliverhighqualityoutcomes,butunnecessaryprescriptionshouldbeavoided.PPGadvisesthatadesigncodeisatypeofdetaileddesignguidancethatisoftenusefulforcomplexscenarios,butthattheycanapplytoalltypesofdevelopmentsandoftenconnecttomasterplans.Theycanbehelpfulinbuildingconsensusaboutwhatkindofplaceeveryonewantstocreate.Itremindsusthatsomeofthebestandmosteffectivecodesareveryshort.36Thiselementofthepolicyisinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance.Itisclearthatthepolicyseekstotakeaholisticapproachtoensurethatnewdevelopmentisappropriateandofahighquality.Howeveritis,asanumberofrepresentationspointout,difficulttopredictwhatmighthappeninthefuture.Thereforeamodificationissuggestedthataimstoofferabalancebetweentheintentofthepolicyandtheconcernsexpressed.TheNPPFalsoveryclearlyindicatesalldevelopmentsthatgeneratesignificantamountsofmovementshouldbesupportedbyeitheratransportstatementoratransportassessment.37BothofthesetermsaredefinedintheNPPF’sglossary.Itthereforemaybethecasethatsomedevelopmentscaughtbythispolicywouldnotrequirethesubmissionofatransportassessment.Itwouldalsobeoneroustoexpectthatamasterplanwould“ameliorate”theadditionaldemand;Iconsidertheword“mitigate”38wouldbemoreprecise.ThereforeIrecommendthefollowingmodificationstoensurethatthepolicyprovidesapracticalframeworkandincludesmoreflexibilitytoensurethatitsrequirementsareappropriatebasedonthescaleofdevelopmentanditsparticulareffects:

! Makethedefinitionof“large-scaledevelopment”inthefirstelementofthepolicyclearerbyincludingthedefinitionfoundinparagraph5.3.12inthepolicyitself

! Changethephrase“Themasterplan/contextualplanmusttakeaccountof

recentandpotentialfuturedevelopmentintheareasoastoprovideadegreeoffuture-proofing.”inthesecondparagraphto“Themasterplan/contextualplanshouldincludeconsiderationofexistingorproposeddevelopmentsintheareatoenableaholisticapproachtobedevelopedwhereverpossible.”

! Replacetheword“ameliorate”with“mitigate”inthesecondparagraph

! Delete‘throughaTransportAssessment”inthethirdparagraph

35NPPFpara5936PPGpara036refid26-036-2014030637Ibidpara3238assuggestedbyarepresentationfromBarwood

PolicyD4ReplacementDwellingsPolicyD4supportsthereplacementoflawfuldwellingsaslongasissuessuchastheeffectoncharacterandappearanceandthelivingconditionsofneighboursareacceptable.IttakesitsleadfromLPPolicyCOM.12whichhassomeconsistencywiththeNPPF.TheonlyelementofthepolicywhichnowdoesnotcomplywithnationalpolicyandguidanceisthereferencetotheCodeforSustainableHomesandthedesiretoseestandardsofconstructionexceedtheoperativebuildingregulationsiftheCodeiswithdrawn.TheGovernmenthasnowwithdrawntheCodeaspartofitsnewapproachtosettingtechnicalstandardsfornewhousingdevelopment.AWrittenMinisterialStatement(WMS)39madeitclearthatneighbourhoodplanscannotsetoutanyadditionallocaltechnicalstandardsorrequirementsrelatingtotheconstruction,internallayoutorperformanceofnewdwellings.OptionalnewtechnicalstandardscannowonlyberequiredthroughLocalPlanpolicies.AsaresultthiselementofthepolicydoesnotaccordwithnationalpolicyandguidanceandIcanonlyrecommenddeletionofthispartofthepolicy.

! DeleteparagraphthreeofPolicyD4PolicyD5DesigningOutCrimeThisisaclearlyandflexiblywordedpolicyaimedatensuringthatcrimeandthefearofcrimeisaddressedinnewdevelopments.ItchimeswiththeNPPF’s40aimofcreatingsafeandaccessibleenvironmentsandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Thereishoweveramismatchbetweenthewordsofthepolicyandthesupportingtext;paragraph5.3.16referstoCABE’sSaferPlacesand“requires”alldevelopmentproposaltodemonstratehowthesevencharacteristicsinthepaperhavebeenincorporatedintothedesignwhereasthepolicy,rightlyIthink,takestheapproachof“expected,wherenecessary,todemonstrate”.ThismismatchshouldbeaddressedthroughrevisionstothesupportingtexttoensurethatitalignswiththepolicysothatthePlanisclear.

! Amendthewordinginparagraph5.3.16toread“CABE’scomprehensive…asafecommunity.Alldevelopmentproposalswillbeexpected,wherenecessary,todemonstratehowthesecharacteristics…proposeddesign.”

39WrittenMinisterialStatementof25March2015(andasidefromlegacycases)40NPPFparas58and69

PolicyD6ReuseofBuildingsThispolicysupportstheconversionofbuildingstoresidential,employmentortouristaccommodationsubjecttoanumberofcriteria.TheNPPFsupportsthesustainablegrowthandexpansionofbusinessandenterpriseinruralareasincludingthroughtheconversionofexistingbuildings.41TheNPPF42alsorecognisesthatresidentialdevelopmentisanappropriatereuseofredundantordisusedbuildingswheresuchreusewouldleadtotheenhancementtotheimmediatesetting.Thispolicyprovidesanappropriatebalancebetweensupportingconversionsandsafeguardingamenity.Itmeetsthebasicconditionsandnomodificationsarerecommended.PolicyD7EnvironmentalSustainabilityAsmentionedearlier,theGovernmenthascreatedanewapproachtosettingtechnicalstandardsfornewhousingdevelopment.TheWMS43madeitclearthatneighbourhoodplanscannotsetoutanyadditionallocaltechnicalstandardsorrequirementsrelatingtotheconstruction,internallayoutorperformanceofnewdwellings.OptionalnewtechnicalstandardscannowonlyberequiredthroughLocalPlanpolicies.Theinclusionofaplanningpolicythatseekshighlevelsofsustainabilityinconstructionandusethereforenolongeraccordswithnationalpolicyandguidance.Thiscouldperhapsberetainedasanaspirationofthecommunityinaclearlydifferentiatedandseparatenon-planningsectionofthePlanorinaseparatedocument.However,oneelementofthepolicy,sustainabledrainagesystems(SuDs)canberetained.SuDshelptocontrolsurfacewaterrunoffclosetowhereitfallsandtoreducethecausesandimpactsofflooding.However,theyarenotappropriateforalltypesofnewdevelopmentanditslocation.TheGovernmenthasissuedaWMS44thatindicatesthatsustainabledrainagesystemsforthemanagementofrun-offareputinplaceunlessitisdemonstratedtobeinappropriate.However,thisappliestodevelopmentsof10ormoredwellingsandtomajorcommercialdevelopment.Thereforetobringthepolicyinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance,itrequiresamendment.Thefollowingmodificationisthereforerecommended.

! RewordPolicyD7toreadasfollows:

“Newdevelopmentsoftenormoredwellingsandmajorcommercialdevelopmentwillbeexpectedtoprovideandincorporatesustainabledrainagesystemsunlessitisdemonstratedthatthiswouldbeinappropriate.”

41NPPFpara2842NPPFpara5543WrittenMinisterialStatementof25March201544WrittenMinisterialStatementof18December2014

! ConsequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededPolicyD8ParkingProvisionAlthoughthispolicyistitled“ParkingProvision”italsocoverstheprovisionofcycleparkingandpedestrianandcycleroutestoschoolsandthevillagecentre.Intheinterestsofclaritythetitletothepolicyshouldbeamendedtoreflectitswidercoverage.ThepolicyseeksaminimumoftwocarparkingspacesfordwellingsoftwoormorebedroomscitingthehighlevelsofcarownershipinKinetonandcongestion.Thereislittleotherevidenceprovidedforsettingtheparkingstandardatthislevelanditseemstomethatthefirstsentenceofthepolicydealswiththecommunity’sconcerns,butwouldallowflexibilityonsomesiteswhereperhapsnotsomuchparkingisrequiredgiventhetypeofpropertyorbearinginmindlocationorwhatadesign-ledsolutionmightrealise.Itexcludesgaragesfromthiscalculation,butnotcarportsanditisnotcleartomewhythismightbe.Thereforetheseoverlyprescriptiveelementsshouldbedeletedandthepolicygivenmoreflexibility.Thefinalparagraphofthepolicyrequiresnewdevelopmentsto“developeasypedestrianandcycleroutes”tothevillagecentreandschools.Thisisanappropriateobjective,butthewordingneedstobemoreflexiblesothatitdoesnotapplytoalldevelopmentwhichmightincludeaminorresidentialextensionandclearersothat“easy”doesnotinvokelongargumentsaboutwhetherapathmightmeetthatdefinition.Subjecttothesemodifications,thepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.

! ChangeoramendtitleofPolicyD8tofullyreflectthecontentsandcoverageofthepolicy

! Deletethesentencebeginning“Dwellingscomprisingtwoormore

bedrooms...(excludinggaragesbutincludingcarports).”fromPolicyD8

! RewordthefinalparagraphofPolicyD8toread“Newdevelopments,whereappropriate,shouldtakeanyavailableopportunitiestoprovidenew,orenhanceexisting,accessibleandsafepedestrianandcycleroutesfromthedevelopmenttothevillagecentreandschools.”

PolicyD9EffectiveandEfficientUseofLandThispolicyhassomeoverlapwithPolicyH2inthatthatpolicysoughttoprioritisetheuseofbrownfieldlandandtointroduceapresumptionagainstthedevelopmentof

greenfieldlandandPolicyD2insofaritreferstodensity.However,thethreepoliciesdonotappeartocontradicteachother.Inrelationtodensity,subjectofcriteriona)ofthepolicy,paragraph5.3.24againseemstointroduceadensityrangewhereasthepolicyitselfandPolicyD2focusonthecontextofthesite.Aswellasbeinginconsistent,aspreviouslyexplaineditisinappropriatetointroducewhatmightreasonablybeconstruedaspolicyinthesupportingtext.Inadditionitisuncleartomewhat“commensuratewithaviableschemeandinfrastructurecapacity”meansinrelationtodensity.GiventheoverlapwithPolicyD2andthelackofclaritywiththiscriterion,itshouldbedeletedasthepointiscoveredsatisfactorilyelsewhere.Criterionb)introducesprioritytoreusingpreviouslydevelopedlandovergreenfieldland.ThisissuehasalreadybeendiscussedunderPolicyH2.Thecriterionshouldbedeleted.Thelastparagraphofthepolicyseeksagradual‘transition’betweenbuilt-upareasandthesurroundingcountrysidewithhigherdensityandbuildingheightsdirectedtowardsthevillagecentrewithlowerheightsanddensitiesontheedgetoachievethis‘transition’.Thisapproachcouldhelptoensuredevelopmentreinforcesandpromoteslocaldistinctiveness,butmightinadvertedlyreducetheabilityofnewdevelopmenttointegratesatisfactorilywithexistingdevelopmentanddivergefromadesign-ledapproachtonewdevelopment.Thepolicyshouldbeflexibleenoughtoconsidereachsiteonitsmeritsandamodificationisrecommendedtohelpachievethis.Iamalsonotconvincedthatthissitscomfortablywithapolicytitled“EffectiveandEfficientUseofLand”anditmaybeworthconsideringadifferenttitlegiventheothermodificationstothepolicy.Paragraph5.3.26seekstosecureinternalspacestandardswhichisnotanappropriatetaskforneighbourhoodplansaspreviouslyexplained.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Deletecriteriona)

! Deletecriterionb)

! Consequentialamendmentstothepolicytotakeaccountofthedeletionofcriteriaa)andb)willbeneeded

! Addattheendofthepolicy“tohelpintegratenewdevelopmentandtoreflectthesite’ssettingandreinforcelocaldistinctiveness,butasite-by-siteapproachwillbeencouraged.”(continuedonnextpage)

! Deletethesentence“Densitieswouldnotnormallybeabove25–30dwellingsperhectare.”fromparagraph5.3.24

! Deletethewords“internaland”fromparagraph5.3.26

PolicyD10HeritageAssetsPolicyD10coversawiderangeofheritageassetsincludingthetwoConservationAreasthatfallwithinthePlanarea,listedbuildingsandtheregisteredbattlefield.Thegeneralthrustofthepolicyaccordswithnationalpolicyandguidanceandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopmentsubjecttosomewordingchanges.Asthepolicyreferstodesignatedheritageassets,arepresentationfromHistoricEnglandwhosupportthepolicy,suggesttitlingthepolicy“DesignatedHeritageAssets”andIagreethiswouldgiveadditionalclarity.

! Deletethewords“asaminimum”fromthethirdparagraphofthepolicy

! Changethephrase“anegativeimpact”inthefourthparagraphofthepolicyto“aneffect”

! Deletetheword“minimise”fromparagraphfiveofthepolicyandreplacewith

thewords“haveasatisfactory”! Changethetitleofthepolicyto“DesignatedHeritageAssets”

5.4EnvironmentThestrategicobjectiveforthissectionintroduceswhatmightberegardedaspolicyinparagraph5.4.2;“newdevelopmentmustconformtopastformsandpatterns,mass,scale,andbuildingmaterialsalthoughthefunctionofthebuildingcanbemodern.”ThisisatoddswithotherpoliciesinthePlanwhichdonotseektostifleinnovationandmightwellhaveunintendedconsequences.Italsoseemsbetterplacedinthedesignsection.

! Deletethesentence“Newdevelopmentmustconformtopastformsandpatterns,mass,scale,andbuildingmaterialsalthoughthefunctionofthebuildingcanbemodern.”fromparagraph5.4.2

PolicyE1AgriculturalLandTheNPPFsupportsaprosperousruraleconomyandpromotesthedevelopmentanddiversificationofagriculturalandotherlandbasedruralbusinesses.Italsoindicatesthatwhilsttheeconomicandotherbenefitsofthebestandmostversatileagriculturallandshouldbetakenintoaccount,ifsignificantdevelopmentofagriculturallandisnecessarythenareasofpoorerqualitylandshouldbesoughttobeusedinpreferencetolandofahigherquality.45ThewordingofthispolicydoesnotreflecttheNPPFsufficientlyasitaddsarequirementabouttheneedforexceptionalcircumstancestooutweighthelossofthebestandmostversatileagriculturalland.Neverthelessthesentimentsexpressedinthepolicyandthesupportingtextwouldhelptoachievesustainabledevelopmentandwithsuitablerewordingthepolicycanberetained.Paragraph5.4.6againintroducesaprotectionakintopolicyinthesupportingtextandasaresultrequiressomeamendment.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! RewordPolicyE1asfollows:

“Developmentofthebestandmostversatileagriculturalland(definedaslandingrades1,2and3aoftheAgriculturalLandClassification)willnormallyberesistedunlessitcanbedemonstratedthatsignificantdevelopmentofagriculturallandisnecessaryandnootherlandofapooreragriculturalqualityisavailable.”

! Replacetheword“must”inthelastsentenceofparagraph5.4.6withtheword“should”

PolicyE2Landscapes,VistasandSkylinesThispolicyseekstoprotectallprominentviews,vistasandskylinesaremaintainedandsafeguarded,particularlywheretheyrelatetoheritageassets,landmarkbuildings,gatewaysitesandsettlementboundaries.Thesecondparagraphsuggeststhatlarge-scaledevelopmentshouldshowthatsuchlandscape,vistasandskylineshavebeenpreserved.Thereisaninherentconfusioninthispolicytomymindasitseemstocoverviews,vistasandskylinesandlandscape.Irealisethatsomeoftheimportantviewswillbeofthelandscape,butthesecondparagraphseemstointroduceanotherrequirement

45NPPFparas28and112

aboutlandscapeandlandscape-leddesign.Theexplanatorytextseemstosupportmythinkingthatthepolicydoesincludelandscapeaswellasviewsofthelandscape.Inadditionthereiswordingthatmightcausesomeambiguity,forinstancethereferenceto“existinglandmarkbuildings”;thisphrasewillhaveadifferentmeaningoverthelifeofthePlan.Iamalsounclearonwhat“gatewaysites”mightbe.Amaptitled“TheNaturalEnvironment”showsimmediateviewsanddistantperipheralviewsaswellasgreenfingers.Themapisclear,butcouldberenamedtoalignbetterwiththispolicy.However,IcannotfindanyreferenceinthePlanto“greenfingers”.Asaresultthisnotationshouldbedeletedfromthemap.Thetwotypesofviewsidentifiedonthemaphavebeenidentifiedbythecommunityasbeingofimportance.Ialsosawonmysitevisitthattheseviewsandthesettingofthetwovillagesareimportanttotheuniquecharacterandtopographyofthesettlements.Theplanisnotreferredtointhepolicyanditwouldbehelpfulforacross-referencetobemadesothatitisclearthepolicyappliestotheseidentifiedviews.However,itisimportantthatsuchapolicydoesnotprecludeanynewdevelopment,butseeksinsteadtoensurethatanynewdevelopmentwouldrespectthoseviews.IthereforesuggestadifferentformofwordstotryandachieveanappropriatebalancebetweenthepresumptionofsustainabledevelopmentandtheprotectionoflocaldistinctivenesswhichalsotakesintoaccountcommentsfromSDC.Paragraphs5.4.7and5.4.8readaspolicyratherthanassupportingtext.Iftheyaretoberetainedassupportingtextthentheyshouldberewordedtoensurethattheydonotappearasstatementsofpolicy.Ihavesuggestedmodificationsinthisregardinordertobehelpful.Paragraph5.4.10indicatesthatlandtothenorthandeastofWaltonFieldsandanylandtothenorthofexistingBanburypropertieswillbeprotectedfromfuturebuilding.Thisisanotherexampleofthesupportingtextintroducingapolicyandisinappropriateandthereforeshouldbedeleted.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! RewordPolicyE2toread:

“Developmentproposalsmustensurethatkeyfeaturesoftheviewsidentifiedontheplantitled“ImportantViews”cancontinuetobeenjoyedincludingdistinctbuildings,heritageassets,areasoflandscapeandthejuxtapositionofvillageedgesandtheopencountryside.”Largescaleproposalsshouldsubmitalandscapeandvisualimpactassessmenttohelptodemonstratethis.”(continuedonnextpage)

! Changethenameofthemapcurrentlytitled“TheNaturalEnvironment”to“ImportantViews”andaddtherelevantpolicynumbertoit(PolicyE2)

! Deletegreenfingersfromthemap

! Replacethewords“willnotbepermitted”whichappearintwoinstancesinparagraph5.4.7andoneinparagraph5.4.8with“willnotbeencouraged”

! Deleteparagraph5.4.10initsentirety

! ConsequentialamendmentstothetextwillbeneededPolicyE3MinimisingPollutionItisclearfromthePlanthatpollutionandparticularlynoiseandlightpollutionisakeyissueforthecommunitygiventhetopographyofthearea.AsthesupportingtextrightlypointsoutpollutionisaplanningconsiderationandtheNPPF46isclearthatpoliciesanddecisionsshouldensurethatnewdevelopmentisappropriateforitslocation.ThepolicyalsochimeswithLPPolicyPR.8.However,thispolicytakesablanketapproachrequiringallnewdevelopmenttoprovideawrittenstatementaboutmeasurestoreducetheimpactofpollution.Therearetwoissueshere.Firstly,theblanket‘catchall’whichwouldmeanthatforminordevelopmentofsayahouseholdernaturethisbecomesanonerousandoftenunnecessaryrequirement.Secondly,thewordingofthepolicyitself.Allthatisrequiredisastatementtosaythatmeasureshavebeenconsidered;thismeansthereisnorequirementontheapplicanttoactuallyimplementanymeasures.InadditiontherequiredstatementwouldneedtobeassessedbythedeterminingauthorityinthiscaseSDC.Thepolicythereforeimposesanadditionalonusonthelocalplanningauthority.Thereforewhilsttheambitionandintentofthepolicycanbesupported,itneedssomereworkingtoensurethatitprovidesthepracticalframeworknationalpolicyandguidanceseeks.Inadditionparagraph5.4.14introducespolicyabouthelipadsandairstripsorsimilar.Giventhesuggestedmodifiedwordingtothispolicy,thepolicyshouldnowbesufficienttoresistunacceptableproposalsandsogiventhatitisnotappropriateforpolicytobeintroducedinthesupportingtext,thissentenceshouldbedeleted.Thereforeinordertomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsarerecommended:

46NPPFpara120

! RewordthefirstparagraphofPolicyE3asfollows(fortheavoidanceofdoubtthesecondparagraphcanberetainedasis):

“Developmentproposalswhichwouldgive,orpotentiallygive,risetopollutionbecauseofitstypeoritslocationwillonlybesupportediftheyareaccompaniedbyevidencethatdemonstratesanyharmfulimpactsparticularlyarisingfromnoise,lightortrafficgeneration,includingdetailsofanymeasurestobetakentodealwiththeanticipatedimpactsoftheproposal,aresatisfactory.”

! Deletethesecondsentenceinparagraph5.4.14whichbegins“Helipadsor

airstrips…”PolicyE4RenewableandLowCarbonEnergyGenerationThisisaclearlywordedpolicythatsupportsrenewableenergyschemesaslongasthereisanacceptableimpactoncharacterandappearance.Thiswillhelptosupportthedeliveryofsuchschemeswhichiscentraltotheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentandinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidancewhilstachievinganappropriatebalancebetweenprotectionoftheenvironmentandaddressingtheconcernsofthelocalcommunity.Nomodificationsarerecommended.PolicyE5StreamsideDevelopmentPolicyE5requiresalldevelopmentproposalswithinthefloodplaintobeaccompaniedbyahydrologicalsurvey.Thesupportingtextexplainsthatthereisaparticularconcernaboutsurfacewaterflooding.Thereislittledoubtthatconsiderationoffloodriskwillproactivelyhelptomeetoneofthechallengesofclimatechange.TheNPPFstatesthatinappropriatedevelopmentinareasatriskoffloodingshouldbeavoidedbydirectingdevelopmentawayfromareasathighestrisk.47Itadvocatesasequential,risk-basedapproachtothelocationofdevelopmenttoavoidwherepossiblefloodrisktopeopleandproperty.48TheNPPFsetsoutthecircumstancesinwhichasite-specificfloodriskassessmentwillberequired.49PPGadvisesthatthegeneralapproachandrequirementsforsite-specificfloodriskassessmentsshouldbeappliedtodevelopmentsinareasatriskfromflooding.Giventheprescriptiverequirementsofnationalpolicy,PolicyE5shouldalignwithnationalpolicyinorderforittomeetthebasicconditions.

47NPPFpara10048Ibid49Ibidpara103

SuDsarealsoencouragedinthepolicyandhavebeendiscussedearlierinthisreportinrelationtoPolicyD7.UnlessPolicyD7isnotretained,thereisnoneedtospecificallymentionthemagaininthispolicy.IdorecognisethatSuDsarementioned‘inpassing’hereasanexampleofanappropriatewayofmitigatinganyimpacts.Therecommendationdealswiththisissuetoensurethatthepolicyisclearandinternallyconsistent.PleasealsoseethediscussionthatfollowsonPolicyE7.Thefollowingmodificationisthereforerecommended:

“Developmentshouldnotincreasefloodrisk.PlanningapplicationsfordevelopmentwithinthePlanareamustbeaccompaniedbyasite-specificfloodriskassessmentinlinewiththerequirementsofnationalpolicyandadvice,butmayalsoberequiredonasite-by-sitebasisbasedonlocallyavailableevidence.Allproposalsmustdemonstratethatfloodriskwillnotbeincreasedelsewhereandthattheproposeddevelopmentisappropriatelyfloodresilientandresistant.Informationaccompanyingtheapplicationshoulddemonstratehowanymitigationmeasureswillbesatisfactorilyintegratedintothedesignandlayoutofthedevelopment.Theuseofsustainableurbandrainagesystemsandpermeablesurfaceswillbeencouragedwhereappropriate.”

PolicyE6TreesandHedgerowsPolicyE6seekstoprotecthealthyandmaturetreesandhedges,butallowsfortheirreplacementwhenthisisnotpossible.Large-scaledevelopmentsshouldalsobelandscape-ledintheirdesignandevolution.Althoughthepolicyisclearlywordedandanapproachofmitigationisfairlystandardpracticeacrosstheindustry,thispolicyisquitepermissiveandpotentiallywouldallowtheremovaloftreesandhedgerowsofvaluesimplybecauseitwasnot“possible”toretainthem.Thereforethepolicyshouldberewordedtoensurethateveryeffortismadetoretaintreesandhedgerowsofvaluebeforemitigationisconsidered.Inaddition,itwouldbeusefultodefine“large-scale”developmentinthesupportingtexttoavoidanyambiguity.

Paragraph5.4.20alsorefersto“exceptionalagriculturalreasons”andthisistoorestrictiveastheremaybeotherreasonswhyhedgerowscannotberetainedincertaincircumstances.ThereforeIrecommendthepolicyberewordedtoensureitsintentisclearandthatitprovidesthepracticalframeworkfordecision-makingtheNPPFseekstogetherwithsomerevisionstotheaccompanyingparagraphs.

! RewordthefirstparagraphofPolicyE6asfollows(fortheavoidanceofdoubtthesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicyareretained):

“Developmentshouldretainandprotectexistingtreesandhedgerowswhichareimportantfortheirhistoric,visualorbiodiversityvalueunlesstheneedfor,andthebenefitsof,thedevelopmentinthatlocationclearlyoutweighanyloss.Whereitisnotpossibleorfeasibletoretainsuchtreesorhedgerowsinthesecircumstancesreplacementtreesorhedgerowsofanequivalentorbetterstandardwillberequiredinanappropriatelocationonthesite.”

! Addadefinitionof“largescaledevelopment”tothesupportingtextwhich

wouldusuallybe10ormoredwellings,butcanalsocovernon-residentialdevelopmentensuringthatthresholdsareinlinewithaccepteddefinitions

! Removetheword“agricultural”fromparagraph5.4.20

PolicyE7FloodingandSurfaceWaterDrainageThispolicydealswithfloodinganddrainage.ThesuggestedmodificationtoPolicyE5discussesthisissueandsuggestsarewordingofthatpolicywhichwouldlargelyduplicatethispolicy.ThereforePolicyE5orE7shouldbedeletedandreplacedbythesuggestedrewordinggivenearlierinthisreportforPolicyE5.Considerationshouldalsobegiventothetitleofthepolicyasthetitleforthispolicyseemstometobetterdescribethecontentsofthepolicy.Thispolicyalsoreferstothereuseandrecyclingofwaterwithindevelopment.Thiselementofthepolicyhaslaudableaims,buttheencouragementofrainwaterandwaterrecyclingfallswithintheperformanceofnewdwellings.Thiselementofthepolicythendoesnothaveregardtonationalpolicyandguidanceanddoesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Theexplanationinparagraphs5.4.22and5.4.23donotseemtoreflectthewordingofthepolicyastheydealwithdifferentmatters.BoththemeasurestoincreasecapacityandthemanagementofthewaterpondscouldberetainedinthePlanascommunityaspirationsifsodesired,butconsiderationshouldbegiventotherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncilinthisrespectandifparagraph5.4.22isretainedasa

communityaspirationthenthemodelingreferredtointhisrepresentationcouldbeusefullyincluded.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! DeleteeitherPolicyE5orE7andreplacetheretainedpolicywiththesuggestedwordinggivenforPolicyE5earlierinthisreport

! Considerretainingthecontentsofparagraphs5.4.22and5.4.23ascommunity

aspirationsinaclearlydifferentiatedsectionorseparatedocumentandtaketherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncilintoaccount

! ConsequentialamendmentstothePlanwillofcoursebeneeded

PolicyE8FoulDrainageThispolicyaimstoensurethatnecessaryinfrastructureisinplacetoservenewdevelopment.ModificationsarerecommendedtoenhanceclarityandbasedonrepresentationsfromWarwickshireCountyCouncil.InotethatSDCwelcomesthispolicy.

! Ensurethatthepolicy’stitlereflectsitscontentssoconsiderchangingthetitleto“FoulDrainageandWaterSupply”orsimilar

! Replace“in”inthefirstsentenceofparagraphthreewith“anditsseparation

fromthesurfacewater/highwaydrainagesystemswithin...PolicyE9NeighbourhoodAreaBiodiversityActionPlanTwoissuesarecoveredinthispolicy;thefirstisthepreparationofaNeighbourhoodBiodiversityActionPlan(BAP)andthesecondisthatallproposalsshouldtakeaccountoftheLocalBiodiversityActionPlan.ItisnotpossibleforaplanningpolicytosetouttheaspirationtoprepareaNeighbourhoodBAPasthepolicymustrelatetothedevelopmentanduseofland.However,thiselementofthepolicycouldberetainedasacommunityaspirationandbeplacedinaseparateappendixoranotherdocument.InotethatNaturalEnglandsupportthedevelopmentofsuchaBAP.ThesecondelementofthepolicyreferstotheLocalBAPwhichseemstoalreadyexistorperhapsitisthefutureBAP.Sosomeconfusionhere;evenifaNeighbourhoodBAPisundertakenatsomepointinthefuture,thepolicyascurrentlywordedwouldnotrefertothatanyway.Itseemstomethatitwouldbebetterforthepolicytosimply

refertobiodiversityandreflectnationalpolicyandguidanceratherthananyspecificdocumentandthisisparticularlysowhenthereissomeconfusionaboutwhichdocumentsmightbeconsidered.Soinorderforthepolicytomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsaresuggested:

“Developmentshouldcontributetoandenhancethenaturalandlocalenvironmentbyminimisingimpactsonbiodiversityandprovidingnetgainsinbiodiversitywhereverpossible.Existingecologicalnetworksshouldberetainedandnewecologicalhabitatsandnetworksareparticularlyencouraged.Measurestoimprovelandscapequality,scenicbeautyandtranquilityandtoreducelightpollutionareencouraged.”

! Considerretitlingthepolicytosomethingalongthelinesof“Biodiversity”orsimilar

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededtogivemore

explanationaboutthemoregeneralisednatureofthepolicy,butthereferencestotheBAPscanberetainedalthoughmayneedsomeediting/reorderingetc.forclarity

! ThereferencetotheproposaltoprepareaBAPshouldbemovedasan

aspirationtoaseparateappendixordocumentandclearlylabeledassuch5.5InfrastructureThissectionofthePlanbeginswith,incommonwithothersections,astrategicobjective.Theobjectiveiswordedwell,butonlydealswithadesiretoensurethattheexistingsituationisnotexacerbatedbynewdevelopment.Thisinitselfisagoodobjectivebutitcouldgofurtherbypositivelyplanningtoensurethatnewdevelopmentandinfrastructurealign.ThiswouldbeinaccordancewithPPG50whichconfirmsthatinfrastructureisneededtosupportdevelopmentandtoensurethataneighbourhoodcangrowinasustainableway.Thereforetoreflectnationalpolicyandguidanceandtohelpachievesustainabledevelopmentthefollowingmodificationtothestrategicobjectiveisrecommended:

! Amend/replacethestrategicobjectiveinparagraph5.5.1asfollows:

“Infrastructureisneededtosupportdevelopmentandtohelpensurethatdevelopmentcanbedeliveredinasustainableway.Inadditiontoensuringthatproperaccountistakenofexistingresourcelimitationsandthecapacityof

50PPGpara045refid41-045-20140306

existingservices,itisnecessarytoensurethatanyadditionalinfrastructureneededtoenabledevelopmenttobedeliveredinasustainableandviablewayisconsidered.”

PolicyIN1InfrastructureCriteriaTheexistingstrategicobjectiveidentifiestheparticularconcernsofthecommunityassewage,foulwaterandlanddrainagerunoff,power,broadbandandtrafficcongestion.PolicyIN1focusesontheseissuesfordevelopmentsoverfivedwellings.Itisnotclearwhythisparticularthresholdhasbeenselected.Inadditiontherequirementsforahydrologicalsurvey,SuDs,energyefficiencymeasuresandparkinghavealreadybeenconsideredinthisreport.TherequirementforanagreementwithSevernTrentWaterhoweverdesirable,isnotsomethingaplanningpolicywouldusuallyseek.AsaresultthispolicylargelyoverlapswithothersinthePlanandthoserequirementsandpolicieshavebeensubjecttosuggestedmodifications.Othercriteriac)andf)areprescriptiveandinflexiblealthoughIrecognisetheNPPFsupportshighqualitycommunicationsstructureandseekstomeetthechallengeofclimatechangeandflooding.ThereforeIamleftwithlittleoptionbuttorecommendthedeletionofthepolicy’sthirdparagraphanditsassociatedcriteriaa)tof).Inowturntothetworemainingparagraphs(oneandtwo).Itseemstomethatthefirstparagraphisself-evidentasdevelopmentthatisnotacceptablewouldnotbepermitted.ThesecondparagraphisratherambiguouslywordedandopentointerpretationasIamnotsurewhat“wherepracticalself-sufficient”means.Thereforebothparagraphsdonotprovidethepracticalframeworkrequiredandshouldbedeleted.Theexplanationforthepolicyalsofocusesonwateranddrainage.Itwouldbepossibleforelementsofparagraphs5.5.2,5.5.3and5.5.4tobemovedtootherpartsofthePlanasappropriate.TherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncilshouldbetakenintoaccountinthisregard.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! DeletePolicyIN1initsentirety

! Insertparagraphs5.5.2,5.5.3and5.5.4elsewhereinthePlanasappropriatetakingaccountoftherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncil

! Consequentialamendmentswillbeneeded

PolicyIN2CommunityFacilitiesPolicyIN2supportstheretentionofcommunityfacilitieswhereappropriateandpromotesnewcommunityfacilities.Thesupportingtextpointsoutlocalservicesandcommunityfacilitiespromotesocialwellbeingandtheyprovideplacestomeetandforsocialinteraction.Thepolicyissuccinctandclearinwhatitseekstoachieveanditsaimsareinlinewithnationalpolicyandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Nomodificationsarethereforerecommendedasthepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.However,paragraphs5.5.7and5.5.8introducepolicyrequirementsandshouldbedeleted.

! Deleteparagraphs5.5.7and5.5.8intheirentiretyPolicyIN3EncouragingSafeWalkingandCyclingThispolicyaimstoensurethatdevelopmentiswellconnected.Itsaimsmeetthebasicconditionsasitpromoteswalkingandcycling,sustainableformsoftransport,promoteshealthylifestylesandrecreationopportunitiesandwillhelptoincreasetheconnectivityandintegrationofnewdevelopment,allofwhichwillcontributetoachievingsustainabledevelopment.However,ascurrentlywordeditappliestoalldevelopmentwhichcouldberegardedasundulyonerous.Paragraph5.5.11referstospeedlimitsinthevillagecentre.Thisisnotgenerallyregardedasaplanningmatterandsothesupportingexplanationshouldmakeitclearthatthisisacommunityaspirationratherthanpartoftheplanningpolicy.IfthisissomethingthecommunitywishestopursuethepursuitofparticularspeedlimitscanbeincludedinanyseparatecommunityaspirationsectionofthePlanorotherdocument.Althoughthepolicyistitled“walkingandcycling”,thesupportingtextinparagraph5.5.12makesitclear,rightlyinmyview,thatroutesincluderiversandbridlewaysaswell.Considerationshouldthenbegiventoamendingthepolicy’stitletoreflectitsremit.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Replacethewords“Allnewdevelopment…”atthestartofthepolicywith“Asappropriate,development…”

! Makeitclearthatspeedlimitsareacommunityaspirationandnotplanning

policyinparagraph5.5.11andplaceinaseparatelyidentifiedappendixordocument

! Consideralteringthetitleofthepolicytobetterreflectitsscopeasdescribed

inparagraph5.5.12

PolicyIN4ProtectingandEnhancingExistingGreenOpenSpacesThispolicy’stitlerefersto“existinggreenopenspaces”,butthereisnoneedtoincludetheword“existing”asthisisself-evidentandwillchangeovertimeanditmaywellbeinthefuturethatmoregreenopenspaceswillexistasaresultofnewdevelopmentperhaps.ThepolicyseekstoprotectandenhancegreenopenspacesrecognisingtheirimportanceforbothresidentsandvisitorsandreflectsthrustofLPPolicyCOM.6.ThesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicyrefertoLocalGreenSpace(LGS).ThisdesignationhasbeenintroducedviatheNPPF.51TheNPPFexplainsthatthesearegreenareasofparticularimportancetolocalcommunities.Theeffectofsuchadesignationisthatnewdevelopmentwillberuledoutotherthaninveryspecialcircumstances.Identifyingsuchareasshouldbeconsistentwithlocalplanningofsustainabledevelopmentandcomplementinvestment.TheNPPFmakesitclearthatthisdesignationwillnotbeappropriateformostgreenareasoropenspace.FurtherguidanceaboutLocalGreenSpacesisgiveninPPG.However,thePlandoesnotseemtoidentifytheareasthatthecommunitywishtodesignateasLGSsotherthanareferenceinthepolicyto“importantlocalpocketsofgreenspace”identifiedinthe“DevelopmentConstraints”mapwhichdoesnotthenrefertothisphraseoranyLGS.Theexplanatorytextatparagraphs5.5.16and5.5.17donothelpmeinthisregard.Ithereforesoughtclarificationonthismatter.TheParishCouncilinformmethatitwastheintentiontodesignateLGSsandthattheseareintendedtobeboththeAreasofLandscapeSignificanceandtheAreasofLandscapeSignificance(publicopenspace)identifiedonthe“DevelopmentConstraints”map.WhilstmanyoftheseAreasmaywellmeetthecriteriaintheNPPFfordesignationasLGSs,othersmaynot.Thereisnoevidencetosupportanysuchdesignations.Moreover,whilstsomeareasweresmallpatchesofgreenopenspaceonstreetcornersorverges,otherareasaremoresignificantinsize.FurthermoreifitwasnotcleartomewhetherthePlansoughttodesignateLGSs,andthisisaffirmedbysomerepresentationsaswell,itwouldnotbecleartothelandownerswhomayhavedecidedtocommenthadtheyrealisedthiswastheintention.ThereforeIhavelittleoptionbuttodeletethesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicyintheinterestsoffairnessandalackofevidence.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Removetheword“existing”fromthetitleofPolicyIN4andthefirstparagraphofPolicyIN4andparagraph5.5.15

51NPPFparas76and77

! Deletethesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicy

! ConsequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededPolicyIN5HighwaySafetyandTransportThispolicyseekstoensurethatnewdevelopmentdoesnotexacerbateanyexistinghighwayissuesandcontainsanumberofcriteriathatnewdevelopmentmustadhereto.IttakesitsleadfromLPPolicyDEV.4.ItshouldbenotedthatPolicyD8referredinthepolicyhasbeensubjecttomodificationandsothereferenceshouldbecheckedagainforsenseandcompatibility.Turningnowtothefinalparagraphofthepolicy,itisclearthatproposalswhichwouldincreaseoff-streetparkingnearthevillagecentrewillberegardedfavourably.Thisisahelpfulpositiontosetout.ThelastelementreferstoalinkroadbetweenWarwickRoadandSouthamRoadindicatingthatit“willbepursued”.Thishasalreadybeendiscussed.Paragraph5.5.18referstothe“seriousvehicularcongestionandsafetyissues”;thismaybethecase,butunlessthereisevidencetosupporttheseclaimstheyareprobablybestexpressedasaperceptionoropinion.Forinstancetheparagraphcouldberephrasedtoindicatethat“thecommunityfeels…”orsimilar.Paragraph5.5.23referstoapotentialone-waysystemandthedesirabilityofsurveysonthistobecarriedoutbeforeanynewdevelopmentispermitted.ThisisclearlyacommunityaspirationandshouldbemovedtoaseparatesectionofthePlanandidentifiedassuch.Therequirementforthistooccurbeforeanynewdevelopmentispermittedmustberemovedasthiselementisadevelopmentandlanduserelatedmatter.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Checkthecross-referencetoPolicyD8toensureitisstillrelevantasPolicyD8hasbeenrecommendedformodifications

! Deletethereferencesinthepolicyandthesupportingtexttothelinkroadandincludethisasacommunityaspirationinaclearlydifferentiatedsectionorseparatedocument

! Makeitclearinparagraph5.5.18thattheclaimsaboutcongestionandsafety

areopinionsoraddintheevidencewhichsupportstheseclaims(continuedonnextpage)

! Removeparagraph5.5.23fromthePlan,butincludethisasacommunityaspirationinaclearlydifferentiatedsectionorseparatedocumentifdesiredandprovidedtherestrictiononnewdevelopmentisremoved

! Consequentialamendmentswillberequired

5.6SiteSpecificBriefsThetitleofthissectioncouldpotentiallyleadtosomeconfusionasfourpoliciesthatallocatelandfollow;thereforeintheinterestsofclaritythetitleshouldbechangedtobetterreflectthescopeofthesection.ThestrategicobjectiverightlyexplainsthattheemergingCoreStrategyidentifiesKinetonasaMainRuralCentre(asdoestheLP).AspreviouslyindicatedgiventhereisalevelofuncertaintyabouttheCS,itwouldbepreferablenottorelyontheemergingdocument.Foursite-specificpoliciesthenfollowwhichallocatelandforhousing.Allfourpoliciesallocatessiteswhichareclearlyshownonamapthatisreferredtointhepolicy’stitleasthe“ProposalsMap”.Thereisnomapofthatname.However,thefoursitesareclearlyshownonamapentitled“PotentialHousingSites”.Ihavealreadysuggestedachangeinthetitleofthemapandthepoliciesshouldrefertothisamendedtitle.PPG52confirmsthataPlancanallocatesitesfordevelopment.Itsaysthatanappraisalofoptionsshouldbecarriedouttogetherwithanassessmentofindividualsitesagainstclearlydefinedcriteria.Theassessmentshouldbethorough,butproportionateandexistinginformationsourcescanbeusedtogoodeffect.AnumberofrepresentationsexpressconcernthatthePlanisnotpredicatedonrobustevidenceandthattheprocesses,forexampleofsiteselection,havenotbeentransparent.FurtherconcernsareexpressedabouttheuseoftheLandscapeSensitivityStudy(LSS)includingthatthesitesincludedinthePlanruncontrarytotheDistrictCouncil’sevidencebaseandthatnofurtherevidencehasbeendonetojustifyanydeparturefromthatevidencebase.Others,includingSDC,expressconcernthatLittleKinetonisnotasustainablelocationfordevelopment.Iacceptthatthesiteassessmentisarguablyrudimentary,butgiventhatitiswidelyrecognisedthereisaneedtoboosthousingsupplyandgivenKineton’sstatusasaMRC,itistobewelcomedthatthePlanacceptsnewgrowthandseekstoensurethecommunity’swishesareachievedoverwherethisnewgrowthmightoccur.Ninesiteswereassessedindividuallyandalsocomparedinamatrix;IamadvisedbytheParishCouncilthatallwereputforwardbylandownersduringSDC’s‘CallforSites’exercise.OthersitesappeartohavebecomeavailableatalaterstageinthePlan-makingprocess,

52PPGpara042refid41-042-20140306

butIacceptthatatsomepointthereneedstobeacutoffindraftingadocumentlikethePlan.WithregardtothesustainabilityofLittleKineton,oneofthesiteassessmentconsiderationswastheaccessibilityofthesitestoKineton’sservicesandfacilitiesandthesitesputforwardinLittleKinetonshowtheyareareasonablewalktothevillage’samenities.ItisimportantthatthePlanreflectsthethinkingandaspirationwithinthelocalcommunityandwhilstsomemightreachadifferentconclusiononthesitestobeallocatedinthisPlan,theassessmenthasappraisedthesitesagainstclearlyidentifiedcriteria.Inanycasetheallocationsdonotinthemselvesprecludedevelopmentonothersitescomingforward.Followingonfromaquery,astheseconsiderationsdidnotformpartofthesiteassessmentmatrix,theParishCouncilhaveconfirmedtomethatalltheproposedsitesareconsideredtobeavailableanddeliverableduringthePlanperiod.ThesuggestedmodificationstothissuiteofpoliciestogetherwiththemodificationstootherpoliciesrelatingtohousingsupplywilltogetherensurethatthePlanmeetsthebasicconditions.

! Changetitleofthissectionto“SiteSpecificPolicies”

! RemovereferencestotheemergingCoreStrategy

! EnsurethatallpoliciesrefertotheamendedtitledmapPolicySSB1HousingAllocationLandtothenorthofWarwickRoadshownasSite1ontheProposalsMapThepolicypermitsupto78dwellingsonthissite.ItthenimposesacapontheamountofdevelopmentwhichisnotappropriateforneighbourhoodplanstodoasthiswouldnotallowfortheflexibilitytheNPPFseeksinrespondingtochangingconditionsornecessarilyensurethebestuseofland.Arepresentation53indicatesthatthissiteissubjecttoacurrentplanningapplication.54TherepresentationalsopointsoutthatalargersiteareaislikelytoberequiredtogainaccessoffWarwickRoad.WhilstIappreciatethatthislandmightwellensurethesiteisdeliverablefromthedeveloper’spointofview,Iconsideritdifficulttorecommendamodificationinthisrespectgiventhatthelargersitehasnotbeensubjecttoconsultationthroughtheneighbourhoodplanprocess.Thiswouldalsocreateapotentialinternalconflictwiththe“immediateviews”indicatedon“TheNaturalEnvironment”mapandsubjecttoPolicyE2.Inotehoweverthattheapplicationsiteisnotcoterminouswiththesiteshownonthemap“PotentialHousingSites”.Thereforeit53GladmanDevelopmentsLtd54Applicationref15/03101/OUT

maybethecasethatifthissiteisnotdeliverablewithoutthisadditionalland,reconsiderationofeitherthesiteallocationorPolicyE2willbeneeded.InresponsetomyquerythedeliverabilityofthissitehasbeenconfirmedbytheParishCouncil.Partoftheproposedallocationfallswithinwhatisshownasan“AreaofLandscapeSignificance”onthe“DevelopmentConstraints”map.ArepresentationfromNaturalEnglandindicatesthattheproposeddevelopmentwilldirectlyandindirectlyimpactonalocallydesignatedsitewhichmayincludeanareaofpriorityhabitat.NaturalEnglandsuggesttheinclusionofacriteriontoretainandwhereverpossibleenhancethehabitat.TherecommendedmodificationstoPolicyE9satisfactorilycoverthispoint,butshouldthemodificationstothatpolicynotbeaccepteditwillbeimportanttoincorporateaspecificcriteriontothispolicytoaddressthepointNaturalEnglandmakes.Nowconsideringthepolicyindetail,criterionb)isunnecessarygiventheoverlapwithPolicyE6(asmodified).Criterionc)requiresthissitetodeliveralinkroadbetweenWarwickRoadandLighthorneRoad.AlinkroadhasbeenreferredtoinvariouspartsofthePlan.Eventhoughthedevelopersindicatetheirwillingnesstoundertakefurthertechnicalworkandhavehelpfullysuggestedarevisedformofwordsforcriterionc)thereislittleevidenceinthePlantoconsiderthisasanythingotherthanacommunityaspiration.However,thatdoesnotnegatethedesirabilityofthelinkroadbeingpursued.Thereisnoneedtocross-referenceotherpoliciesinthePlanasthePlanwillbereadasawhole.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Replacethewords“upto”inthefirstparagraphofthepolicywiththeword“approximately”

! Deletecriterionb)

! Deletecriterionc)

! Deletethefinalsentenceofthepolicywhichreads“Proposalswhichfailto

demonstratecompliancewiththeabovecriteriaorconflictwithotherPolicieswithinthisPlanwillnotbepermitted.”

! Checkthedeliverabilityofthesiteasdefinedonthemapandtakeactionas

needed

PolicySSB2HousingAllocationLandtothesouthofBanburyRoadshownasSite2ontheProposalsMapThisallocationisforuptoeightdwellingsprovidedthatmaturetreesandhedgerowsareretainedandthataccessistakenfromBanburyRoad.ItseemstopartlycoincidewithaproposalintheRLP“KIN.C”.TheParishCouncilhaveconfirmedthattheproposedsiteisconsideredtobeavailableanddeliverableduringthePlanperiod.Onceagainthereshouldbenomaximumfigureimposedandthereisnoneedforcross-referencestootherpoliciesofthePlan.ThereisnoevidencetoestablishwhatimpacttheretentionofmaturetreesandhedgeswouldhaveonthedeliverabilityofthissiteandinanycasethispointissatisfactorilycoveredbyPolicyE6.ThereislittleevidencetosuggestwhyonlyaccessfromBanburyRoadwouldbeacceptable.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforesuggested:

! Deletecriteriona)

! Deletecriterionb)

! Otherconsequentialamendmentstothepolicywillbeneeded

PolicySSB3HousingAllocationLandtothenortheastofLittleKinetonshownasSite3ontheProposalsMapThisallocationissupportedbythelandowners55forupto15dwellingsandassociatedworkswhoconfirmthatthesiteisavailable.However,therehasbeenconsiderablecorrespondenceaboutthissiteincludingrepresentationfrominterestedpartiesthatIhavebeencopiedinto.AsIunderstandthesituationthelongandshortofitisthatthesiteindicatedinthePlanandontheassociatedmapsisshownincorrectly.Therearealsolegalagreementsonpartofthelandthatattheveryleastcreatesomeuncertaintyaboutthedevelopablearea.Thesearemattersthat,inmyview,needresolutionbeforeaproposedallocationismadeinanycaseandparticularlyasthesiteadjoinsthehistoricbattlefieldandaConservationArea.BasedontheinformationbeforemeIhavelittleoptionbuttorecommenddeletionoftheproposedallocation.Thisisnottosaythat

55RepresentationonbehalfofLinfootCountryHomesLtd

thesiteisnotdevelopableinthefuture;itsimplymeansthatatthepresenttimeIcannotbeconfidentthatthepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.ThisofcoursedoeshavesomeimplicationsfortheoverallhousingfiguresthePlanputsforwardandhowtheymightbeachieved,butIamsatisfiedthatwiththemodificationsrecommendedtotheotherrelevantpoliciesforhousingsupply,overallthePlanretainsitsabilitytoplanpositivelyforthegrowthidentified.

! DeletePolicySSB3andallassociatedreferences

! OtherconsequentialamendmentstothePlanandmapswillbeneededPolicySSB4HousingAllocationLandadjacenttoWalnutHouse,LittleKinetonshownasSite4ontheProposalsMapThisallocationisuptotendwellingsprovidedthatalandscapebufferzoneisprovidedandmaturetreesandhedgerowsareretained.ThissiteisadjacenttotheLittleKinetonConservationArea.IaminformedbytheParishCouncilthereisacurrentplanningapplicationonpartofthissite.56Giventheproposedsettlementboundary,itiscleartheproposedallocationsitecouldaccommodatemorethantendwellings.Inlinewiththeothersiteallocationspoliciesinordertomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsarerecommended:

! Deletecriterionb)

AppendicesThreeappendicesareincludedwiththePlan.WarwickshireCountyCouncilmakeanumberofsuggestionsintheirrepresentationinrelationtoAppendix3whichreferstoSustainableUrbanDrainageandSustainableUrbanDrainageApprovalBody.Giventhenatureofthecommentsmadeitwouldbesensibleforthesesuggestedamendmentstobeundertaken.ItwouldbehelpfuliftheappendiceswerepartofthePlandocumentinmyviewtominimisethelikelihoodofsomeonenotrealisingtheyformpartofthedocument.

56Planningapplicationref15/03064/OUT

Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! UndertaketheamendmentssuggestedbyWarwickshireCountyCouncilintheirrepresentation

! BindtheappendicesintothePlan

MapsFourmapsareincludedwiththePlan.Ihavemadeanumberofrecommendationsinthisreporttohelpwiththeirclarity.ItagainwouldbeusefulforthemapstositwithinthePlanratherthanbeseparateentities.

! BindthemapsintothePlan9.0ConclusionsandRecommendationsIampleasedtorecommendtoStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncilthat,subjecttothemodificationsproposedinthisreport,theKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlancanproceedtoareferendum.Followingonfromthat,IamrequiredtoconsiderwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanarea.IseenoreasontoalterorextendthePlanareaforthepurposeofholdingareferendumandnorepresentationshavebeenmadethatwouldleadmetoreachadifferentconclusion.IthereforeconsiderthatthereferendumareabebasedontheKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanareaapprovedbyStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncilon20May2013.AnnSkippersAnnSkippersPlanning11January2016

Appendix1ListofKeyDocumentsspecifictothisExaminationKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanto2031SubmissionDraftKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanAppendicesKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanMapsKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanBasicConditionsStatementKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanConsultationStatementandAppendicesSEAScreeningDocumentdatedJune2015(LepusConsulting)andassociatedresponsesfromtheEnvironmentAgency,HistoricEnglandandNaturalEnglandandletterfromSDCIndividualSiteAssessmentsandSiteAssessmentsMatrixMarch2015HousingNeedsSurveyOtherevidencebaseddocumentsonKinetonParishCouncilwebsiteincludingconsultationeventdocumentationStratfordonAvonDistrictLocalPlanReview1996-2011CoreStrategyProposedSubmissionVersionJune2014CoreStrategyassubmittedSeptember2014showingsubsequentproposedmodificationsdatedJune2015(InterimAdoptedCoreStrategy)CoreStrategyProposedModificationsinresponsetoInspector’sInterimConclusionsdatedAugust2015LandscapeSensitivityStudy2011andLandscapeSensitivityAssessmentforVillagesdatedJune2012AdditionalInformationfromSDCandKinetonParishCouncilinresponsetomyquestionsofclarification(seeAppendix2)Listends

Appendix2QuestionsofClarificationKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanExaminationQuestionsofclarificationfromtheExaminertoKinetonPCandSDCHavingcompletedaninitialreviewoftheNeighbourhoodPlan(thePlan)andtheevidencesubmittedinsupportofit,IwouldbegratefuliftheParishandDistrictCouncilscouldkindlyassistmeinansweringthefollowingquestionswhicheitherrelatetomattersoffactorareareasinwhichIseekclarificationorfurtherinformation.1. ThePlancontainsavisiononpage3,objectivesonpage4,coreprinciplesonpages

10and11andthenanumberoftopic-by-topicvisionstatementsonpages12–15.Pleasecouldtherelationshipbetweenthesedifferentstatementsbeclarified?

2. PolicyE2referstolandscapes,vistasandskylines.Referenceismadeinthe

supportingtext(paragraph5.4.11)toamapentitled“TheNaturalEnvironment”.Pleasecouldyouconfirmwhethertheviews,vistasandskylinesreferredtointhepolicyarethoseidentifiedonthismapaseitherimmediateordistantperipheralviews(ornot)?

3. PolicyE6refersto“large-scaledevelopment”.DoesthePlancontainadefinitionof

thisphraseandifsopleaseindicatewhereImightfindthatandifnotwouldthePCliketobrieflyindicatewhatwasinmind?

4. PolicyIN4referstoexistinggreenopenspaces,LocalGreenSpacesandimportant

localpocketsofgreenspaceidentifiedonthe“DevelopmentConstraints”map.Howeverthismapdoesnotcontainanynotationsthatreflectthesethreeterms.Pleaseclarifywhetheritwastheintentionthatthismapshouldshowtheopenspaces,LocalGreenSpacesandlocalpocketssubjecttoPolicyIN4andifsoindicatewhichspacesarewhich.Afurthermapmightbeneededtoassistwiththisquery(?).

5. AlinkroadismentionedinvariousplacesthroughoutthePlanandparticularlyin

PoliciesH6andIN5.Pleasecouldyougivemesomefurtherbrieffactualinformationaboutthelinkroadandwhatisintended.

6. SDChasforwardedmecorrespondencefromMr.Hudsonaboutthesitesubjectof

PolicySSB3.Pleasecouldyouupdatemeonthefactualpositionwiththissite?Iparticularlywouldliketoknowwhetherconsultationhasbeencarriedoutwiththelandowner(s)andwhetherthereareanymaterialchangeincircumstancesincludingwhetherthesiteboundariescanberetainedasshownonthemapaccompanyingthepolicyasaresultofthiscorrespondence.

7. HasaneworalteredsettlementboundaryforKinetonbeenincludedinthePlan?IfsopleasetellmewhereinthePlanthisinformationisandtellmewhatthedifferencesarebetweenanycurrentlyadoptedboundariesinSDC’sLocalPlan

Reviewandtheproposedboundaryinthe(Neighbourhood)Plan.Amapmayperhapsusefullyassisthere(?).

8. TherearenocommentsorrepresentationfromSDCincludedinmybundleof

documents.PleaseconfirmwhetherSDChavesubmittedcommentsandifsowhereImightfindthese(itlooksasthoughtherearecommentsonthePCwebsite?)confirmingthatIshouldindeedtakeanycommentsintoaccount.

9. Inrelationtothefoursitesallocated,pleaseprovidemewithanysupporting

documentorotherinformationthatformspartofthepublishedevidencebasethatmightsupportthesepoliciesorcompriseanassessmentofsitesand/orthesiteselectionprocess.

10. PolicyH6referstosafeguardedland.Pleaseconfirmwhetherthetwosites

identifiedonthemaptitled“PotentialHousingSites”areaccuratelyshownandarethesitesreferredtointhepolicy(H6aandH6b).Ifthereareanyanomaliesorthemapisfoundtobeinaccuratepleasesupplyanothermapshowingthesitesaccurately.

ItmaybethecasethatonreceiptofyouranticipatedassistanceonthesemattersthatImayneedtoaskforfurtherclarificationorthatfurtherquerieswillcropup.Withmanythanks.AnnSkippers7December2015

kineton parish council kineton - stratford-on-avon district ndp... · 3 summary i have been...

Documents

braid house | kineton road | gaydon

stratford stratford international west ham

kineton neighbourhood development plan - … ndp...

ndp-40 web data sheet ndp-40 data sheet - yamada … pump...

province of manitoba€¦ · caldwell, drew brandon east...

vipac engineers & scientists stratford coal pty ltd...

nc@ < &@ ndp

the kineton · 2019. 8. 11. · the kineton times issue 1:...

debates and proceedings - province of manitoba ... jennifer...

stratford-on-avon district council audit...stratford...

ndp planforthenorth2011

12 mansion house | norton grange | little kineton | cv35 0dp

kineton manor september 2017...

7 f ordington place, kineton, warwickshire chartered … ·...

kineton maths & stats department -...

integration of biodiversity in the national development...

ndp poštnina pla ndp vabimo vas na strokovno …

presentation to stratford vision - stratford upon avon...

kineton sewage treatment works, brookhampton lane, …

palmers leys | kineton | warwickshire