hurley and the walthams examiner's report and...hurley parish council, shottesbrooke parish...

HurleyandtheWalthamsExaminer’sReportwww.erimaxltd.com 1

HURLEYANDTHEWALTHAMSNEIGHBOURHOODPLANHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlanExamination,AReporttotheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadbyIndependentExaminer,NigelMcGurkBSc(Hons)MCDMBAMRTPI

NigelMcGurk

ErimaxLand,PlanningandCommunities

erimaxltd.com

January2017

2 HurleyandtheWalthamsExaminer’sReportwww.erimaxltd.com

Contents:1.Introduction2.BasicConditionsandDevelopmentPlanStatus 3.BackgroundDocumentsandtheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodArea4.PublicConsultation5.TheNeighbourhoodPlan:IntroductorySection6.TheNeighbourhoodPlan:Policies7.TheNeighbourhoodPlan:OtherMatters8.Summary9.Referendum


1.IntroductionTheNeighbourhoodPlanWheremodificationsarerecommended,theyarepresentedasbulletpointsandhighlightedinboldprint,withanyproposednewwordinginitalics.ThisReportprovidesthefindingsoftheexaminationintotheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlan(referredtoastheNeighbourhoodPlan).Neighbourhoodplanningprovidescommunitieswiththepowertoestablishtheirownpoliciestoshapefuturedevelopmentinandaroundwheretheyliveandwork.“Neighbourhoodplanninggivescommunitiesdirectpowertodevelopasharedvisionfortheirneighbourhoodanddeliverthesustainabledevelopmenttheyneed.”(Paragraph183,NationalPlanningPolicyFramework)TheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlanGroup,madeupofmembersofHurleyParishCouncil,ShottesbrookeParishMeeting,WalthamStLawrenceParishCouncilandWhiteWalthamParishCouncil,wasconstitutedin2011topreparetheNeighbourhoodPlan.AssetoutinParagraph1.2oftheBasicConditionsStatement,submittedalongsidetheNeighbourhoodPlan,HurleyParishCouncilisthequalifyingbodyresponsiblefortheproductionoftheNeighbourhoodPlan.Thisisinlinewiththeaimsandpurposesofneighbourhoodplanning,assetoutintheLocalismAct(2011),theNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(2012)andPlanningPracticeGuidance(2014).ThisExaminer’sReportprovidesarecommendationastowhetherornottheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldgoforwardtoaReferendum.WereittogotoReferendumandachievemorethan50%ofvotesinfavour,thenthePlanwouldbemadebytheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenhead.TheNeighbourhoodPlanwouldthenbeusedtodetermineplanningapplicationsandguideplanningdecisionsintheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodArea.


RoleoftheIndependentExaminerIwasappointedbytheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenhead,withtheconsentofthequalifyingbody,toconductanexaminationandprovidethisReportasanIndependentExaminer.Iamindependentofthequalifyingbodyandthelocalauthority.IdonothaveanyinterestinanylandthatmaybeaffectedbytheNeighbourhoodPlanandIpossessappropriatequalificationsandexperience.IamacharteredtownplannerandanexperiencedIndependentExaminerofNeighbourhoodPlans.Ihaveextensiveland,planninganddevelopmentexperience,gainedacrossthepublic,private,partnershipandcommunitysectors.AstheIndependentExaminer,Imustmakeoneofthefollowingrecommendations:

a) thattheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldproceedtoReferendum,onthebasisthatitmeetsalllegalrequirements;

b) thattheNeighbourhoodPlan,asmodified,shouldproceedtoReferendum;c) thattheNeighbourhoodPlandoesnotproceedtoReferendum,onthebasis

thatitdoesnotmeettherelevantlegalrequirements.

IfrecommendingthattheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldgoforwardtoReferendum,ImustthenconsiderwhetherornottheReferendumAreashouldextendbeyondtheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodAreatowhichthePlanrelates.


NeighbourhoodPlanPeriodAneighbourhoodplanmustspecifytheperiodduringwhichitistohaveeffect.ThefrontcoveroftheNeighbourhoodPlanclearlyspecifiesthatthedocumentcoverstheplanperiod:“2015–2030.”IalsonotethatParagraph1.7oftheNeighbourhoodPlan,onpage4,refersto:“…thenextfifteenyears”andthatParagraph2.1,onpage12,introducesavisionofhowtheNeighbourhoodArea:“…willappearin2030.”Takingtheaboveintoaccount,theNeighbourhoodPlansatisfiestherelevantrequirementinthisregard.


PublicHearingAccordingtothelegislation,whentheExaminerconsidersitnecessarytoensureadequateexaminationofanissue,ortoensurethatapersonhasafairchancetoputacase,thenapublichearingmustbeheld.However,thelegislationestablishesthatitisageneralrulethatneighbourhoodplanexaminationsshouldbeheldwithoutapublichearing–bywrittenrepresentationsonly.Furthertoconsiderationofalloftherelevantinformation,IconfirmedtotheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadthatIwassatisfiedthattheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlancouldbeexaminedwithouttheneedforaPublicHearing.


2.BasicConditionsandDevelopmentPlanStatusBasicConditionsItistheroleoftheIndependentExaminertoconsiderwhetheraneighbourhoodplanmeetsthe“basicconditions.”Theseweresetoutinlaw1followingtheLocalismAct2011.Aneighbourhoodplanmeetsthebasicconditionsif:

• havingregardtonationalpoliciesandadvicecontainedinguidanceissuedbytheSecretaryofStateitisappropriatetomaketheneighbourhoodplan;

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment;

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciescontainedinthedevelopmentplanfortheareaoftheauthority(oranypartofthatarea);

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplandoesnotbreach,andisotherwisecompatiblewith,EuropeanUnion(EU)obligations;and

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisnotlikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansiteoraEuropeanoffshoremarinesite,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects.2

AnindependentexaminermustalsoconsiderwhetheraneighbourhoodplaniscompatiblewiththeConventionrights.3InexaminingthePlan,Iamalsorequired,underParagraph8(1)ofSchedule4BtotheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990,tocheckwhether:

• thepoliciesrelatetothedevelopmentanduseoflandforadesignatedNeighbourhoodAreainlinewiththerequirementsofSection38AofthePlanningandCompulsoryPurchaseAct(PCPA)2004;

• theNeighbourhoodPlanmeetstherequirementsofSection38Bofthe2004

PCPA(thePlanmustspecifytheperiodtowhichithaseffect,mustnotincludeprovisionaboutdevelopmentthatisexcludeddevelopment,andmustnotrelatetomorethanoneNeighbourhoodArea);

1Paragraph8(2)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990.2Prescribedforthepurposesofparagraph8(2)(g)ofSchedule4Btothe1990ActbyRegulation32TheNeighbourhoodPlanning(General)Regulations2012anddefinedintheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations2010andtheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations2007.3TheConventionrightshasthesamemeaningasintheHumanRightsAct1998.


• theNeighbourhoodPlanhasbeenpreparedforanareathathasbeendesignatedunderSection61GoftheLocalismActandhasbeendevelopedandsubmittedforexaminationbyaqualifyingbody.

SubjecttothecontentofthisReport,Iamsatisfiedthatthesethreepointshavebeenmet.Inlinewithlegislativerequirements,aBasicConditionsStatementwassubmittedalongsidetheNeighbourhoodPlan.Thissetsouthow,inthequalifyingbody’sopinion,theNeighbourhoodPlanmeetsthebasicconditions.


EuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)ObligationsIamsatisfiedthattheNeighbourhoodPlanhasregardtofundamentalrightsandfreedomsguaranteedundertheECHRandcomplieswiththeHumanRightsAct1998andthereisnosubstantiveevidencetothecontrary.EuropeanUnion(EU)ObligationsThereisnolegalrequirementforaneighbourhoodplantohaveasustainabilityappraisal4.However,insomelimitedcircumstances,whereaneighbourhoodplanislikelytohavesignificantenvironmentaleffects,itmayrequireaStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment.Withtheaboveinmind,draftneighbourhoodplanproposalsshouldbeassessedtodeterminewhethertheplanislikelytohavesignificantenvironmentaleffects.“Draftneighbourhoodplanproposalsshouldbeassessedtodeterminewhethertheplanislikelytohavesignificantenvironmentaleffects.”(PlanningPracticeGuidance5).Thisprocessisoftenreferredtoasascreeningreport,opinion,statementorassessment.Ifthescreeningreportidentifieslikelysignificanteffects,thenanenvironmentalreportmustbeprepared.TheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadprovidedascreeningopinionin2014.TakingintoaccountthefactthattheNeighbourhoodPlandoesnotallocatesitesfordevelopment,ledtheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadtotheconclusionthatitwouldnotleadtosignificantenvironmentaleffectsandthataStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentwasnotnecessary.Eachofthestatutoryconsultees,NaturalEngland,HistoricEnglandandtheEnvironmentAgency,wereconsultedontheNeighbourhoodPlan.AllofthestatutorybodiesconcurredwiththeRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenhead’sconclusion.Insodoing,theystated:“…EnglishHeritageagreeswithyouropinionthatthePlanisnotlikelytohavesignificanteffectsontheenvironmentandthatthereforeanSEAEnvironmentalReportisnotrequired...”“…we(EnvironmentAgency)agreewithyourconclusionthataSEAisnotcurrentlyrequiredfortheproposedneighbourhoodplan.”4Paragraph026,Ref:11-027-20150209,PlanningPracticeGuidance5Paragraph027,ibid


“NaturalEnglandagreeswiththeCouncil’sconclusionthatnoStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentwillberequired.”Inadditiontoalloftheabove,nationalguidanceestablishesthatultimateresponsibilityfordeterminingwhetheradraftneighbourhoodplanmeetsEUobligationsisplacedonthelocalplanningauthority,“ThelocalplanningauthoritymustdecidewhetherthedraftneighbourhoodplaniscompatiblewithEUregulations.”(PlanningPracticeGuidance6)Inundertakingtheworkthatithas,theRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadhasconsideredtheNeighbourhoodPlan’scompatibilitywithEUobligationsandhasraisednoconcernsinthisregard.Takingalloftheaboveintoaccount,IamsatisfiedthattheNeighbourhoodPlaniscompatiblewithEUobligations.

6Paragraph031,Reference:11-031-20150209,PlanningPracticeGuidance


3.BackgroundDocumentsandtheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodAreaBackgroundDocumentsInundertakingthisexamination,IhaveconsideredvariousinformationinadditiontotheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlan.Thishasincludedthefollowingmaindocuments:

• NationalPlanningPolicyFramework(theFramework)(2012)• PlanningPracticeGuidance(2014)• TownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)• TheLocalismAct(2011)• TheNeighbourhoodPlanRegulations(2012)(asamended)• TheSavedPoliciesoftheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadLocal

Plan(IncorporatingAlterations,AdoptedinJune2003)• BasicConditionsStatement• ConsultationReport

Also:• Representationsreceived

Inaddition,IspentanunaccompanieddayvisitingtheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodArea.


HurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodAreaAplanshowingtheboundaryoftheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodAreaisprovidedonpage3oftheNeighbourhoodPlan.However,theLegendtomapprovidedisconfusing(andincorrect)asitreferstoa“Proposed”NeighbourhoodArea.Irecommend:

• PlanA,Page3,Legend,delete“Proposed”TheNeighbourhoodAreacoverstheParishesofHurley,WalthamStLawrence,WhiteWalthamandShottesbrooke.TheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadapprovedthedesignationofHurleyandtheWalthamsasaNeighbourhoodAreaon21stMarch2013.ThissatisfiedarequirementinlinewiththepurposesofpreparingaNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanundersection61G(1)oftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended).


4.PublicConsultationIntroductionAslanduseplans,thepoliciesofneighbourhoodplansformpartofthebasisforplanninganddevelopmentcontroldecisions.Legislationrequirestheproductionofneighbourhoodplanstobesupportedbypublicconsultation.Successfulpublicconsultationenablesaneighbourhoodplantoreflecttheneeds,viewsandprioritiesofthelocalcommunity.Itcancreateasenseofpublicownership,helpachieveconsensusandprovidethefoundationsfora‘Yes’voteatReferendum.HurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlanConsultationAConsultationStatementwassubmittedtotheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadalongsidetheNeighbourhoodPlan.Theinformationwithinitsetsoutwhowasconsultedandhow,togetherwiththeoutcomeoftheconsultation,asrequiredbytheneighbourhoodplanningregulations7.Takingtheinformationprovidedintoaccount,thereisevidencetodemonstratethattheNeighbourhoodPlancomprisesa“sharedvision”forHurleyandtheWalthams,havingregardtoParagraph183oftheFramework.TheNeighbourhoodPlanwasproducedbyaSteeringGroupmadeupofrepresentativesofthefourmemberParishCouncils/Meeting,alongwithVillageAssociationrepresentativesandotherresidentswithparticularinterestsandareasofexpertise.DuringOctoberandNovember2012,eightlauncheventswereheldatvariouslocationsintheNeighbourhoodArea.Thesepromotedtheemergingplanandprovidedopportunitiestogatherpublicviews.ThemeetingsweresupportedbydisplaysandrepresentativesoftheSteeringGroupandvarioustopicgroupswereonhandtoanswerquestionsandtoprovidefurtherinformation.Attendeeswereinvitedtomakeuseofmapsandpost-itnotes,toidentifyareasofconcern,andtocompletequestionnaires.Atotalof449peopleattendedthelauncheventsand1,121topicquestionnaireswerecompleted.

7NeighbourhoodPlanning(General)Regulations2012.


Ahouseholdsurveywasthenundertaken.Furthertotesting,2,500surveysweredeliveredthroughouttheNeighbourhoodArea.SurveyscouldbereturnedbyfreepostorviaaSurveyMonkeylink.Atotalof784surveyswerereturned.InOctober2014,aprofessionally-ledVisionWorkshophelpedplan-makerstofocustheresultsofalloftheresearchandconsultationundertakentowardsthecreationofavision,objectivesandpolicies.Thisenabledtheproductionofadraftplan.TwopublicconsultationmeetingswerethenheldinJanuary2016,toconsidertheresultsofthequestionnaireandtoenablefurthercommentsanddiscussion.Around130peopleattendedthemeetings.Viewswereconsideredandconclusionsdrawnfedintotheproductionofthepre-submissiondraftplan.ThiswasconsultedonbetweenDecember2015andMarch2016.Thepre-submissiondraftplanwasconsultedonoverasixweekperiodduringApril,MayandJune2016.PublicconsultationwassupportedbythedeliveryofpostcardsandletterstohouseholdsandbusinessesintheNeighbourhoodArea.Allconsulteeswereinvitedtoattendconsultationevents,whichwereheldontwoseparatedaysindifferentvenues,inJanuary2016.Evidencehasbeenprovidedtodemonstratethattheplan-makingprocesswaswidelypublicised.Inadditiontoalloftheabove,adedicatedwebsitewassetupin2011andthisprovidedaccesstoNeighbourhoodPlaninformation,includingtheminutesofmeetings.Also,eventswerepublicisedinallParishnewslettersandtheMaidenheadAdvertiser.Takentogether,theinformationprovideddemonstratesthatcommunityengagementwasencouragedthroughouttheplan-makingprocess,thatmattersraisedweredulyconsideredandthatthereportingprocesswastransparent.Iamsatisfiedthattheconsultationprocesswasrobust.


5.TheNeighbourhoodPlan–IntroductorySectionThepoliciesoftheNeighbourhoodPlanareconsideredagainstthebasicconditionsinChapter6ofthisExaminer’sReport.ThisChapterconsiderstheIntroductorySectionoftheNeighbourhoodPlan.ThelegislationbehindNeighbourhoodPlanningunderpinsthepowerofcommunitiestoplanforthemselvesanditisimportantthatitisinterpretedclearly.PartsoftheForewordintroduceformsofwordingthatdonotfullyreflectthelegislationandIrecommend:

• Foreword,secondparagraph,changelastsentenceto“…Thatis,NeighbourhoodPlansmusthaveregardtonationalpolicyandadvice,andbeingeneralconformitywithlocalstrategicpolicy.”

• Foreword,thirdparagraph,changelastsentenceto“ThePlancanbe

reviewedinthefuture,totakeaccountofchangingcircumstances.”

Paragraph1.1hasbeenovertakenbyeventsandIrecommend:

• Paragraph1.1,changeto“…havejointlypreparedthisNeighbourhoodPlan…”

ThelasttwosentencesofParagraph1.2comprisefairlysweepingstatementsthatfailtoproperlysummarisethePoliciesintheNeighbourhoodPlan.Assuch,theydetractfromtheclarityoftheNeighbourhoodPlan.Irecommend:

• Paragraph1.2,delete“Insomecases…oftheparishes.”ThebasicconditionsaremisinterpretedinParagraph1.4.Irecommend:

• Paragraph1.4,changebulletpointsto:“-DoesthePlanhaveregardtonationalpolicyandadvice?- IsthePlaningeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesofthelocal

developmentplan?- Doestheplancontributetotheachievementofsustainable

development?- DoestheplanmeetEuropeanobligationsandenvironmental

requirements?”


Paragraph1.6hasbeenovertakenbyevents.Irecommend:

- DeleteParagraph1.6WhilstitisabasicconditionthataNeighbourhoodPlanmustbeingeneralconformitywithstrategicpoliciesintheadopteddevelopmentplan,InotethatthePlanningPolicyContextsectionsetsoutthatemergingDistrict-wideplanningpolicyhasbeenconsideredaspartoftheplan-makingprocess.ThishasregardtoPlanningPracticeGuidance,whichrecognisesthat:“AlthoughadraftNeighbourhoodPlanorOrderisnottestedagainstthepoliciesinanemergingLocalPlanthereasoningandevidenceinformingtheLocalPlanprocessislikelytoberelevanttotheconsiderationofthebasicconditionsagainstwhichaneighbourhoodplanistested.”(PlanningPracticeGuidance41-009-20160211)However,whilstmuchofthetextcontainedinthePlanningPolicyContextsectionisanimportantconsideration,thedetailedreferencestodraftpoliciesinanemergingplancompriseanunnecessaryandpotentiallyconfusinginclusion.ThedraftBoroughLocalPlanisnotatanadvancedstage.Ithasyettocompletepublicconsultationandconsequently,thedraftpoliciesreferencedonpages8and9oftheNeighbourhoodPlanaresubjecttochange.Ialsonotethatpartofthissectionmisinterpretsthebasicconditionsandthisisaddressedbelow.Irecommend:

- Paragraph1.28,changeto“TheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(NPPF)andPlanningPracticeGuidancesetoutnationalplanningpolicyandadvice.Thesedocuments…thecountry.”

- DeleteParagraph1.31andallbulletpointsonpages8and9.

Paragraph1.39hasbeenovertakenbyevents.Irecommend:

• Paragraph1.39,changeto“…submissiondocumentationshowsthatthepoliciescontributeto...”


6.TheNeighbourhoodPlan–NeighbourhoodPlanPoliciesParagraph3.5oftheNeighbourhoodPlancouldresultinconfusionasitmightbeinterpretedastheFrameworkandBorough-wideLocalPlannot“beingused”todetermineapplicationsintheNeighbourhoodArea.Ifmade,theNeighbourhoodPlansimplyformspartofthedevelopmentplan.Planningapplicationsmustbedeterminedinaccordancewiththedevelopmentplanunlessmaterialconsiderationsindicatedotherwise.Irecommend:

• Paragraph3.5,deletesecondsentence“Forallother…tobeused.”Paragraph3.6statesthatthe“PoliciesMap”isattheendofthedocument.Thisisnotthecase.Thereareaseriesof“PoliciesMaps,”buttheseareonlyprovidedinanAppendixtotheNeighbourhoodPlan.GiventhatthePoliciesoftheNeighbourhoodPlanrefertothePoliciesMaps,itisimportantthatthesearecontainedwithintheNeighbourhoodPlan.Irecommend:

• Paragraph3.6,changeto“ThePoliciesMapsarecontainedattheendoftheNeighbourhoodPlan.Whereapolicy…thenitisshownonthemainPoliciesMapand/oraninsetmap.”

• MovePoliciesMapsfromAppendicestomainbodyoftheNeighbourhoodPlan,immediatelyafterthePolicies


EnvironmentPolicyEnv1:SustainableDevelopmentThefirstsentenceofPolicyEnv1providessupportforanyformofdevelopment,subjectto“adhering”tothe“principles”setout.Thiscouldresultinunwittingsupportforunforeseenformsofdevelopment–forexample,thedevelopmentofanuclearpowerstationcouldmeetthefourcriteriasetoutinPolicyEnv1andmightthereforebesupported.Furthertotheabove,inthecontextofcriterioni)itisnotclearwhat“accountshouldbetakenof”meansinpractice.Thereisnoexplanationinthesupportingtext.Consequently,criterioni)assetout,doesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal,havingregardtoParagraph154oftheFramework.ThesecondcriterionofPolicyEnv1requiresalldevelopmenttoreduceenergyusethroughlowcarbon,renewableorzerocarbontechnologies.Thisisanonerousrequirementthatgoeswellbeyondtherequirementsofnationalorlocalplanningpolicy.Noevidencehasbeenprovidedtojustifysuchadepartureandthereisnothingtodemonstratethat,ineverycase,itwouldbeviable,orevenpossible,foradevelopmenttoreduceenergyuse.Consequently,thispartofthePolicyfailstohaveregardtoParagraph173oftheFramework,whichrequiresthat:“Plansshouldbedeliverable.Therefore,the…scaleofdevelopmentidentifiedintheplanshouldnotbesubjecttosuchascaleofobligationsandpolicyburdensthattheirabilitytobedevelopedviablyisthreatened.”Thethirdcriterionplacesarequirementuponalldevelopmenttoenhanceecologicalcorridorsandlandscapefeatures.Noindicationisprovidedofwhatsuchenhancementshouldcomprise,where,onwhatbasisandwhothiswillbedeterminedby.Again,thiscomprisesanonerousrequirementwithoutjustification.Thefinalcriterionplacesarequirementuponalldevelopmenttopromotegoodhealthandagoodqualityoflifethrougheffectivemanagementofnoise.Thiswouldplaceasignificantburdenuponapplicantsforminordevelopment,forexamplearesidentialextension,oranewshopsign,withoutjustificationandiscontrarytoParagraph193oftheFramework,whichlimitsrequestsforsupportinginformationtothatwhich:“…isrelevant,necessaryandmaterialtotheapplicationinquestion.”Furthertotheabove,muchofthesupportingtexttoPolicyEnv1iswordedasthoughitcomprisesaPolicy,whichitdoesnot.


Nationalandlocalpolicyrequiresdevelopmenttorespondtolocalcharacter(Paragraph58)andpromotesbiodiversity(Paragraph109).InChapter10,“Meetingthechallengeofclimatechange,floodingandcoastalchange,”theFrameworkpromotesthedeliveryofrenewableandlowcarbonenergyandassociatedinfrastructure;andinParagraph58,itestablishesthatdevelopmentshouldnotunderminequalityoflife.Tosomeconsiderabledegree,PolicyEnv1hasregardtotheseaspectsofnationalpolicy.Takingalloftheaboveintoaccount,Irecommend:

• PolicyEnv1,changeto:“Developmentproposalsshould:i)respecttheintrinsiccharacterandbeautyofthecountrysideandParishesandtheneedtosupportthrivingruralcommunities;ii)maintainandwherepracticableandappropriate,enhancebiodiversity;andiii)notgiverisetoharmfuldisturbancefromnoise.Theuseofrenewableandlow-carbonorzerocarbontechnologiestoreduceenergyusewillbesupported.”

• DeleteParagraphs3.7and3.8


PolicyEnv2–ClimateChange,FloodandWaterManagementAswithPolicyEnv1,theopeninglineofPolicyEnv2mayhaveunintendedconsequencesandIaddressthisintherecommendationsbelow.WithreferencetoPolicyEnv2criterioni),noindicationisprovidedofwhenitmightbeappropriatefordevelopmenttoincorporatethevariousrequirementssetoutandonwhatbasisthiswillbeassessed,orwhoby.Consequently,thispartofthePolicydoesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.ThePolicythengoesontosetoutanapproachtomanagingfloodriskwithoutregardtotheFramework,whichrequiresdevelopmenttobedirectedawayfromareasathighestriskoffloodingandindoingsorequires:“…asequential,risk-basedapproachtothelocationofdevelopmenttoavoidwherepossiblefloodrisktopeopleandproperty…”(Paragraph100).ThePolicyalsointroducesrelianceuponapracticenotenotunderthecontroloftheNeighbourhoodPlan.ThefinalpartofPolicyEnv2effectivelysupportsdevelopment“thatwilllikelyexacerbateexistingdrainageissueselsewhere”subjecttoanundefined“appropriatepaymenttowards”floodmanagement.Nojustificationisprovidedforthisdeparturefromnationalpolicy,assetoutinChapter10oftheFramework,andnodetailispresentedintermsofwhatlevelofexacerbationofissueswilltriggerthisrequirement,orwhatanappropriatepaymentmightcomprise.Consequently,thispartofthePolicyisimpreciseanddoesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.PartofthesupportingtextreadsasthoughitcomprisesaPolicy,whichitdoesnot.Inestablishingnationalfloodriskpolicy,Chapter10oftheFrameworkoutlinessupportforSustainableDrainageSystemsandpartofthePolicyhasregardtothis.Irecommend:

• PolicyEnv2,deleteandreplacewith:“Developmentmustnotincreasefloodriskelsewhere.TheinclusionofSustainableDrainageSystemsaspartofanewdevelopmentwillbesupported.”

• DeleteParagraphs3.11and3.12


SpatialPoliciesPolicySP1–SpatialPolicyPolicySP1attemptstoprovideaspatialpolicybydirecting“suitabledevelopmenttoappropriatelocationswithinRecognisedSettlements(intheGreenBelt).”However,noindicationisprovidedofwhatkindofdevelopmentmighttakeplacewithinwhatpartoftheRecognisedSettlements.Noevidenceisprovided,forexample,ofwherevariouskindsofdevelopmentmighttakeplacewithinRecognisedSettlements.Furthermore,ratherthancompriseaclearlandusepolicythatdirectsdevelopment,PolicySP1readsasanegativelywordedPolicy,wherebydevelopment“willonlybesupported”ifitmeetstheprovisionsofotherPolicies.Inthisregard,thePolicyissimplyrelyingonotherPoliciesanddoesnot“directdevelopmentproposals.”PolicySP1thengoesontostatethatdevelopmentproposalsoutsideRecognisedSettlementswillberesistedunlesstheyareappropriate“toalocation”intheGreenBelt,orunlesssomeotherprovision,notpartofPolicySP1,hasbeenmade.Consequently,thispartofthePolicyislessclearthanGreenBeltpolicyitselfasitintroducesavagueandundefined“location”requirement,andanequallyvaguereferenceto“otherprovisions.”ThisresultsinPolicySP1lackingclarity.ItdetractsfromthepreciseandconcisenatureoftheNeighbourhoodPlan.ThisiscontrarytoPlanningPracticeGuidance,whichrequiresplanningpoliciestobepreciseandconcise8.ThePolicydoesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposalanddoesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Irecommend:

• DeletePolicySP1

• DeleteParagraphs3.13–3.15

8Ref:PlanningPracticeGuidance41-041020140306.


HurleyPolicyHUR1–HousingSchemesinHurleyGenerally,PolicyHUR1isapositive,supportivelanduseplanningPolicy.ItsupportstheprovisionofasmallhousingschemeineachRecognisedSettlementinHurleyParish.TheapproachsetoutinPolicyHUR1hasregardtoParagraph90oftheFramework,whichallowsfor:“…limitedinfillinginvillages,andlimitedaffordablehousingforlocalcommunityneeds…”However,asworded,thePolicyrequiresdevelopmenttoenhanceheritageassets.Suchanonerousrequirementfailstohaveregardtonationalpolicy,setoutinChapter12oftheFramework“Conservingandenhancingthehistoricenvironment’”,whichrequiresheritageassetstobeconservedinamannerappropriatetotheirsignificance,butdoesnotrequiredevelopmenttoenhanceheritageassetsortheirsettingsinallcircumstances.ThePolicyreferstoSettlementMapswhichdonotformpartoftheNeighbourhoodPlan,butwhichareappendedtoit.Iaddressthisintherecommendationsbelow.Also,thePolicyseekstorequireallhousingtocompriseaffordablehousingand/ortobesuitedforoccupationbyolderhouseholds.GreenBeltpolicy,asestablishedinChapter9oftheFramework,“ProtectingGreenBeltLand,”doesnotimposeanysuchrestrictions.Further,nationalpolicyisexplicitinseekingto“boostsignificantly”thesupplyofhousingbyprovidingforawidechoiceofhighqualityhomes(Paragraph47,theFramework).Criterioniii)ofPolicyHUR1wouldservetopreventthis.Ialsonotethatnodefinitionof“olderresidents”isprovided,resultinginthispartofPolicyHUR1beingimprecise.Thesupportingtextreferstoconsistencywithanemergingpolicythatissubjecttochange.


Takingtheaboveintoaccount,Irecommend:

• PolicyHUR1,criterioniv),delete“andenhance”

• PolicyHUR1,deletecriterioniii)

• MovetheMapsinAppendix2totheendoftheNeighbourhoodPlan,tofollowonfromthePoliciesMaps

• Paragraph3.16,delete“and2014BoroughLocalPlanPolicyGBC3.”


PolicyHUR2–BerkshireCollegeofAgriculturePolicyHUR2supportstheextensionofthedevelopmentenvelopeoftheBerkshireCollegeofAgriculture.However,thesiteiswithintheGreenBeltandnoevidenceisprovidedtodemonstratethatextensionsintotheGreenBelt“relatedtoeducationaluse”wouldnotcompriseinappropriatedevelopment.Inadditiontotheabove,PolicyHUR2wouldsupportunrestrictedextensions,subjecttothemrelatingtoeducationaluse.Exaggeratingforthepurposeofemphasis,thePolicycouldsupportthecreationoftheworld’slargestuniversitycampusintheNeighbourhoodArea.WhilstthePolicy’ssupportingtextreferstotheCollegeascomprising“amajordevelopedsiteintheGreenBelt,”thereisnosuchreferenceintheFramework,whichpost-datestheSavedPoliciesoftheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadLocalPlan(2003)byaconsiderableperiodoftime.Inaddition,theterm“relatetoaneducationaluse”setoutinPolicyHUR2,isvagueanddoesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.Also,muchofthewordingofthesupportingtexttoPolicyHUR2iswrittenasthoughitcomprisesalanduseplanningpolicy,whichitdoesnot.Paragraph3.19assertsthatanyformofdevelopmentotherthaneducationwillfundamentallychangethecharacterofthelandandintensifytrafficmovements.However,nosubstantiveevidenceisprovidedtodemonstratethatthiswouldnecessarilybethecase,orthatanyformofeducationaldevelopmentwouldnotservetoexacerbatetrafficmovementsorimpactonlocalcharacter.Takingtheaboveintoaccount,Irecommend:

• DeletePolicyHUR2

• DeleteParagraph3.19


PolicyHUR3–Intensificationofnon-excludeddevelopmentatStarWorksPolicyHUR3relatestodevelopmentatStarWorks,whichislocatedoutsidetheNeighbourhoodArea.TheNeighbourhoodPlancannotimposelanduseplanningrequirementsonlandoutsidetheNeighbourhoodArea.IacknowledgethattheaccessroadtoStarWorksislocatedwithintheNeighbourhoodAreaandrecommendthefollowing:

• DeletePolicyHUR3

• ReplacethedeletedPolicywithaCommunityAction“HurleyParishCouncilwillseektoworkwiththirdparties,withtheaimofensuringthatproposalsrelatedtoStarWorksinWokinghamdemonstratethattheirimpactsonHurley’shighwaynetworkaresatisfactorilymitigated.”

• Paragraph3.20,changeto“StarWorksislocatedwithin

neighbouring…NeighbourhoodArea.Inaddition,themajority…businessusesonthesite.HurleyParishCouncilwouldliketoensurethatanyfutureproposalsforadditional…KnowlHill.”

Forclarity,IrecommendthatPolicyHUR3isdeletedandnotethataCommunityActiondoesnotcomprisealanduseplanningpolicy.


WalthamStLawrencePolicyWSL1–DevelopmentinWalthamStLawrenceParishPolicyWSLseekstopreventanyformofinfilldevelopmentinWalthamStLawrencevillageand“anyformofdevelopmentofanyopenspace”inWalthamStLawrenceParish.Suchanapproachisfarmorerestrictivethannationalorlocalstrategicplanningpolicy.ThejustificationforPolicyWSL1states,unequivocally,thatthereisnopotentialforinfillinthevillageandthatanysuchdevelopmentwillseriouslyharmheritage.However,nowheredoesnationalplanningpolicypreventanyformofdevelopmentandnosubstantiveevidencehasbeenprovidedtodemonstratethat,inallcases,anyformofinfilldevelopmentinWalthamStLawrenceParishwillnecessaryfailtocomprisesustainabledevelopment.NeitherGreenBeltpolicy,norLocalGreenSpacepolicy–whichtogethersetoutsomeofthemostrestrictiveapproachestodevelopmentinthecountry–preventanyformofdevelopmentofanyopenspace.Again,nosignificantjustification,intheformofsubstantiveevidence,hasbeenprovidedtosupporttheapproachsetoutinPolicyWSL1.ThesecondparagraphofPolicyWSL1goesontorequireanydevelopmentintheRecognisedSettlementsintheParishtoenhancethesignificanceofheritageassets.AssetoutearlierinthisReport,suchanapproachisundulyonerousandfailstohaveregardtonationalpolicy.Nojustification,intheformofsubstantiveevidence,isprovidedfortheapproachsetoutinPolicyWSL1.Takingtheaboveintoaccount,PolicyWSL1presentsanundulyrestrictiveapproachthatmaypreventsustainabledevelopmentfromcomingforward.Itfailstocontributetotheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentanddoesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Irecommend:

• DeletePolicyWSL1

• DeleteParagraphs3.21to3.22Inmakingtheaboverecommendation,IammindfulthatnationalpolicyprovidesfortheappropriateconservationofheritageassetsandfortheappropriateprotectionofGreenBelts.


WhiteWalthamPolicyWW1–HousingatGroveParkPolicyWW1isagenerallypositivelanduseplanningPolicythatprovidesasupportivecontextforthere-useofbrownfieldland.ThePolicyhasregardtotheFramework,whichpromotestheeffectiveuseofbrownfieldland(Paragraph17)andwhichseekstoboostsignificantlythesupplyofhousing(Paragraph47).TheintroductorysentencetothePolicyisunclear,inthatitreferstoproposalsbeing“subjectto”undefineddevelopmentprinciples,beforegoingontoaddtheprovision“…providedthat.”WhilstthispartofthePolicywasperhapsintendedtorelatetoPolicyEnv1,thisisnotmadeclearintheNeighbourhoodPlananditresultsinaconfusingPolicy.Theprovisionsofcriterioni)arenotprecise,butrefertotheneedforthemajorityofhomestobesuitedto“downsizerandfirsttimebuyerhouseholds.”Nodetailisprovidedinrespectofwhatthismeansisprovidedandthereisnoindicationofhowsucharequirementwouldbeimplemented,andsothePolicydoesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposalandconflictsthePlanningPracticeGuidancerequirementforpoliciestobeprecise.Criterionii)isconfusinglywordedduetooveruseoftheword“scheme.”Noindicationisprovidedofwhatan“effectivelandscapebuffer”comprises.Furthermore,thecriterionrequiresabuffertobeprovidedbetweenexistingbusinessusesandnewhousing,whereasthePolicysupportsredevelopment.Thereisnoindicationofwhichexistinguseswillberetained,oronwhatbasis.Consequently,thispartofthePolicyisimpreciseandunclear.Criterioniii)imposesarequirementfortheprovisionofwhatcouldcomprisealargeretailunit.However,thereisnosubstantiveevidencetodemonstratethatsucharequirementwouldbeviableordeliverable,havingregardtoParagraph173oftheFramework.Itisnotclearwhyanyproposalsmusthaveregardto“consentedapprovalsforGroveHouse”andnoinformationisprovidedtosupportsucharequirement.ThesupportingtextreferstoemergingplanningpoliciesthataresubjecttochangeandParagraph3.24makesincorrectassertionsinrespectofwhataneighbourhoodplancan,orcannotdo.ThesameParagraphalsoreferstothesitebeingdefinedasamajordevelopedsiteintheGreenBelt,whichitisnot(seeearliercomments).


Takingalloftheaboveintoaccount,Irecommend:

• PolicyWW1,deleteandreplacewith“ProposalsfortheredevelopmentofGrovePark,toprovidehousing,willbesupported,subjectto:i)themajorityofdwellingscomprisingsmaller2and3bedroomhousesofnomorethantwostoreysinheight;ii)providingforarangeofhousing,includingdwellingsfordownsizersandfirsttimebuyers;iii)havingapositiveimpactonlocalcharacter;andiv)ensuringsafeandsecureaccessontoWalthamRoad.”

• Paragraph3.23,deletelastsentence“Both…GBC3.”NB,givenlaterchanges,

itisrecommendedthatParagraph3.23bedeletedinitsentirety.(ThisrecommendationisrepeatedfurthertoconsiderationofPolicyWW5belowlaterinthisReport)

• Paragraph3.24,delete“…anddefinedby…GreenBelt.’”Also,changeto“approximately80dwellings”anddeletethelastsentence“Giventhat…adopted.”


PolicyWW2–HousingatSawyersCrescent,WoodlandsParkPolicyWW2appearsasagenerallyasupportivePolicythatcontributestosustainabledevelopment.However,inadditiontoanunclearreferenceto“thedevelopmentprinciplesoutlined”(similarlytoPolicyWW1),thePolicyrefersto“effectiveamenityland”withoutanyindicationofwhatthismightcomprise.ThePolicyisimpreciseanddoesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Inadditiontotheabove,thesupportingtextestablishesthatthesiteatSawyersCrescentalreadyhasplanningpermission.ItisnotwithinthescopeoftheNeighbourhoodPlantointroduceretrospectiverequirements.Havingregardtotheabove,Irecommend:

• DeletePolicyWW2

• DeletePlanonpage21

• Paragraph3.25,deletefirsttwosentences“Thetwo…acceptable.”


PolicyWW3–HousingatSmithfieldRoad,WoodlandsParkPolicyWW3isgenerallyasupportivePolicythatcontributestosustainabledevelopment.However,inadditiontoanunclearreferenceto“thedevelopmentprinciplesoutlined”(similarlytoPolicyWW1),thePolicyreferstoadheringto“theexistingbuildinglineofSmithfieldRoad…”Itisnotentirelyclearwhatthismeans.HousesalongSmithfieldRoadaresetbackslightlyfromthepavement,allowingforsmallgardensand/orparkingareas.IacknowledgethatitwouldmaintainlocalcharacterifnewdevelopmentatthesitethesubjectofPolicyWW3weresimilarlysetbackandImakearecommendationbelowthatprovidesforprecisioninthisregard.Thephrase“meetsitscarparkingprovision”ismeaninglessandIaddressthisintherecommendationsbelow.Irecommend:

• PolicyWW3,changeto“ProposalsfortheredevelopmentoflandatSmithfieldRoad,toprovidehousing,willbesupported,subjecttodwellingsnotbeingmorethantwostoreysinheight;maintainingasetbackfromSmithfieldRoadnolessthanthatofneighbouringdwellingstotheeast;theprovisionofoff-roadparkingspaceswithinthesite;andthesatisfactoryresolutionofanygroundcontaminationissues.”


PolicyWW4–InfillinWoodlandsParkPolicyWW4seekstopreventinfilldevelopmentinWoodlandsPark.Itseekstodothisonthebasisthat“nofurtherrealisticopportunitiesnowremain.”However,nosubstantiveevidencehasbeenpresentedtodemonstratethatthisisnecessarilythecase.Forexample,thereisnoWoodlandsParkassessmenttodemonstratethatthewholeareahasbeenconsideredindetailandnotonepossibleopportunityforinfilldevelopmentexists,orwillexistatsometimeinthefuture.Consequently,IamunabletoreachtheconclusionthatnorealisticopportunitiesforinfillexistatWoodlandsPark.Ifanysuchopportunityforinfilldevelopmentdidarise,PolicyWW4wouldservetopreventsustainabledevelopmentfromgoingahead.Suchanapproachwouldfailtohaveregardtonationalpolicy,whichrequiressustainabledevelopmenttogoaheadwithoutdelay(MinisterialForeword,theFramework).Takingtheaboveintoaccount,PolicyWW4doesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Irecommend:

• DeletePolicyWW4



PolicyWW5–WhiteWalthamAirfieldPolicyWW5cherrypicksfromGreenBeltpolicyinthatitonlyrequiresthescaleandformofdevelopmentproposalstobetakenintoaccount.Thisfailstohaveregardtonationalpolicy.Furthermore,itsupportsdevelopmentregardlessofimpactonheritageassets.Also,thefinalsentenceofthePolicymayservetopreventtheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentandthereisnosubstantiveevidencetothecontrary.However,InotethatpartofthePolicysafeguardsanimportantlocalasset.Irecommend:

• PolicyWW5,changeto“…airfielduse,conserveheritageassetsandareappropriateintheGreenBelt.”

• Deletefinalsentence• Paragraph3.27,deletefinalsentence



GeneralPoliciesPolicyGen1–RuralExceptionSitesWithregardshousinginruralareas,nationalpolicyrequiresplanstoberesponsivetolocalcircumstancesandtoplan:“…toreflectlocalneeds,particularlyforaffordablehousing,includingthroughruralexceptionsiteswhereappropriate.”(Paragraph54,theFramework)PolicyGen1isagenerallypositiveplanningpolicythatprovidesasupportivelanduseplanningcontextforthedeliveryofsmall-scaleaffordablehousing.Inthisregard,thePolicyhasregardtotheFrameworkandmeetsthebasicconditions.However,thePolicyseekstoimposewhatappeartobe,intheabsenceofsubstantiveevidence,arbitraryrequirementswithregardsthescaleofdevelopmentproposals.ThePolicyrequiresschemesnottoexceed8dwellingsintotal.Whilstitemergedthroughconsultationthatlocalresidentsconsideran8-dwellinglimitacceptable,thereisnoevidencetodemonstratethatadevelopmentof,say9dwellings,wouldfailtocomprisesustainabledevelopment.Whilstan8-dwellinglimitappearsarbitraryintheabsenceofsubstantiveevidence,itisclearlytheintentionofPolicyGen1toprovideforsmallscaledevelopment.Intheabsenceofotherevidence,itwouldbereasonabletorelyupontheaccepteddefinitionsofminorandmajordevelopment,suchthatminordevelopment,orinthiscase,“smallscale”development,compriseslessthan10dwellings.Ireferto“downsizing”earlierinthisReportandnotethattheNeighbourhoodPlandoesnotdefinewhata“downsized”propertyactuallycomprises.Itwouldbepossibleto“downsize”fromaten-bedroomedmanorhousetoasix-bedroomeddwelling.ThispartofPolicyGen1isthereforeimprecise.Further,thePolicywouldrestrictdevelopmentto“smaller”dwellings,butfailstodefinepreciselywhatasmallerdwellingis.Afour-bedroomedhousemightbesmallerthanasixbedroomedone;alargetwo-bedroomedflatmightbelargerthanasmallthree-bedroomedflat.Inanycase,PolicyGen1reliesonarequirementforanup-to-dateHousingNeedsStudyandthisshould,itself,helptosteerthesizesofdwellingsrequired.Whilstnationalandlocalstrategicpolicyaffordsprotectiontoheritageassets,nowheredoesitimposeablanketbanondevelopmentinConservationAreas.Withoutanyevidencetothecontrary,criterion(v)ofPolicyGen1wouldservetoprevent,ratherthancontributeto,theachievementofsustainabledevelopment.


IhaverecommendedearlierinthisReportthatthecontentsofAppendix1bemovedintotheNeighbourhoodPlanitself.ThisleadstotherecommendationsbelowinrespectofPolicyGen1andParagraph3.32.Paragraph3.28referstoanemergingpolicywhichhasnotbeenadoptedandisthereforesubjecttochange.Havingregardtotheabove,Irecommend:

• PolicyGen1,delete“(Settlementsset-outinmapsinAppendix1)”andinParagraph3.32,delete“assetout…Appendix1.”

• PolicyGen1,changecriterionii)to“…10dwellings…”

• Deletecriterion(iv)andcriterion(v)

• Paragraph3.28,delete“…and2014…HOU5”


PolicyGen2–QualityDesignGooddesignisrecognisedbynationalpolicyascomprising“akeyaspectofsustainabledevelopment…indivisiblefromgoodplanning.”(Paragraph56,TheFramework)Inaddition,nationalpolicyrequiresgooddesigntocontributepositivelytomakingplacesbetterforpeople(Chapter7,TheFramework).Ingeneral,PolicyGen2seekstopromotegooddesign,havingregardtonationalpolicy.However,arequirementforalldevelopmenttoenhancearchitecturalandhistoriccharacterisonerousandgoeswellbeyondtherequirementsofnationalorlocalstrategicplanningpolicy.Noevidenceisprovidedtodemonstratethatsucharequirementwouldbeviable,orindeedpossible,inallcircumstancesandconsequently,thispartofPolicygen2doesnothaveregardtoParagraph173oftheFramework.Noindicationisprovidedofwhat“aclearsitespecificcase”means.Consequently,itisnotclearhowsuchathingcanbedemonstratedandtheinclusionofthisphrasewithinPolicyGen2failstoprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.TheFrameworkisexplicitinstatingthat:“Planningpolicies…shouldnotstifleinnovation,originalityorinitiativethroughunsubstantiatedrequirements…Itis,however,propertoseektopromoteorreinforcelocaldistinctiveness.”(Paragraph60)Whilstwordednegativelyand,takingearliercommentsintoaccount,itissomewhatunclear,PolicyGen2providessomecontextforapositiveapproachtoinnovationthatenhanceslocalcharacterandthisisclarifiedintherecommendationbelow.Criterioni)makeslittlesense,asnoindicationofhow“especially”istobeappliedinlanduseplanningtermsisprovided.Consequently,partofthecriteriondoesnotprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.Theterm“setting”islessclearthan“immediatesurroundings”andImakearecommendationinthisregardbelow.


Havingregardtotheabove,Irecommend:

• PolicyGen2,linefour,delete“…andenhance…”

• Line5,changeto“Innovativedesignsolutionsthatenhancetheappearanceofthestreetscenewillbesupported.”

• Criterioni),delete“,especiallyiflocated…Building”

• Criterionii)changeto“…appropriatetotheirimmediatesurroundings…”


PolicyGen3–AreasofSpecialCharacterParagraph58oftheFrameworkseekstoensurethatdevelopments:“…respondtolocalcharacterandhistory,andreflecttheidentityoflocalsurroundingsandmaterials…”PolicyGen3establishesarequirementfordevelopmentproposalstohaveregardtoaNeighbourhoodArea-widedesiretoconserveandenhancelocalcharacter.Insodoing,thePolicypromoteslocallydistinctivedevelopmentthatrecognisesthecommunity’swishestoprotectandimprovethosethingsthatarespecialabouttheNeighbourhoodArea,butdoessoinamannerthatprovidesforappropriateflexibility.PolicyGen3hasregardtonationalpolicy.NochangestothePolicyarerecommended,althoughthereisanerrorinthesupportingtext.Irecommend:

• Paragraph3.37,deletefinalsentence,whichreferencesanemergingpolicysubjecttochange


PolicyGen4–LocalEmploymentSitesAssetout,PolicyGen4supportsthedevelopmentofanynewretailor(undefined)businessuseanywhereinanysettlement.Suchanapproachcouldresultinsupportforinappropriatedevelopment–forexample,newofficesorasupermarketinaresidentialstreet-andnosubstantiveevidencetothecontraryisprovidedinsupportoftheapproachsetout.ThePolicyisalsounclearinrelationtotheexpansionofbusinesses.ThefirstparagraphofthePolicysupportstheexpansionofexistingbusinesseswithoutrestriction,otherthanthatsuchdevelopmentshouldtakeplacewithinasettlement.However,thesecondparagraphrequiressuchchangestobesubjecttothemitigationofvariousthings,butitdoesnotdistinguishwhetherthisappliestodevelopmentwithinsettlements,oranywhere.Thisisconfusingandfailstoprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.Asaresultoftheabove,muchofthePolicyisconfusingandimprecise,incontrasttotheFramework,whichprovidesaclearpolicycontextforcommercialdevelopmentinruralareasinChapter3“Supportingaprosperousruraleconomy.”PartofPolicyGen4seekstoresistthelossofemploymentorbusinessuseandthishasregardtoParagraph28oftheFramework:“Planningpoliciesshouldsupporteconomicgrowthinruralareas...promoteastrongruraleconomy…promotetheretentionanddevelopmentoflocalservices…”However,assetout,theremainingpartofPolicyGen4conflictswithPolicyWW1,whichsupportstheredevelopmentofGroveParkandIaddressthisintherecommendationsbelow.Paragraph3.39referstoemergingpolicythatisnotadoptedandisthereforesubjecttochange.Irecommend:

• PolicyGen4,deletefirstparagraph“Development…Settlement.”

• PolicyGen4,delete“Proposalstoexpand…GreenBelt.”

• PolicyGen4,startPolicy“WiththeexceptionoflandatGrovePark(seePolicyWW1),proposalsthat…viable.”



Inrespectofemployment,arepresentationsuggeststhattheNeighbourhoodPlanshouldincludeaPolicytoprovidefortheexpansionofthe“Horizon”siteinHurley,shouldthesiteberemovedfromtheGreenBeltatsomestageinthefuture.However,thereisnorequirementfortheNeighbourhoodPlantoseektoprovideforsomethingthatissubjecttosomethingelsepossiblyhappeningatsomestageinthefuture.


PolicyGen5–CommunityFacilitiesParagraph28oftheFrameworkrequiresplanningpoliciesto:“…promotetheretentionanddevelopmentoflocalservicesandcommunityfacilitiesinvillages,suchaslocalshops,meetingplaces,sportsvenues,culturalbuildings,publichousesandplacesofworship.”Further,inChapter8,“Promotinghealthycommunities,”theFrameworkrequiresplanningpoliciesto:“…planpositivelyfortheprovisionanduseofsharedspace,communityfacilities…andotherlocalservicestoenhancethesustainabilityofcommunitiesandresidentialenvironments…”and“…guardagainsttheunnecessarylossofvaluedfacilitiesandservices…”PolicyGen5seekstoimproveand/orpreventthelossofcommunityfacilities.Inthisway,ithasregardtonationalpolicyandcontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.ThewordingoftheopeningparagraphofthePolicyisunclear,tothepointthatitlacksprecision,andIaddressthisintherecommendationsbelow.ThesecondpartofthePolicy,whichstatesthatdevelopment“willonlybesupported”introducesanegative,undulyonerousapproachthatwouldservetohinderinvestmentintothedevelopmentofcommunityservices,contrarytotheaimsofthePolicy.Itplacesanadditionalrequirementuponcommunityfacilities,suchthatanydevelopmentproposalwouldneedtodemonstrateviability,sustainability,proportionalityandnoharminrespectofvariousfactors.Nowheredoesnationalorlocalstrategicplanningpolicyrequireacompleteabsenceofharm–butrather,asustainable,consideredapproachallowsforpossibleharmtobebalancedagainstpossiblebenefits.Nojustificationforsuchadepartureisprovided.Further,noindicationisprovidedofhow“continuedviabilityandsustainability”willbemeasured,onwhatbasis,orwhoby.ThispartofthePolicyisimprecise.Inadditiontotheabove,referencessuchas“socialcohesion”and“groupleisure”detractfromtheclarityofthelanduseplanningPolicyitself.Itisnotclearwhether,say,“socialcohesion”ismeanttocompriseafactorthatwouldaddpositiveornegativeweightwithregardsconsiderationofaplanningapplication,orwhetherthisisjustsomepassingreference.Consequently,thispartofthePolicyisimprecise.


Also,asworded,PolicyGen5wouldseektopreventthechangeofuseofacommunityfacilityregardlessofviability.ThisfailstohaveregardtoParagraph173oftheFramework.Paragraphs3.40and3.41refertoanemergingpolicythathasnotbeenadoptedandisthereforesubjecttochange.InotethatarepresentationhasbeenmadeinrespectofaddingsitestothelistofCommunityFacilities.ItisnotthepurposeofexaminationtoconsidernewsitesandInoteabovethattheNeighbourhoodPlanhasundergonerobustpublicconsultation.Irecommend:

• PolicyGen5,changefirstparagraphto“Developmentproposalstoprovidenewcommunityfacilities,orthatwillsustainorextendthefollowingexistingcommunityfacilities,willbesupported:”

• PolicyGen5,delete“Inrespectofthesesites,proposalswillonly…noise

andlighting.”

• Penultimateparagraph,add“…facilitiesareprovided,ortheexistingcommunityfacilityisdemonstratedtobeunviableinitscurrentuse.”

• Paragraph3.40,delete“…BoroughLocal…andwith…”

• Paragraph3.41,delete“…BoroughLocal…andwith…”


PolicyGen6–EducationParagraph72oftheFrameworkstates:“TheGovernmentattachesgreatimportancetoensuringthatasufficientchoiceofschoolplacesisavailabletomeettheneedsofexistingandnewcommunities.Localplanningauthoritiesshouldtakeaproactive,positiveandcollaborativeapproachtomeetingthisrequirement,andtodevelopmentthatwillwidenchoiceineducation.Theyshouldgivegreatweighttotheneedtocreate,expandoralterschools;”PolicyGen6supportstheextensionofeducationalfacilitiesandhasregardtonationalpolicy.ThethirdcriterionofthePolicyseekstointroducearequirementforalldevelopmenttoenhanceheritageassets.Suchanapproachhasnobasisinnationalorlocalstrategicpolicyandisnotjustifiedbyanysupportingevidence.Inmakingtherecommendationbelowinthisregard,Iammindfulthatitisarequirementthatalldevelopmentmustconsiderthesignificanceofheritageassets.Noindicationofwhatismeantby“ancillaryservices”isprovidedandthispartofthePolicyfailstoprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.Paragraph3.42referstoemergingpolicy.Paragraph3.43doesthesameandisincorrect,asthereisnoPolicyreferenceto“localamenities.”Irecommend:

• PolicyGen6,deletecriterioniii)

• Criterioniv)delete“…ancillaryservicesand…”

• Paragraph3.42,delete“BoroughLocal…andwith”



PolicyGen7–LocalGreenSpacesTheFrameworkenableslocalcommunitiestoidentify,forspecialprotection,greenareasofparticularimportancetothem.Paragraph76statesthat“BydesignatinglandasLocalGreenSpacelocalcommunitieswillbeabletoruleoutnewdevelopmentotherthaninveryspecialcircumstances.”LocalGreenSpaceisarestrictiveandsignificantpolicydesignation.TheFrameworkrequiresthemanagingofdevelopmentwithinLocalGreenSpacetobeconsistentwithpolicyforGreenBelts.Effectively,LocalGreenSpaces,oncedesignated,provideprotectionthatiscomparabletothatforGreenBeltland.Notably,theFrameworkisexplicitinstatingthat“TheLocalGreenSpacedesignationwillnotbeappropriateformostgreenareasoropenspace.”(Para77)Consequently,whendesignatingLocalGreenSpace,plan-makersshoulddemonstratethattherequirementsforitsdesignationaremetinfull.Theserequirementsarethatthegreenspaceisinreasonablycloseproximitytothecommunityitserves;itisdemonstrablyspecialtoalocalcommunityandholdsaparticularlocalsignificance;anditislocalincharacterandisnotanextensivetractofland.Furthermore,identifyingLocalGreenSpacemustbeconsistentwiththelocalplanningofsustainabledevelopmentandcomplementinvestmentinsufficienthomes,jobsandotheressentialservices.PolicyGen7seekstoallocatesixteenareasofLocalGreenSpace.TheNeighbourhoodPlan’sevidencebaseestablishesthateachofthesesitesmeettheLocalGreenSpacetestssetoutintheFramework.ThePolicyreferstomapsintheAppendices.Thisisinappropriate.Asimportantdesignations,itisfundamentaltoensurethateachLocalGreenSpaceisclearlydefinedwithintheNeighbourhoodPlanitself.ThemapsproducedandcurrentlylocatedinAppendix5oftheNeighbourhoodPlanareveryclearandappropriateforinclusioninthedocument,followingthePolicyitself.ThefinalparagraphofPolicyGen7failstohaveregardtoParagraphs76and78,whichestablishhowLocalGreenSpacepolicyshouldbeapplied.Thesupportingtextreferstoemergingandadoptedpoliciesthatarenotadoptedandsubjecttochange,orwhichdonotsetoutLocalGreenSpacepolicy.ArepresentationhasbeenmadeinrespectofaddingafurtherLocalGreenSpace.Itisnotthepurposeofexaminationtoconsidernewsites,buttoconsidertheNeighbourhoodPlanagainstthebasicconditionsandInoteabovethattheNeighbourhoodPlanhasundergonerobustpublicconsultation.


Irecommend:

• PolicyGen7,changeopeningparagraphto“…locations,asshownontheaccompanyingplans:”

• Movetheplans(NB,“maps”haveanorthpoint,keyandscale)from

Appendix5totheNeighbourhoodPlan,tofollowthePolicy.Donotmovetheaccompanyingtext.

• PolicyGen7,finalparagraph,changeto“NewdevelopmentinaLocalGreen

Spaceisruledoutotherthaninveryspecialcircumstances.”

• Paragraph3.44,delete“…andBorough…PolicyR1.”


TransportPolicies:Accessibility,HighwaySafetyandParkingPolicyT1–AccessibilityandHighwaySafetyHighwaysafetyandaccesswillnotberelevanttoalldevelopmentproposalsandconsequently,PolicyT1doesnothaveregardtoParagraph193oftheFramework,whichstates:“Localplanningauthoritiesshouldonlyrequestsupportinginformationthatisrelevant,necessaryandmaterialtotheapplicationinquestion.”PolicyT1isvagueandimprecise–forexample,itrequiresalldevelopment“tohaveregardtotheeffectoftrafficinrelationtoresidentialamenity.”AswellconflictingwithParagraph193,itisnotclearhowsucharequirementwouldbemeasured,onwhatbasisandwhoby.Itfailstoprovideadecisionmakerwithaclearindicationofhowtoreacttoadevelopmentproposal.Tosomeextent,partofthePolicyhasregardtoParagraph32oftheFramework,whichstates:“Developmentshouldonlybepreventedorrefusedontransportgroundswheretheresidualcumulativeimpactsofdevelopmentaresevere.”Takingthisintoaccount,Irecommend:

• “PolicyT1,changewordingto“Developmentproposalsrequiringaccessmustdemonstratesafeandsuitableaccess;anddevelopmentproposalsthatwouldhavesevereresidualcumulativeimpactsonhighwaysafetywillberefused.”


PolicyT2–ResidentialParkingParagraph39oftheFrameworkestablishesthat:“Ifsettinglocalparkingstandardsforresidentialandnon-residentialdevelopment,localplanningauthoritiesshouldtakeintoaccount:theaccessibilityofthedevelopment;thetype,mixanduseofdevelopment;theavailabilityofandopportunitiesforpublictransport;localcarownershiplevels;anoverallneedtoreducetheuseofhigh-emissionvehicles.”PolicyT2seekstoestablishlocalcarparkingstandardsforresidentialdevelopment.InsupportoftheproposedPolicy,thesupportingtextstatesthat:“TherearehighlevelsofcarownershipwithintheHWNP,aswellastheBoroughandgeneralareawhichaddspressuretolocalparking.Thisjustifiesalocallydefinedparkingstandard.”Inthisregard,thereissomeconflictwiththeevidencebasisfortheNeighbourhoodPlan,whichstates,inrespectof“InputfromtheCommunity:”“4.Parking.NotidentifiedasamajorproblemintheareaexceptafewsitessuchasHurleyatweek-ends.”(TransportTopicGroup)Notwithstandingthis,thereisnoevidencetodemonstratethattheproposedlocalparkingstandardshaveconsideredtheexplicitrequirementsofnationalplanningpolicyassetoutabove.PolicyT2doesnothaveregardtonationalpolicyanddoesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Irecommend

• DeletePolicyT2

• DeleteParagraphs3.46to3.48


PolicyT3–GoodsVehicleTrafficAsworded,PolicyT3isaverybroadlysupportivePolicythatcouldhaveunforeseenconsequences.ItsupportsanyformofdevelopmentthatgeneratesadditionalHGV/LGVtrafficmovements,subjecttomitigatingnoiseanddust.Consequently,asworded,PolicyT3couldleadtoconflictwiththosePoliciesofthedevelopmentplanthatseektoprotect,forexample,localcharacter,residentialamenityandhighwaysafety.However,Paragraph58oftheFrameworkrequiresplanningpoliciestoensurethatdevelopmentsfunctionwellandpartofPolicyT3seekstoachievethis.Irecommend:

• PolicyT3,changeto“DevelopmentgeneratingadditionalHGV/LGVtrafficmovementsshouldensurethatanyharmarisingfromnoiseanddustissatisfactorilymitigated.”


7.TheNeighbourhoodPlan:OtherMattersInotethattherecommendationsmadeinthisReportwillhaveasubsequentimpactonpageandparagraphnumbering,Contentsandplans.TheywillalsoimpactonthecontentoftheAppendices.Irecommend:

• UpdatetheContentspageandListofPoliciespage(page1).Updatepage,paragraphandPolicynumbering.


8.SummaryIhaverecommendedanumberofmodificationsfurthertoconsiderationoftheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlanagainstthebasicconditions.Subjecttothesemodifications,Iconfirmthat:

• havingregardtonationalpoliciesandadvicecontainedinguidanceissuedbytheSecretaryofStateitisappropriatetomaketheneighbourhoodplan;

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment;

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciescontainedinthedevelopmentplanfortheareaoftheauthority(oranypartofthatarea);

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplandoesnotbreach,andisotherwisecompatiblewith,EuropeanUnion(EU)obligations;and

• themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisnotlikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansiteoraEuropeanoffshoremarinesite,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects.

Takingtheaboveintoaccount,IfindthattheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlanmeetsthebasicconditions.IhavealreadynotedabovethatthePlanmeetsparagraph8(1)requirements.


9.ReferendumIrecommendtotheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadthat,subjecttothemodificationsproposed,theHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodPlanshouldproceedtoaReferendum.ReferendumAreaIamrequiredtoconsiderwhethertheReferendumAreashouldbeextendedbeyondtheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodArea.IconsidertheNeighbourhoodAreatobeappropriateandthereisnosubstantiveevidencetodemonstratethatthisisnotthecase.Consequently,IrecommendthatthePlanshouldproceedtoaReferendumbasedontheHurleyandtheWalthamsNeighbourhoodAreaapprovedbytheRoyalBoroughofWindsorandMaidenheadon21stMarch2013.

NigelMcGurk,January2017Erimax–Land,PlanningandCommunities

www.erimaxltd.com