lechlade-on-thames neighbourhood plan report by examiner

Lechlade-on-Thames Neighbourhood Plan

Report by Examiner

Graham Self

February 2016

Lechlade-on-Thames Neighbourhod Plan: Report by Examiner February 2016

2

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 3

The Development Plan and National Policy The Neighbourhood Plan and Other Documents Examination Procedure Format of Report A Note on Names and Presentation References to "Local Plan"

General Matters 6

Plan Area, Preparation Procedures and Regulatory Requirements Representations

The Plan and its Policies 8

Differences Between "Policies" and "Projects" General Relationship Between Neighbourhood Plan and Emerging Local Plan Policies H1 and H2 Site Specific Objections Objective 2 Policies H3 and H4 Policy H5 Policy H6 Policy H7 Policy H8 Policy H9 and Related Text Policy H11 Policy H12 Policy H13 Policy EXC1 Policy E1 Policy E2 Objective 4 and Related Text Policy E3 Policy E4 Policies G1, G2 and G3 Traffic Management Projects and Proposals

Other Aspects of the Plan Not Covered Elsewhere 27

Objections by Thames Water Utilities Ltd Other Objections by Gladman Developments Ltd Other Objections by District Council, Mr Colin Harris and Natural England

The Next Stage - the Referendum and its Area 29

Appendix: Suggested Editing Corrections 30

Lechlade-on-Thames Neighbourhood Plan: Report by Examiner February 2016

3

Introduction

1. I was appointed in January 2016 as the independent examiner for the Lechlade-on-Thames Neighbourhood Plan. The plan has been prepared by Lechlade-on-Thames Town Council with the support of a number of other bodies including the local planning authority, Cotswold District Council. Funding assistance was provided by the Community Development Foundation.

2. The examiner's role is to provide an independent review of the plan and to make recommendations in accordance with the 2011 Localism Act and related regulations. In particular, the examiner has to consider whether the plan meets certain basic conditions, satisfies legal requirements, and identifies an appropriate area for a referendum.

3. In order to act as examiner I am required to be appropriately qualified. I am a chartered town planner with previous professional experience in the Planning Inspectorate, consultancy and local government. I also have qualifications in traffic and transport planning. I am independent of Cotswold District Council and of Lechlade-on-Thames Town Council, and I have no interests in any land or property in or near Lechlade.

4. The basic conditions, which are set out in the legislation,1 are intended to ensure that neighbourhood plans fit with their wider context. In summary, the plan must:

have regard to national planning policies and guidance;

contribute to achieving sustainable development;

be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan; and

be compatible with European Union law and human rights obligations.

5. The policies of neighbourhood plans should also relate to the development and use of land in a designated neighbourhood area, should be prepared by a qualifying body, should specify the period for which they are intended to have effect, should not include provisions on excluded development,2 and should not cover more than one neighbourhood area.

The Development Plan and National Policy

6. The development plan current for Cotswold District at the time of writing consists of the "saved" policies of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2001-2011, which was adopted in 2006. The District Council is working on a new local plan, incorporating planning policies, the development strategy and site allocations. This latter plan (often described as the "emerging" or "draft" local plan) will not become part of the statutory development plan until procedures involving consultation, examination, possible amendment and adoption have been completed.

7. National policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF"), published in 2012. National Planning Practice Guidance ("NPPG") provides advice on the preparation of neighbourhood plans.

1 The legal source of these basic conditions is the Localism Act 2011, which inserted Schedules 4A and 4B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I have paraphrased the Basic Conditions here. 2 These cover matters such as mineral workings which are not relevant here.


4

8. One of the aspects of national policy which has influenced my examination is the statement in the NPPF that: "plans should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency".3 A similar doctrine is put forward in the NPPG, which states that:

"A policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear and unambiguous. It should be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications. It should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence".4

9. Some of my comments and recommendations may appear to be matters of minor wording. But what might seem of little significance may become a cause of argument, for example by advocates at inquiries into planning appeals. Unclear or ambiguous policies are liable to cause problems for those responsible for deciding planning applications or appeals, and can be exploited by developers seeking to carry out development contrary to what plan-makers intended.

The Neighbourhood Plan and Other Documents

10. The version of the Neighbourhood Plan which I have examined is the "submission document" dated October 2015. Apart from the Neighbourhood Plan itself, the main source documents which I have read or referred to, all of which were sent to me by the District Council, are as follows.

Lechlade on Thames Neighbourhood Plan - Submission Document Consultation Statement July 2015.5

Lechlade on Thames Neighbourhood Plan - Submission Document Statement of Conformity July 2015.

Cotswold District Council Local Plan Local Development Scheme April 2015-March 2018.

Local Plan Reg. 18 Consultation: Development Strategy and Site Allocations January 2015.

Local Plan Reg. 18 Consultation: Planning Policies November 2015.

Cotswold District Local Plan 2001-2011 (Extracts).

11. Other written material I have referred to includes documents listed in Section 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan as "supporting documentation and evidence" and various emails sent to me in response to questions I raised, as explained below.

Examination Procedure

12. I judged that the consultation responses which had been submitted to the District Council (sometimes named "Regulation 16" Responses) could be considered on the basis of the written representations, so it was not necessary to hold any hearing. However, I found it necessary to put a number of questions to the Town and District Councils, for which purpose I sent emails to both bodies inviting answers and comments. Written responses were emailed to me on behalf of the two councils.

3 NPPF paragraph 17. 4 NPPG - Neighbourhood Planning - Section 5. 5 One of the appendices to this report (Appendix 7) is the Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Statement by AECOM Limited.


5

13. I am grateful to all those involved in responding to my questions. The information supplied assisted me in carrying out the examination and completing my report.

14. I made an unaccompanied visit on a weekday in late January 2016 to familiarise myself with the area, to look at specific sites, and to observe traffic conditions in various locations. My observations helped me to understand the issues covered in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Format of Report

15. I have set out this report in the following sequence. In the next section I cover some general matters relating to the plan area, preparation procedures and regulatory requirements, and I refer to the written representations submitted during the most recent period of consultation on the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan. The policies of the plan and related text are then considered in plan sequence, with recommendations made where appropriate.6 Some comments and recommendations are then made about other aspects of the plan. A final section refers to the next stage.

16. The recommendations are in bold text. Some of my recommendations are made in response to objections or representations submitted during the latest period of consultation. Others arise from my own assessment of the plan.

17. While reading the plan I noticed a number of textual flaws, some of which are typing or printing errors. A list of these is appended to this report. I hope this will help the process of editing the plan before it is finalised.

A Note on Names and Presentation

18. Ordnance Survey maps indicate that the name of the civil parish (the area covered by Lechlade-on-Thames Town Council) is Lechlade, whilst the proper full name of the town itself is Lechlade-on-Thames. However, the Neighbourhood Plan itself appears to use the names "Lechlade-on-Thames" and "Lechlade" interchangeably - for example, there are references to "the Lechlade Plan" and to "the parish boundary of Lechlade-on-Thames". I therefore do the same in this report, so sometimes "Lechlade" may refer to the town, except where it is necessary to make clear that I am referring specifically to either the town or to the wider parish area.

19. In my attempts to use correct names I have noted that some of the documents sent to me use the name "Lechlade on Thames" (without hyphens). Two examples are in the list in paragraph 10 above, where I have reproduced the titles as they appear on the front covers of the documents. As far as I can tell, that usage is incorrect, so I have not followed it in this report except when quoting document titles which use it.

20. Neighbourhood plans are sometimes referred to as "neighbourhood development plans" and the latter term is used in legislation. I do not draw any distinction between these terms - the Lechlade-on-Thames Neighbourhood Plan may also be described as a neighbourhood development plan.

21. I adopt a convention in this report that when referring to a specific plan (such as the Lechlade-on-Thames Neighbourhood Plan, or "the Neighbourhood Plan", or

6 Where I do not make any comment on a policy or other aspect of the plan, it may be assumed that I have no comment on it.


6

"the emerging Local Plan") I use initial capitals. Where making more general references, for example to "neighbourhood plans", or when using adjectival nouns (as in "neighbourhood plan document") I normally use lower case initial letters.

References to "Local Plan"

22. Throughout the Neighbourhood Plan there are numerous references to "the Local Plan". However, there is inconsistency in the way these references are made and the titles of the plans concerned. Taking as an example just one page, on page 24 there are references to: "the Local Plan"; "the emerging Cotswold District Local Plan"; "the emerging Cotswold Local Plan"; "the Adopted Local Plan"; "the adopted local plan"; the "Cotswold Local Plan 2031"; and "a Local Plan" (in Policy H2). Other examples elsewhere in the document are "CDC's Local Plan" and "Local Plan for Cotswold District". These inconsistencies, combined with the existence of different local plans - statutory (adopted) and emerging (draft) - make it difficult to be sure which plan is being referred to. Such difficulty is liable to cause doubt and imprecision in the interpretation of policies.

23. It may be possible to achieve clarity by stating in the introduction to the plan that all references to "the Local Plan" are to the saved policies of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2001-2011 unless otherwise specified. An alternative might be to have a short glossary7. Either way, the text of the plan, including policies, needs editing to provide consistency.

24. I recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan be subject to careful editing to ensure that where references are made to a local plan, it is clear whether the reference is to the Cotswold District Local Plan 2001-2011 (saved policies) or to the emerging draft Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031.

General Matters

Plan Area, Preparation Procedures and Regulatory Requirements8

25. The plan area is the Parish of Lechlade. In July and August 2013 Lechlade-on-Thames Town Council formed a Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. Gloucestershire Rural Community Council and the Localism Network were engaged to help set up the framework for gathering evidence for the Neighbourhood Plan. Cotswold District Council designated the Town Council as the "qualifying body" for preparing the Neighbourhood Plan in September 2013. The Steering Group established several sub-groups to examine various themes for the purpose of preparing the plan. Initially these consisted of town councillors but later, residents and business representatives joined the sub-groups.

26. Various events and meetings were held between 2013 and 2015 for public consultation purposes. These included a workshop in September 2013, a public consultation weekend in March 2014, a display with opportunities for questions and feedback in September 2014, and a public consultation procedure between February and April 2015. Numerous methods were used to inform local people and businesses of the consultation exercise, including emails, posted or hand-delivered notices, distribution of the plan in the Town Council offices and the town centre library, newsletters and newspaper articles, and a public exhibition in March 2015. The Consultation Statement contains a 19-page schedule

7 A glossary could also be useful to explain other terms and abbreviations such as "Class B uses" and "CIL", which are unexplained in the plan and may not be understood by some readers. 8 The source of most of the information reported here about the plan preparation procedures is the Consultation Statement dated July 2015.


7

summarising the points raised by consultees (many of which were supportive comments) and the responses to them.

27. A draft Neighbourhood Plan was sent to Cotswold District Council for Strategic Environmental Assessment ("SEA") screening in October 2014. The screening assessment was carried out for the District Council by AECOM Limited. The Screening Statement was then provided to statutory consultees (English Heritage, the Environment Agency and Natural England) as required under SEA regulations.9 Two matters of particular relevance are the possible effect of the plan on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (at the Cotswold Water Park) and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the Cotswolds AONB).

28. The screening process concluded that the plan was not subject to the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment Directives and Regulations, because the plan was assessed as not likely to have significant environmental effects in the context of the Directive. A factor behind this conclusion as reported by AECOM was their finding that the Neighbourhood Plan did not propose employment or housing site allocations. The screening opinion was accepted by relevant statutory consultees.

29. Other statutory consultees who were consulted on the draft plan included the District and County Councils, neighbouring parish councils and planning authorities, Thames Water, Gloucestershire Police and Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust.

30. The plan period is stated on the front cover as 2011-2031. This is intended to match the duration of the emerging Local Plan.

31. In summary, the information available to me shows that the Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared by a properly constituted qualifying body, covers a suitable designated area, and has been properly subject to consultation. Other requirements relating to European Union and human rights obligations were met.

Representations

32. The closing time and date for representations to be made following the most recent public consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan was 12 noon on Monday 11 January 2015. The following bodies or individuals submitted representations10:

Cotswold District Council.

Barwood Development Securities Ltd (agent: Origin 3).

Gladman Developments Ltd.

Gloucestershire County Council.

Mr Colin Harris (agent: Bluestone Planning Partnership).

Historic England.

Dr Michael Keegan.

Kempsford Parish Council.

9 Environment Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which transposed European Directive 2001/42/EC. 10 Apart from Cotswold District Council (as the local planning authority) this list is in alphabetical order. Some of the representations expressed support, some raised objections, and some contained points of both support and objection.


8

New College Oxford (Agents: Hallam Land Management and David Lock Associates).11

Thames Water Utilities Ltd (agent: Savills (UK) Ltd).

Mr Tim Yeoman.

33. The District Council also received a representation from Natural England outside the consultation period. A copy of this representation was sent to me and I have read it in view of Natural England's status as a statutory consultee, but as it does not appear to raise any crucially important points and was not submitted within the consultation period I do not make any further comment on it.

34. I have taken account of the representations submitted by those listed above when considering the policies and other parts of the plan later in this report. In total, the representations raised around 100 objections to the plan. For a neighbourhood plan which had previously been subject of quite extensive consultation before the last ("Regulation 16") process, this number of objections was surprising. The District Council, which had apparently worked closely with the Town Council during the preparation of the plan, raised more than 30 objections. Some of these are fairly minor factual points which could perhaps have been resolved at an earlier stage.

The Plan and its Policies Differences Between "Policies" and "Projects"

35. I deal with this topic first because it affects the plan's format. In the list of contents, Section 2 of the plan is headed "Neighbourhood Plan Policies and Projects". The introductory text of Section 2.2 states: "In addition to Policies the NP feels it is important to take an overall view of the Town's development and the following projects will be undertaken". Various projects are then described, set out in groups as follows: eight projects to achieve a thriving town centre and manage traffic; one project to develop employment and the local economy; five projects to encourage tourism; and two projects to provide adequate community services and facilities.

36. Taking the first group as an example of the type of projects, these include (here I paraphrase): working with the County Council to achieve a "shared space" traffic management scheme; requiring street furniture to comply with County Council policy; providing additional school parking in Faringdon Road; working with the County Council to enforce the vehicle length limit on Halfpenny Bridge; enforcing specified standards on the design of signs; supporting public transport; and seeking funding to complete a multi-use path between Lechlade and Fairford.

37. Taking the last group as another example, the projects include: providing outdoor fitness equipment; upgrading the cricket pavilion; and establishing a long-term plan for expanding education and medical facilities.

38. The problem with the way these projects are presented in the Neighbourhood Plan is that most of them are not land use planning policies, but are statements of community aims, hopes or intended actions, presumably actions by the Town Council. The Town Council's intention to consult or work with the County Council

11 Although the representations are expressed as being made by Hallam Land Management ("HLM") and the comments by David Lock Associates are on behalf of HLM, the land is evidently owned by New College Oxford. According to the written submission, HLM are "promoting an area of land on behalf of New College Oxford". I am therefore taking it that New College Oxford is the representor, HLM are agents and David Lock Associates are sub-agents.


9

to enforce traffic regulations, for example, is not a land use planning policy which could properly be taken into account by a District Council planning officer or committee or appeal inspector when deciding a planning application or appeal. Similarly, providing outdoor fitness equipment appears to be a scheme subject to proposed funding grant applications rather than a matter to be incorporated into the development plan for the area.

39. I can understand why there is a wish to include such projects in the Neighbourhood Plan. I also note the District Council's statement that both councils "have a shared understanding that these projects are not policies which have the planning weight given to neighbourhood plan policies" and that the "projects" do not need to conform with the Basic Conditions. The Statement of Conformity maintains that the Neighbourhood Plan "clearly distinguishes between planning policies relating to land use and projects which in parallel will help to achieve the plan's objectives."

40. However, parts of the descriptions of projects are virtually planning policy statements. For example, the description of Project TC3 states that "developers will be expected to provide adequate parking, and in any development close to the town centre, a contribution to the parking needs of the whole community". The heading: "Neighbourhood Plan Policies and Projects" in the contents page gives the impression that policies and projects have the same status, as does the fact that the policies and the projects are all printed in similar-looking text boxes using white lettering with a dark brown background. Contrary to what is claimed in the Statement of Conformity (page 3), the projects are not listed in a separate section of the Neighbourhood Plan document - the policies and projects are all in Section 2.12

41. I do not suggest that the projects should be completely omitted from the plan. But I consider that as a matter of presentation and to avoid possible confusion, there should be a more distinct separation between these projects and the land use planning policies. This could be achieved in different ways and I propose to leave those involved to decide on the most appropriate method. At the very least, it would help if some text were inserted making clear that the "projects" are not part of the Neighbourhood Plan for statutory planning purposes, but are included in the document so as to set out statements of intended community actions. Different coloured "text boxes" could also aid in separating projects from policies. Probably the clearest way of making the situation clear would be to describe the projects in an annex or appendix, but if that is not done, at least they should be in a part of the document which is not the same section as the policies, and not headed "Neighbourhood Plan….Projects" in the contents page.

42. I make further comments specifically about the traffic management projects and proposals later in this report.

43. I recommend that the format of the plan be reviewed so as to make clearer the distinction between policies which can properly be within a Neighbourhood Plan potentially forming part of the statutory development plan for the area and projects which are intentions or aspirations for other schemes, which may not be land use planning matters or subject to planning control. The review should include the way the plan is divided into sections, the layout and wording of the

12 I am aware (from reading item 11 listed in Section 3 of the plan as published online) that the examiner who carried out a "health check" of the draft plan advised that "no harm is caused" by the policies and projects both appearing in Section 2. He suggested that the reader should be alerted explicitly to the distinction. Although some changes appear to have been made, there are indications that confusion exists and I judge that a greater degree of separation or distinction is required.


10

contents list and text headings. Additional text is also likely to be needed to explain the status of projects.

General Relationship Between Neighbourhood Plan and Emerging Local Plan

44. A number of objections to the plan comment on the relationship between the Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Local Plan. Gladman Developments, for example, maintain that the Neighbourhood Plan should not be progressed at this stage, because the plan may well not comply with the emerging Local Plan's strategic policies which have yet to be subject to scrutiny and examination during the local plan adoption process. Part of this objector's argument is that if the Neighbourhood Plan is progressed to examination prior to adoption of the emerging Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan would be contrary to the Basic Conditions.

45. There is a similar basis behind the submissions by Barwood Development Securities. They contend that the Neighbourhood Plan is premature and should ensure long-term compliance with the draft Local Plan, and also comply with the NPPG and NPPF. On this latter point, the objector says that the Neighbourhood Plan does not envisage modification of the (draft) Local Plan and is "inconsistent with national policies and advice because it fails to allocate sufficient land for housing to ensure it will remain compliant with the Local Plan following its adoption".

46. I have three comments on those arguments. First, in an ideal world all planning authorities throughout the country would have an up to date development plan, and the preparation of neighbourhood plans could follow in a logical sequence. I agree with objectors who say that the emerging Local Plan cannot be considered robust until it has been subject to scrutiny at a local plan examination. But for various reasons (including delays caused by changes in national policy), the ideal has not been achieved across large areas of the country, and if an up to date local plan were to be a pre-requisite for a neighbourhood plan, numerous such plans which have been "made" could not have been finalised. A neighbourhood plan does not have to wait for an emerging local plan to complete its way through the adoption process before the neighbourhood plan can be put to an examination (as seems to be claimed by Gladman Developments) or to a referendum.

47. Second, the basic conditions do not require neighbourhood plans to comply with an emerging local plan; nor does the test of "soundness", which applies to local plans, apply to neighbourhood plans (other than indirectly). Where a neighbourhood plan becomes clearly inconsistent with an emerging local plan, there is indeed a risk that the neighbourhood plan may become out of date fairly rapidly, but that would imply that the neighbourhood plan would either need to be reviewed or that it would have limited weight when future planning applications are being considered.

48. Third, as one objector rightly points out, a Neighbourhood Plan which allocates more land for housing than the strategic target in the Local Plan would remain in accordance with the Local Plan, especially where the housing figure in the Local Plan is expressed as a minimum. But that by itself is not a compelling argument, since a land allocation which is in line with the Local Plan would also be in general accordance with the latter's strategic policy on housing.

49. For the reasons set out above I do not accept the argument that the Neighbourhood Plan cannot be progressed through examination and referendum until after the emerging Local Plan has been finally adopted. However, I now turn to more detailed points about the plan's housing policies and supporting text.


11

Policies H1 and H2

50. The planned housing provision for Lechlade set out in Table 8 of the adopted Local Plan13 appears to be 50 dwellings, split into two sites (labelled LEC 1 and LEC 2 and described as "Riverside Area" and "Old Station Site"); but this provision is now considerably out of date. Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan provides that new housing development "will only be permitted within the built-up area of Lechlade or specific land allocations made elsewhere in the Local Plan". The reference to "the Local Plan" here could mean either or both the statutory or the emerging local plans; presumably the intention is to refer to whichever is the current statutory plan. Policy H1 then goes on to define the "built-up area" in words, and states that once specific land allocations made elsewhere in the Local Plan (which this time I think must mean the emerging Local Plan) have been developed, they will form part of the built-up area.

51. The supporting text to this policy, including Objective 1, contains a table of "housing numbers breakdown" and other references to numbers of dwellings. It is here - in the relationship between the housing figures, the plan's policy, and the adopted and emerging local plans - that problems arise. The problems are complicated by the requirements for environmental assessment. To explain, I set out below a sequence of six points.

52. First, I have established that the Neighbourhood Plan does not intend to allocate any sites for new housing development (that is to say, other than already built or with planning permission). The plan is liable to be misunderstood on this point, as is shown by the fact that several professionally-advised objectors have apparently interpreted the plan as allocating two such sites for a total of 18 dwellings, which some objectors say is insufficient.14 I queried the matter in one of my written requests for clarification, and both Town and District Councils have confirmed that the plan does not allocate any sites for new housing development. The Town Council evidently resolved not to take forward any allocations in the plan and to rely on the local plan process to determine this.15

13 Reproduced on page 8 of the Statement of Conformity. 14 The statement by Origin 3, on behalf of Barwood Development Securities, refers to "the two sites that are currently allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan" and states: "the NP only allocates provision for two sites of 9 residential dwellings each". Thus they understood the plan to be allocating the two sites for development. The statement adds: "the plan is limited to meeting the minimum housing requirements of the draft Local Plan" - but that is not so, since I have established that the sites currently proposed for housing development in the emerging Local Plan are not allocated for development in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Other professional agents have evidently interpreted the Neighbourhood Plan in the same way as has been confirmed to me by the Town Council as erroneous. For example, Bluestone Planning Partnership (for Mr Colin Harris) refer to the figure of 114 dwellings and say this is "the most logical interpretation of section 1.3.2". Their objection to Policy H1 also refers to "the two proposed allocation sites".

The representations by Natural England mention housing development and refer to "the site allocations put forward in the plan", showing that they, too, thought the plan allocated sites for residential development.

The statement by Gladman Developments contends (on page 23) that where a neighbourhood plan allocates sites for development an SEA should be undertaken, but "this has not been achieved". Another contention by Gladman Developments (on page 25) is that "there is no development envisaged other than one proposed housing allocation" [my italics]. So this objector apparently also believed that the Neighbourhood Plan allocated sites (or at least one site) for housing development. 15 Source: email to me on behalf of Town Council (19/1/16).


12

53. Second - in effect re-affirming the first point above - the SEA screening by AECOM was carried out on the basis just described. As noted in paragraph 28 above, AECOM's report records that the Neighbourhood Plan "is not proposing employment or housing allocations."

54. Third, there appears to be general consensus that 114 dwellings would be at least the minimum appropriate provision. The Neighbourhood Plan itself "supports a figure of 114 dwellings" and states that this figure has broad support in the town. Others argue that a greater provision should be made, but even ignoring those arguments, anything less than 114 would go against the plan itself, so 114 has to be regarded as a minimum.

55. Fourth, at the relevant plan date, 14 dwellings were already built and 82 had planning permission but were not started. Therefore, as the plan does not allocate any other sites for housing development, it allows for 96 dwellings to be built within the plan period. So there is a shortfall of 18 dwellings. The table on page 24 of the plan16 includes 18 dwellings with a note stating: "To be allocated in the Local Plan"; but this does not alter the fact that the Neighbourhood Plan itself does not allocate enough sites for housing development (beyond commitments) so as to add up to 114 dwellings.

56. Fifth, Lechlade is designated as a "principal settlement" in the adopted Local Plan, and this designation is continued in the emerging Local Plan. National policy is that neighbourhood plans should support the strategic aims of local plans. By not allocating any land for new housing other than existing commitments, the Neighbourhood Plan would not support the role of Lechlade as a principal settlement, as well as being illogical within itself by allocating less land than the plan itself considers appropriate.

57. Sixth, the 18 dwelling shortfall evidently relates to two sites, each apparently capable of accommodating about 9 dwellings. These sites are coloured yellow on the "Constraints Map" and are labelled as "potential future housing sites", but that is evidently not intended to mean that they are allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan for housing development. Any attempt to amend the plan so that it allocated these sites for housing would alter the basis on which the SEA screening decision was made, and so would invalidate the SEA screening. As has been pointed out on behalf of the District Council, the SEA is a process, and cannot simply be appended to the plan.17

58. The same would apply if the boundary of the built-up area were to be defined as was suggested for the District Council in a response to one of my questions, using the red line shown on Map 18 of a recently published development plan document18, since the effect of doing this would be a de facto site allocation for those two sites. Moreover, national practice guidance advises that where a neighbourhood plan allocates sites for development, a qualifying body should

16 It was this table showing a total of 114 dwellings, together with the supporting text and map, which initially led me - and evidently others mentioned above - to think that the plan intended to allocate land for 114 dwellings. 17 Source: email to me on behalf of District Council (19/1/16). The legal situation here depends on the interpretation of the term "preparation" in the relevant regulations, under which the SEA has to be carried out during the preparation of the plan. 18 Local Plan Reg 18 Consultation: Planning policies - November 2015. The sites enclosed by the red boundary line are also shown on Map 9, and on an unnumbered later map titled "Lechlade" in the document: Local Plan Reg 18 Consultation: Development Strategy and Site Allocations - January 2015.


13

carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites against clearly identified criteria19. The mere acceptance of a possible or probable allocation in a forthcoming local plan does not mean that the Town Council has carried out such an assessment.

59. I can understand how this situation has arisen, because of the way the Neighbourhood Plan is trying to be flexible whilst not acting as a kind of proxy for the emerging Local Plan. One of the difficulties seems to be that some of the need for housing land in Lechlade is to meet part of a District-wide requirement, which can only be properly assessed at a wider scale than the parish area and may or may not change as the emerging Local Plan passes through further consultation and examination. To put it another way, the Neighbourhood Plan is attempting to be compliant with the unknown.

60. In principle, there is nothing wrong with a neighbourhood plan being "made" before an emerging local plan becomes finalised. But having found that it is appropriate to provide land to accommodate 114 dwellings, the plan has to allocate for at least that number within the four corners of the plan - otherwise it has a shortfall against its own figure. The confirmation that the plan does not allocate any sites for new housing above existing commitments also seems to conflict with parts of the "vision statement" (on page 18) about adding new homes and new housing.

61. One way of testing my assessment is to consider what would happen if an applicant were to seek planning permission for housing development on one or both of the two sites, assuming the Neighbourhood Plan were to be "made" including Policy H1 in its present form, before the emerging Local Plan is finalised. Under Policy H1, the sites would be outside the built-up area and not allocated for housing development (no development would have occurred at application stage). Therefore the proposal would be in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan policy, and so not in accordance with what would be a recently made statutory part of the area's development plan. This conflict would have to be given considerable weight in a decision on the application, even though those who have prepared the plan would evidently not want to oppose the development - indeed the Town Council has consistently supported these sites.20 This would be a confusing and unsatisfactory situation.

62. I have weighed the possibility of recommending re-wording Policy H1 so that it would state something to the effect: "Applications for planning permission for new housing development will be assessed against the policies of the statutory and emerging Local Plans". But a statement of that sort is more appropriate for explanatory text and would be more a confirmation of fact than a policy.

63. Having considered various possible alternatives - ranging from trying to devise different policy wording to suggesting that the plan be withdrawn from examination - I have decided on balance to recommend that Policy H1 be omitted from the plan. This seems to me the simplest and most logical way of reflecting the Town Council's wish not to allocate any sites for development and to leave this to the emerging Local Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan does not have to cover housing (or any other specific topic) in its policies - the plan could merely explain that this topic is being left to current District-wide policies - and I have not been able to devise an alternative for Policy H1 which would in my judgment be satisfactory whilst also avoiding SEA-related conflicts.

19 National Planning Practice Guidance - Neighbourhood Plans. 20 Source: email to me on behalf of the Town Council, 19 January 2016.


14

64. Policy H2 is closely linked with Policy H1, and sets out criteria against which proposals for housing development outside the built-up area will be considered. The supporting text mentions the need to safeguard the intrinsic character of the countryside and the vitality of rural communities, avoiding isolated development in the countryside unless there are special circumstances. I observe in passing that the scattered pockets of built development in the rural parts of the parish can hardly be described as "communities" and no "rural communities" are mentioned in the descriptive introduction to the plan. Be that as it may, this policy does not really add anything to the Neighbourhood Plan which is not already covered by the adopted or emerging local plans. For example, Policy 19 of the statutory Local Plan (a "saved" policy) controls development outside "development boundaries": only development appropriate to a rural area will be permitted, provided that (among other things) it would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of settlements.

65. For those reasons I conclude that Policy H2 should also be omitted.

66. If my recommendation on these policies is accepted, the text in this part of the plan will need to be considerably modified, so that it leads on from Objective 1 to explain that the Neighbourhood Plan is intended to be subservient to the emerging Local Plan, that the total number of dwellings to be allowed for will be partly dependent on District-wide need which has yet to be decided under local plan procedures, and that for these reasons no specific allocations of sites or total numbers are made.

67. Bearing in mind that my recommendations may or may not be accepted, I add here a specific point about sub-paragraph (b) of Policy H1, where there is a reference to "paddocks and other undeveloped land in the curtilage of buildings….". For the purposes of planning law, the term "curtilage" has a quite narrow, specific meaning derived from court judgments. Most paddocks will not be within the curtilage of a building; and most curtilages will be "developed" in the sense that the land will be used for the same purpose as the building.21 Therefore if this part of the policy were to remain in the plan either as supporting text or in a policy, it could cause legal difficulties and problems of interpretation.

68. I recommend that Policies H1 and H2 be omitted from the plan, and that appropriate amendments be made to the supporting text, to delete references to these policies and explain that policy for the amount and location of new housing development is being left to the emerging Local Plan.

Site Specific Objections

69. I now turn to the site-specific objections by Barwood Development Securities Ltd, Mr Colin Harris and New College Oxford. All these objectors put forward arguments that their land should be allocated for housing development (or housing combined with other development) in the Neighbourhood Plan. The site locations are: land north of Faringdon Road; land known as "The Reddies" (or Upper Ready Field) south of the A417; and land north of the Wern.

70. Various points are quoted in support of each site, such as the provision of a community swimming pool, leisure facilities and car parking at The Reddies (where development of about 20 dwellings is proposed), or the opportunity to improve facilities at the cricket ground if the land north of Faringdon Road were to be developed (here it is suggested that about 50 dwellings could be

21 "Development" as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 includes making a material change of use of land, so land can be "developed" without having a building on it.


15

accommodated), or flood alleviation and other benefits if land north of The Wern were to be developed.

71. These objectors have also raised a number of general points, including the argument by Barwood Development Securities that the small sites allocated for housing in the plan (as they understood it) would not enable developers to provide necessary infrastructure. New College Oxford criticise among other things the assessment of housing land availability carried out by the District Council and say that the Neighbourhood Plan should contain "explicit support for housing growth". However, the general matters raised by these objectors are essentially part of their cases for allocating their sites for development.

72. The disputes about whether these sites should be allocated for housing (or any other development), as well as the more general arguments just mentioned, seem to be aimed as much at the ongoing consultation and examination process for the emerging Local Plan as at the Neighbourhood Plan. As discussed above, the latter has specifically set out the aim of being subservient to the former - saying, in effect: "we are not designating any sites for housing development because we wish to leave that to the new Local Plan once it is finalised". Omitting Policies H1 and H2 from the plan will confirm that stance, and will leave consideration of these sites to the emerging Local Plan.

73. In all these circumstances, and bearing in mind that District-wide issues will be a factor in deciding the amount and location of future housing development in Lechlade, I do not consider it appropriate to make assessments of, or recommendations on, the merits or demerits of the sites promoted by objectors, because the omission of Policies Hi and H2 and confirmation that the plan does not contain a site allocation policy would make any such assessments or recommendations redundant. This finding accepts the objectors' argument that the Neighbourhood Plan should not pre-empt the examination of the Local Plan. Equally, it accords with the Neighbourhood Plan's aim not to pre-empt or act as a proxy for the emerging Local Plan with regard to site allocations. Whether or not these sites are allocated for residential development in the emerging Local plan will be a matter for the forthcoming local plan examination.22

Objective 2

74. I agree with the District Council's contentions about this objective, and with Mr Harris's argument that flood risk can be assessed without the need for a full application. The Neighbourhood Plan's concern about the need to assess flood risk when considering development proposals is entirely understandable; but having stated that the plan does not need to have a policy because flood impact is adequately addressed in the Local Plan, the text on page 25 then includes what is tantamount to a policy, stating that details of drainage will be required to be submitted from the outset - apparently throughout the plan area - and that only full applications (ie not outline applications) will be sufficient in "sensitive areas" (however they may be defined). I consider that decisions about the need for drainage details and the timing of submission of such details are appropriately a matter for Local Plan policy and normal development control criteria, as applied by the District Council and the Environment Agency.

75. I recommend that either Objective 2 be omitted, or alternatively if the objective itself is included, the second and third sentences of the supporting text immediately after it should be deleted.

22 Meanwhile any applications for planning permission made before the emerging Local Plan becomes statutory will need to be judged on their merits in the normal way, having regard to the stages reached by the various components of the development plan for this area.


16

Policies H3 and H4

76. There are several objections to the way these policies deal with "affordable housing". As the District Council say, a requirement for 30% of new housing development to be "affordable" may well be unrealistic and unachievable on some sites. The distinction between "affordable housing" and "low cost market housing" is also not entirely clear in this policy. Other objectors point out that small sites do not provide scope or incentive for developers to build affordable housing, and that the definition of a "threshold" for requiring affordable housing is currently subject to changing national policy and a legal challenge. Gladman Developments suggest that as affordable housing is dealt with by the Local Plan, Policy H3 merely repeats what is in that plan and should be omitted.

77. On a minor point, Policy H3 refers to "the Local Plan for Cotswold District". I comment elsewhere about problems naming various local plans, because of the number of different plans in existence, some draft and some statutory. Both the statutory Local Plan and the emerging local plan are apparently entitled "Cotswold District Local Plan" with titles only distinguished from each other by their appended dates (2001-2011 or 2011-2031).

78. At the time of writing, new legislation under the Housing and Planning Bill is imminent and related national policy on affordable housing seems likely to change. There may be a requirement for so-called "starter homes" to be provided on development sites above a certain size, though I do not know whether such homes would be categorised as open market housing. Either way, it seems probable that if the Neighbourhood Plan tried to include the specific figure of 30%, the plan would become superseded very quickly.

79. On balance, since a policy in line with whatever is at any one time the current statutory Local Plan would not add anything useful to the Neighbourhood Plan, I consider that these policies should be omitted, as policies. However, parts of them could usefully be included in the text on this topic. I have in mind here, for example, a general statement that applications for planning permission for residential development should show how they satisfy current local plan policy for affordable housing, combined with a reference to the desirability of integrating affordable housing within open market housing.

80. I recommend that Policies H3 and H4 be omitted, and that suitable adjustments be made to the plan's text taking account of the comments above.

Policy H5

81. This policy is aimed at restricting occupation of affordable housing to "local" people. The District Council have several objections to this policy (despite being headed "Support with Modifications"), as do other objectors. Barwood Development Securities oppose the requirement for people to have lived in Lechlade for 10 years.

82. I judge that there are some unsatisfactory aspects to the policy as currently drafted. An obvious criticism is the criterion in sub-paragraph (b) that the Town Council should be able to decide whether a potential occupier can demonstrate a local connection. Such a provision would give the Town Council powers of a planning authority and I am not aware of any arrangement whereby the District Council has agreed to pass such powers to the Town Council. The uncertainty of this type of vetting arrangement being carried out by the Town Council could also cause problems for potential occupiers; for example the availability of mortgage finance could be affected.


17

83. Enforcement of a policy trying to impose "local connection" requirements would be difficult, as pointed out by the District Council, because of the way the District Council's housing department works with registered providers such as housing associations. As for the essential medical need criterion in sub-paragraph (c), the state of a person's health can change and this attempted policy provision could be undermined if after gaining planning permission on the basis of such a need, an occupier's health improved. Framing a valid, enforceable planning condition would be very difficult. Similarly, a need to live close to a place of work (criterion (d)) could disappear following someone changing their job, but it would probably be unreasonable to require such a person, and perhaps a family, to lose their home as a result.

84. In all these circumstances I think the most suitable approach would be to frame this policy in a more general way, based partly on some of Policy 21 in the adopted Local Plan, leaving detailed means of control to be applied through the wording of planning conditions or legal obligations23 which could vary depending on the circumstances of individual sites and on changes over time in national or District-wide policies. The wording in my recommendation is far from ideal and it may well be possible to improve it, but my aim is to provide general policy guidance leaving detailed implementation for decision-makers dealing with specific proposals.

85. I recommend that Policy H5 be amended to read:

"Where planning permission is granted for residential development partly or wholly on the grounds that affordable housing would be provided, the development will be subject to controls by means of conditions or legal obligations to ensure that initial and all subsequent occupation is restricted to persons in need of affordable housing. The controls will be designed to give priority to people with local connections."

86. On a point of detail in Policy H5, the District Council say that the "housing needs register" should be correctly named as the "Local Housing Register". I recommend that if this reference is retained in the policy, the text be amended in line with this objection.

87. Before leaving the subject of affordable housing, there is a more general issue. The term "affordable housing" has become almost a jargon expression which can mean different things to different people. I think the Neighbourhood Plan should try to set out a definition which could as far as possible cover starter homes and discount sales as well as shared ownership and housing association schemes. I suggest that a definition along the lines used in the adopted Local Plan could be appropriate, although I make this recommendation tentatively since those having knowledge of local arrangements may well be able to provide a definition more suited to the local situation. The wording below is based partly on the definition in Policy 21 of the adopted Local Plan.

88. I recommend that consideration be given to including a definition of "affordable housing" in the supporting text of the plan, stating that for the purposes of neighbourhood plan policies, the term affordable housing refers to dwellings for sale or to let at a price level below the current market rate, and related to the ability to pay of those identified by the planning authority or a registered provider as being in need of housing.

23 These would normally be entered into under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and can be a bilateral agreement involving the planning authority or a unilateral undertaking by a developer or landowner.


18

Policy H6

89. My only comment on this policy is that the phrase "will be considered favourably" is rather vague and could be made more precise by substituting "will be supported".

90. I recommend that the policy be amended by substituting "will be supported" for the words "will be considered favourably".

Policy H7

91. The comment made above also applies to this policy. Some re-wording is also required to avoid the use of "and/or" for the reasons I have explained in the appendix.24 To avoid the rather complicated syntax resulting from the "on its own or cumulatively" provision, I think this point could be better placed in the supporting text.

92. I recommend that the text of this policy after the words "built-up area" should be amended to read: "will be supported provided the development would not cause the loss of essential facilities or services, or harm the vitality and viability of the town centre".

93. I also recommend that the supporting text of the policy should include an explanation along the lines: "For the purposes of Policy H7, the effect of a development proposal on the vitality and viability of the town centre should be considered both on its own and cumulatively."

Policy H8

94. It would be unreasonable to expect all development to "make a significant contribution" to the overall character of Lechlade-on-Thames. Some quite small-scale development schemes may not fall within "permitted development" allowances25 and so would require specific planning permission. An extension to a modern house, for example, might be well designed and would do no harm to the appearance or character of its surroundings, but could not reasonably be expected to contribute to the town's overall character. The same may well apply to other types of development such as a change of use of a building or land. It would also appear inconsistent to apply the "design principles" of this policy only to the town of Lechlade-on-Thames without applying them to the rest of the neighbourhood area.

95. Gladman Developments say that the policy is unsupported by any evidence identifying what the community defines as important views, and that the policy needs to be supported by a robust landscape character assessment. In my judgment there is enough material in the plan and supporting documents to justify the references in the policy to matters such as views into and out of the town, and the character of the town. Therefore I do not consider it necessary to amend the policy in response to this objection.

96. Policy H8 sets out criteria in sub-paragraphs using bullet points - unlike other policies which use letters (a), (b), (c), etc. For consistency, and to make it easier to refer to policy provisions in documents such as reports on planning applications, it would be preferable to avoid bullet points.

24 See "General Editing Points" in the appendix. 25 This is a reference to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, as currently amended.


19

97. I recommend that the second bullet point (or sub-paragraph (b) if letters are substituted for bullet points) be amended to read: "Would not adversely affect the character of the town".

Policy H9 and Related Text

98. Similar considerations arise on this policy. The District Council point out that larger-scale developments already have to provide a design and access statement, and it appears unreasonable to extend this requirement to all proposals for residential development within the built-up area or on allocated sites in the town. It also seems illogical to exclude any proposals on land outside the existing built-up area or allocated sites in the town. I have reservations about how the term "suburban in nature" (criterion (k)) could be interpreted and applied, and the about the meaning of "major development" as applied to criteria ((l), (m) and (n)). As is contended by one objector, it may not be sensible to fix all details at the initial planning application stage of major developments. The requirement for a full planning application for all such developments could also conflict with national policy statements about reducing the burden on developers.

99. Some detailed re-wording is also necessary in response to comments by the District Council. In sub-paragraph (a) the "Cotswold Design Guide" should be the Cotswold Design Code", and for completeness it would be helpful to add a reference to "any replacement for this code". The term "estate style" could be misunderstood and I think would be better omitted, as the point being made here would be adequately covered by the references to respecting local character and reinforcing local distinctiveness. The standards set in "Secure by Design" are regarded by the District Council as out of date, and I agree with the District Council's suggestion that a more general reference to the need to minimise the likelihood and fear of crime would be preferable.

100. I consider that most of the points in this policy (less those which I have just criticised) would be better set out as part of supporting text to Policy H8 on design principles. If this recommendation is accepted, the text which follows Policy H9 will need to be appropriately modified, for example so that it would not refer to "this policy".

101. The text which follows Policy H9 contains a sentence stating: "New development within or next to the Conservation Area or listed buildings must make sure it preserves and enhances the character of the area". I have two criticisms of this statement. First, it reads as if it were a policy requirement, though not presented as a policy. Second, it goes beyond current legal requirements. What has to be considered when assessing development proposals in conservation areas is the need to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.26 A requirement to preserve and enhance goes too far, and certainly should not be applied to development outside the conservation area.

102. I recommend that Policy H9 be omitted from the plan as a policy, and that most of the criteria be incorporated into supporting text, with appropriate amendments in line with the comments made above.

103. I recommend that the supporting text referring to development in or next to the conservation area should be amended so that it refers to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

26 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; also the House of Lords judgment in the case of South Lakeland DC v SSE [1992] 1 PLR 143.


20

Policy H11

104. This policy evidently conflicts with current Gloucestershire County Council guidance. That is not necessarily a reason for amending it (as appears to be assumed by the County Council in their objection). However, a requirement for "normally" at least two off-street parking spaces to be provided per dwelling is unduly onerous and is unrealistic for small dwellings such as one-bedroomed flats. Requiring new residential development to provide sufficient parking for "the future home owner" is also not relevant - it is occupiers (as well as visitors) who are more likely to generate a need for parking space.

105. I recommend that this policy be amended so that it reads: "Proposals for new residential development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that off-street parking provision is adequate to meet likely future needs".

Policy H12

106. The District Council rightly draw attention to the difficulty of distinguishing between what might be a home office, a bedroom, or any other room. However, the policy appears to have been included in the plan to reflect the high incidence of home working found locally in surveys, and I do not see any compelling reason not to include this policy of support.

Policy H13

107. The second sentence of this policy states: "Where new essential on and off site infrastructure is required this will be delivered in accordance with the adopted local Plan [sic] policies". This part of the policy appears unnecessary, since it defers to the currently adopted Local Plan and in any event it is difficult to see how the "delivery" of off-site infrastructure is within the powers of the Neighbourhood Plan.

108. I recommend that the second sentence of this policy be omitted.

109. As Gladman Developments have mentioned, development proposals can only be required to mitigate the impacts of the development being proposed, not to provide funding for unrelated items. However, I think this is sufficiently clear from the reference to "new essential infrastructure" in the policy.

110. Barwood Development Securities say that the text following Policy H13 does not accurately reflect the regulations governing how funds gained from Community Infrastructure Levy ("CIL") payments may be spent. The objector has a point - under current regulations, CIL receipts must be spent either on infrastructure, or on something "concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area".27 This may not be quite the same as stated in the Neighbourhood Plan ("projects or priorities identified in [the plan] but not otherwise funded from S106").

111. I recommend that the text following Policy H13 be amended to ensure that it accurately reflects current regulations.

Policy EXC1

112. I can see why this policy has been included in the plan, but there is justification for the concerns expressed by objectors, including the District Council and Gladman Developments. The policy could be interpreted as allowing development not complying with either the statutory or emerging Local Plan. The policy could also cause legal complications, because the law cannot be changed by a policy

27 Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2013.


21

statement. Under current legislation, applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless "material considerations" indicate otherwise. The policy seems to be trying to convert "material considerations" into "exceptional circumstances". The more restrictive control thereby implied would conflict with national policy as set out in the part of the NPPF dealing with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For these reasons I conclude that this policy should be omitted.

113. If the recommendation below is accepted, the supporting text will need to be amended. It could be changed to include a brief explanation of the possibility that material considerations could outweigh conflict with development plan policies, particularly where the degree of harm to the aim of a policy would be limited.

114. I recommend that Policy EXC1 be omitted.

Policy E1

115. The District Council make several criticisms of this policy, including its restrictive effect and lack of definition of terms such as "town centre", "small scale" and "craft". If Policy H1 is omitted the reference to that policy and its definition of "built-up area" would also need to be re-considered.

116. I agree with the District Council that some of this policy appears too restrictive: for example, criterion (e) seems to be more restrictive than the adopted local plan, although I also doubt the logic of the attempt to distinguish between "B1 use" and "workshop, craft units or other employment use" - all of which might well be within Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order as currently amended.

117. It is difficult to devise definitions for terms such as "small scale" and "craft". On balance I think these terms are capable of reasonable interpretation and so can remain in the policy, although if suitable definitions can be found I suggest they could be incorporated into the supporting text. However, the expression "under used town centre buildings" is open to a range of interpretations and I think is too imprecise for a policy. It would be easy for a potential developer to arrange for a building to be "under-used" in order to comply with this requirement.

118. On what might seem a minor point but could cause problems of interpretation, the opening phrase in this policy refers to "Applications for new employment (B class) development". This implies that all employment development is "B class" (ie within Class B of the Use Classes Order), which is obviously not so. Moreover, Class B of the Use Classes Order includes several types of industry which are likely to generate noise, traffic and disturbance, and the context suggests to me that this might have been meant as a reference only to Class B1.

119. Having regard to the above points, I consider that some amendments should be made to this policy as set out below.

120. I recommend that Policy E1 be amended to read:

"Applications for new employment-related development for uses falling within Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended will be permitted provided that the following criteria are met:

(a) the development would involve small-scale expansion of existing premises, or the change of use of existing commercial premises; and


22

(b) the development would not harm the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Policy E2

121. This policy appears to require all proposals for what is termed in the policy "B class development" to be subject to a housing policy, as well as to the "Cotswold Design Guide" (actually the Cotswold Design Code). In my judgment several parts of the policy would not be workable. For example, it is difficult to see how the sort of commercial or industrial development which falls within Class B of the Use Classes Order could meet the requirements to "respect arrangements of front gardens, railings or hedges, and to "relate to established plot widths". The requirement that proposals for development must be accompanied by a design statement setting out all the details specified in this policy would be unduly onerous for many types of developments which only involve a change of use (not the construction of a new building). The need for commercial or industrial development schemes to demonstrate that sufficient "community infrastructure" exists or can be provided is imprecise.

122. The desire to control the possible adverse impact of commercial development is understandable, but in this respect I think sufficient control would be achieved by Policy E3, with its proviso about "adverse impact on the character of the town".

123. I recommend that Policy E2 be omitted from the plan.

Objective 4 and Related Text

124. Objective 4 is: "to encourage investment in the town". The text following this objective lists various types of "investment" (which I think really refers to various types of development) which will be actively encouraged. The District Council have queried the nature of this "encouragement" and have pointed out that planning permission has recently been granted for a hotel - one of the types of development mentioned in the plan - but it is outside the built-up area.

125. The proposal to implement a Local Development Order or Orders within the town centre, to permit certain changes of use to be carried out, would also seem to be more appropriately included as a "project", as suggested by the District Council, since this seems to be a specific scheme rather than a general objective. That said, I do not think the plan could properly state that such an Order or Orders "will be implemented". It may perhaps be "sought", but there could be no guarantee that an Order would be obtained and implemented.

126. I recommend that the text immediately following Objective 4 should read: "The following types of development" instead of "The following types of Investment".

127. I also recommend that the following be substituted for the text immediately after sub-paragraph (e):

"To facilitate a mix of uses a Local Development Order or Orders will be sought. The aim will be to provide permitted development rights for changes of use to the above uses within certain size limits."

Policy E3

128. My only comment on this policy is that for reasons I explain in the appendix, the expression "and/or" should be avoided in policy statements. In this instance, the word "or" would be sufficient - given the context, it would have an inclusive meaning anyway here.

129. I recommend that "or" be substituted for "and/or" in this policy.


23

Policy E4

130. Looking at criterion (b) in this policy, it is not clear to me why "narrow boats, fibre glass boats and some live-aboard boats" should give the marina "vitality", since the construction material of the boats affects their appearance, and vitality is more a function of use or activity than appearance. White-painted timber or any other material can anyway look similar to fibreglass. It is also surprising that fibreglass boats are specifically mentioned to be favoured, given references elsewhere in the plan to the area's historic character. Be that as it may, I doubt this criterion could be enforced, since it implies that planning permissions for moorings would be conditioned to restrict the type of boat construction (distinguishing between, say, fibreglass and timber). There also seems to be a distinction between narrow-boats and "live-aboard boats", which appears artificial, since some narrow-boats may be used as dwellings and others not. Therefore I consider that this criterion should be omitted.

131. Criterion (c) of this policy requires that development proposals should not hinder the expansion of the marina. This seems to imply an expectation that future enlargement of the marina into adjacent land is desirable. I am not sure that this is really the considered intention of the policy, especially as there is nothing in the supporting text about such expansion. Having seen the current state of the marina, I suggest that "improvement" (or a similar term) would be a more suitable aim than expansion, so I incorporate this into my recommendation.

132. The use of "and/or" (on which I have commented elsewhere) in the phrase "development of the marina and/or adjacent areas" in the first part of this policy adds more imprecision: this could be taken to encourage development not just of the marina itself but of adjacent areas.

133. The term "mixed use" in this policy is vague, especially taken together with some of the supporting text phrases such as "a range of uses" and "a flexible policy approach that acknowledges that other uses my be needed". So I can understand why one objector opposes this policy on the grounds that it could be interpreted as supporting residential development. If that is intended, it would be inconsistent with the fact that the plan as a whole is based on not allocating sites for residential development; and no evaluation of alternative sites for residential development is made in the plan.28

134. The amendments I am recommending are aimed at deleting references to different types of boat construction, mixed use, a range of uses, and adjacent areas, whilst retaining what appear to be the main points of the policy.

135. I recommend that Policy E4 be amended to read:

"Proposals for development or redevelopment of the marina will be supported provided that these would:

(a) complement its role and character as a marina, and not hinder the future improvement of the marina;

(b) provide links to the town and the adjoining public footpath network, including the Riverside pub and riverside park south of the river.

28 From my limited inspection it appears that the marina site is currently in mixed use, the mixture including a significant element of residential use as well as storage of items including boats. I do not know what the authorised or lawful use of this site is, as I do not know its full planning history.


24

Policies G1, G2 and G3

136. Policy G1 deals with: "Protection and maintenance of local green spaces". If an introductory phrase is kept in the policy29 it should be noted that planning policies and decisions on planning applications cannot normally control the maintenance of land or buildings except in fairly rare circumstances.30 What could be controlled is "retention", which I think is really what is intended here.

137. The District Council oppose the imprecision of the term "local community infrastructure", on the grounds that it could be taken to mean a facility such as a shop. A more precise term would be preferable, but I propose to leave this matter for those with local knowledge of the type of "infrastructure" envisaged.

138. On a more general point, national policy as set out in the NPPF31 is that local policy for managing the development of land designated as Local Green Space should be consistent with policy for green belts, under which inappropriate development should not be approved except in "very special circumstances". Consistency with the NPPF could be achieved by modifying Policy G1 so that it used those words; the supporting text could then describe what may be regarded for the purposes of the Neighbourhood Plan as "inappropriate development" (for example the construction of buildings, or any other development which would cause a loss of open space) and as "very special circumstances" (for example, the provision of needed and valued community benefits).

139. I recommend that if the introductory words are included in this policy or used as a heading, "and maintenance" should be omitted so that the phrase reads: "Protection of Local Green Spaces".

140. I recommend that Policy G1 be amended so that the text from the word "Proposals" reads: "Proposals for inappropriate development in Local Green Spaces will not be permitted except in very special circumstances."

141. I also recommend that guidance on what may constitute inappropriate development and very special circumstances be given in the supporting text to this policy, taking account of the type of development which the Neighbourhood Plan may wish to accept in these areas.

142. Policies G2 and G3 both apply to "open space, playing fields and sports grounds" - two criteria for development to be acceptable are stated in Policy G2 and more criteria are stated in Policy G3. Policy G2 is confusing: it refers to "the following areas [plural] and as identified at Appendix 8"; but then only one area (Lechlade cricket ground) is mentioned, and labelled number 1. It is difficult to discover which other areas are meant to be subject to this policy by searching the website-published version of the five documents which seem to make up Appendix 8, because parts of this appendix appear to relate to Local Green Space designations under Policy G1. In any case, it is unsatisfactory that people without internet access could not readily know which areas are subject to Policies G2 and G3. The location and extent of these areas is integral to the plan's policy and so should be shown in the plan itself, not just in supporting documents which are only available through a website.

29 See "Other General Editing Points" in the appendix. 30 An instance might be where a condition could require that fume extraction equipment must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. But because of the difficulty of providing sufficient detail to be enforceable, "maintenance" of a green space is too general a term. 31 NPPF, paragraph 78.


25

143. Policies G1 and G2 would be clearer if they were combined into a single policy, which should specify all the areas intended to be subject to the policy. Some editing and re-wording would be required if the policies were combined.

144. On reading these policies, I wonder why the cricket ground is not designated as Local Green Space, especially as some development would be acceptable under Policy G1. Indeed I think this part of the plan would be clearer if all these areas were designated as Local Green Space and subject to a single policy.32 However, there may be reasons for the approach adopted, so I leave this point as an observation for those involved to consider, and I limit my recommendation to clarifying Policies G1 and G2.

145. I recommend that Policies G2 and G3 be combined into one policy along the following lines (the wording here is not intended to be precise as local knowledge is required):

Lechlade Cricket Ground and [name other areas and refer precisely to the map or maps showing area boundaries] are designated as open space, playing fields or sports grounds. Planning permission for development that would result in the loss of any of these areas as open space, playing fields or sports grounds will not be permitted unless the following criteria are met:

(a) the development would result in substantial community benefits which would outweigh the loss of the open space or sports ground;

(b) the development would provide enhanced facilities for the use of the land for sport or recreation without reducing the quality or provision of pitches or training areas; or

(c) the development would enable any playing area lost as a result of the development to be replaced with a new area of comparable or greater benefit for sport.

Traffic Management Projects and Proposals

146. I have concerns about the traffic management projects and proposals. The ideas for introducing "shared space" streets, restricting traffic speed and flow, improving the appearance of the street scene and improving parking provision in the town centre are all admirable aims. They have evidently been supported by a high proportion of local people, and the response at a public meeting is reported in the plan to have been enthusiastic. Therefore I hesitate to make what might appear to be criticisms. However, I have to point out that the ideas are at this stage are just ideas. As far as I can tell, no traffic surveys have been carried out, no forecasts have been made of the pattern of movement or volumes of future traffic with or without the proposed schemes; and no study has been made of matters such as junction capacity and safety with different layouts.

147. Taking the example of the junction between Thames Street and High Street, part of the proposed traffic management project (or at least, one of the ideas put forward as illustrated on page 41 of the Neighbourhood Plan) would apparently involve converting the signal-controlled junction into a "shared space" junction with a mini-roundabout or roundel. In general, this type of junction uncontrolled by signals works best where the directional flow of traffic is fairly evenly split. During my inspection visit I carried out a short sample count of turning traffic at this junction, from which it appears that the directional split of traffic is far from

32 If that were to be done, the supporting text could perhaps incorporate much of the content of the bullet points in Policy G1, and sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of what is currently Policy G3, to describe potential "very special circumstances".


26

equal.33 Without full information about the volume and directional pattern of existing and forecast future traffic, including pedestrian movement, it is not possible to tell whether the proposed layout would be workable. It is possible that it could result in increased congestion in Thames Street or High Street, and the "platooning" effect of traffic signals, which can have benefits for pedestrians, would be lost.

148. My observations also suggested to me that any plan to install a shared-space layout here, which would involve vehicles stopping (or almost stopping) closer to the junction than they do at present, would depend on whether the swept path of some large vehicles could be accommodated satisfactorily, allowing for the restriction on such vehicles and for exclusions from it. From what I saw, I have doubts.

149. Taking another example, the angled "echelon" layout of parking spaces shown in one of the indicative illustrations in the plan has safety implications which would need careful analysis even with a "shared space" arrangement. The existing angled parking spaces along Burford Street are evidently popular with local people, but this layout appears to me to be a likely source of obstruction and increased accident risk, particularly where the location is near the bend in the main road next to the Market Place and close to the junction where St John's Street meets Burford Street.

150. The highway authority would have a major role in any decisions about future traffic management in and around Lechlade-on-Thames. The statement in the Neighbourhood Plan that "no major changes will be made without significant public consultation" implies that the power to implement traffic management schemes lies with the Neighbourhood Plan and the Town Council. The highway authority is mentioned in some of the project descriptions - for instance Project TC1 states: "We will work with GCC as highway authority to achieve traffic managed with a sustained and calmed flow…")34. But such statements do not explain exactly what work the Town Council propose to carry out, and it seems to me that the highway authority's role is not properly recognised in the part of the plan dealing with traffic management.

151. The comments I have made come from my own judgment, but they reflect the written submission by Mr Yeoman, who in essence contends that the traffic management projects would be impractical unless traffic is severely curtailed. He also has doubts about safety aspects. I share Mr Yeoman's concerns. The proposals appear attractive but further assessment clearly remains necessary.

152. In other representations, Dr Keegan maintains that there is no case for additional school parking in Faringdon Road and that as regards parking generally in Lechlade and the Market Place35, what is needed is proper enforcement of time limits rather than more parking spaces. That may well be so - I observed non-compliance with the time limit during my inspection - but in the absence of any real evidence (that is to say, from surveys, projections and analysis, not from assertion), I cannot make a finding on this matter. Dr Keegan's comments show

33 The sample survey showed that the predominant movements at this junction were from south to east and vice versa. Obviously, a short count during a weekday in winter cannot provide reliable information but the geography of the area suggests that this pattern of movement is likely to be fairly typical. 34 In this statement, I assume that "we" is intended to refer to the Town Council. 35 Dr Keegan actually refers in his statement to "the Market Square", but having checked local names, I think this must be a reference to Market Place.


27

the confusion which can be caused by the inclusion of projects in the neighbourhood plan document without making absolutely clear that these projects (additionally described as "proposals" in a heading) are not intended to be legally part of the Neighbourhood Plan.

153. Having regard to the above points, in my view it is particularly important that assuming the "traffic management proposals" are included in the Neighbourhood Plan, their status as initial ideas or hopes is made clear, together with the fact that many of the projects as described are not within the control of the Town Council or the scope of a neighbourhood plan. It is certainly inappropriate to introduce these projects with the words which appear on page 29: "The following projects will be undertaken"; and it is misleading to group them with policies under the title of "Neighbourhood Plan Policies and Projects".

154. The text on page 40 also needs editing as it does not sit comfortably here - for example, statements about who spoke to a meeting and about what a specific individual believes, might conceivably be appropriate in an appendix, but not in the main body of a document which is supposed to be setting out plans and policies to guide decisions on planning applications.

155. I recommend that the text of the plan be amended to take account of the comments above.

Other Aspects of the Plan Not Covered Elsewhere

Objections by Thames Water Utilities Ltd

156. Thames Water Utilities Ltd ("Thames Water") have objected to part of the text on page 15 of the plan. Thames Water apparently raised this objection at a previous consultation stage but say that no alteration has been made. The disputed sentence reads:

"Thames Water has advised that the water supply and sewage treatment capacity is limited and further development in the town will require significant investment to increase capacity".

157. The wording sought by Thames Water is:

"Thames Water has advised that based on anticipated growth in the neighbourhood plan area upgrades to Thames Water's existing water supply and sewage treatment facilities is likely".

158. This appears to be a dispute about phrasing, where both statements may be right. I do not see any reason why Thames Water's version should not be mostly accepted, with some minor changes, partly to correct Thames Water's English ("upgrades….is likely" - ouch!).

159. I recommend that the text quoted in paragraph 146 above be substituted by:

"Thames Water has advised that based on anticipated growth in the neighbourhood plan area, upgrades to Thames Water's existing water supply and sewage treatment facilities are likely to be needed".

Other Objections by Gladman Developments Ltd

160. I have already commented on several aspects of the representations by Gladman Developments, which contain around 25 objections to the Neighbourhood Plan, although they do not mention any legal or financial interest in land within the plan area. The general theme of the objections on which I have not specifically


28

commented is that the Neighbourhood Plan fails in numerous ways to comply with national policy and guidance as set out in the NPPF and NPPG, lacks clear robust and up-to-date evidence, needs a fundamental overhaul of its development strategy, and so contravenes the Basic Conditions. A particular objection is that the plan seeks to constrain the delivery of sustainable housing development, and will not provide housing of a scale to meet local or District-wide housing needs. Gladman also say that the plan seeks to impose a settlement boundary which prevents growth outside allocations which are insufficient to meet objectively assessed need.

161. By deleting Policies H1 and H2, the Neighbourhood Plan would leave the issue of housing need and site allocation (together with related aspects such as the definition of a settlement or built-up area boundary) to the examination of the emerging Local Plan, as discussed earlier in this report. It seems to me that this is essentially what this objector is seeking, and I agree with the argument that District-wide housing need should properly be assessed on a District-wide basis. Given the recommendation I have made to delete those policies, I do not consider that the objections by Gladman Developments justify preventing the plan as amended from going forward to a referendum.

Other Objections by the District Council, Mr Colin Harris and Natural England

162. In the following paragraphs I make comments and recommendations on some detailed points raised by objectors which are not considered elsewhere.

Page 14, Final Paragraph

163. I agree with the District Council that the use of the label "LEC1" for an employment site could be a source of confusion, since the adopted Local Plan refers to one of its policies as LEC1.

164. I recommend that a different reference label be used for this site.

Page 15, Tourism - "WaterPark"

165. The District Council say that this is an incorrect term. As far as I can tell from the information available to me (including a check I have made on the Water Park's website), the District Council are right.

166. I recommend that the "Waterpark" should be called either the Cotswold Water Park" or "Water Park", not "Waterpark".

Page 18 - Vision Statement

167. As is pointed out by Mr Harris, the third from last paragraph on page 18 of the plan appears to be an inaccurate and exaggerated statement about the purpose of designating Local Green Spaces. If this has been part of "the vision" for the plan, it is misguided and not in accordance with paragraph 77 of the NPPF. Nor is it consistent with the explanation on page 36 of the plan about the purpose of designating Local Green Spaces.

168. I recommend that this text be shortened to read: The designation of Local Green Spaces has protected them from unsuitable development.

Page 2236 - Cotswold Water Park Trust

169. A misunderstanding of a comment by the District Council at an earlier stage appears to have caused the Neighbourhood Plan to refer to the Cotswold Water

36 In the District Council's written representations, this is referenced as page 23.


29

Park as a body which leases Riverside Park. The Cotswold Water Park is apparently the name of an area of land, and it is the Cotswold Water Park Trust which leases the land.

170. I recommend that the words "the Cotswold Water Park and" be omitted from this text.

Objective Relating to SSSIs

171. Natural England complain about the omission of an objective to safeguard Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which was apparently in an earlier draft of the plan. It seems that the Neighbourhood Plan is happy to leave protection of SSSIs to District-wide policies, but as I do not know the full history of this matter I do not feel able to make a firm recommendation. I draw attention to it so that it can be noted and reviewed before the plan is finalised.

The Next Stage - the Referendum and its Area

172. I judge that subject to amendment after consideration of my recommendations, the plan would be in general accordance with the strategic policies of the development plan for this area. By omitting Policies H1 and H2 and making clear that site allocations are being left to the emerging Local Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan would not have the restrictive features perceived by some objectors, and I judge that taken as a whole, it would contribute sufficiently to achieving sustainable development to meet the Basic Condition on this point, especially taking into account that "sustainable development" includes economic aspects such as safeguarding the town's vitality. The plan would also have regard to national policies and would meet the other Basic Conditions.

173. This report contains some 35 recommendations, and a number of other points for suggested consideration. The recommendations are not binding, but will now need to be considered as part of the next stage. I anticipate that since there has been collaboration in the past, the Town Council may have a further input, although the responsibility for deciding whether to modify the plan will lie with Cotswold District Council as local planning authority. Regulations require that the decision and the reasons for it have to be published.

174. I recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan, as amended following my recommendations, be submitted to a referendum. I do not see any reason to alter the plan area for the purpose of holding a referendum.

175. If the plan goes forward to a referendum and receives a simple majority of the votes cast, it will then proceed to be "made" by the District Council, so that it can become part of the statutory development plan for the area, carrying the weight appropriate to such plans when planning decisions are taken.

G F Self Graham Self MA MSc DipIC FRTPI 4 February 2016


30

APPENDIX: SUGGESTED EDITING CORRECTIONS

The list below is not comprehensive, but records textual flaws which I noticed while reading the plan and is intended to be an aid to final editing. Most of these are minor, but cumulatively they detract from the plan and it would be desirable to eliminate such flaws as far as possible.

Page

4. The date stated for the independent examination (October-December 2015) is not correct.

5. "superceded" should be "superseded". 5. The date 2013 stated with reference to the plan duration should be 2031. 8. Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are listed in the Contents, but the sections on

"Exceptional Circumstances" and "Green Spaces" are not listed. These two sections do not fit sensibly within the housing and employment sections. The section divisions and numbering (which may change anyway as a result of other amendments) appear to need reviewing.

8. "achieva" should be "achieve a". 8. The word "Project" (singular) is used four times in the headings on this

contents page, but the section headings later in the document are different (they refer to "Projects" (plural)).

8. In the heading to "Project 2.2.4" the word "community" should be inserted

so that the heading matches that on page 42. 10. The reference "see map on page 11" relating to environmental constraints

including SSSIs, nature reserves and scheduled ancient monuments appears to be an error and should refer to the map on page 16. (This is mentioned by Gloucestershire County Council.)

14. "café's" should be "cafés" (ie without the apostrophe). 15. "Literally" should be omitted. ("Put Lechlade on the map" is obviously a

figurative expression - Lechlade is already marked on maps!) 15. In "The emerging Local Plan (plan 2011-2031)", the word "plan" appears to

be inadvertently repeated. 20. The two words "street scape" should be one word (or possibly hyphenated,

or substituted by a different term such as street scene). 22. The green-coloured box listing tourism objectives does not have a table

attached showing links with policies, unlike other lists of objectives. 22. The statement (in green lettering) referring to "proposals identified on the

maps on page 37" appears incorrect as there is only one map on page 37. 28. In Policy H8, there are references to "the Town" and "the town". 28. In Policy H9, there are grammatical errors caused by the presence of a

plural subject and singular verbs ("Proposals….will be required


31

to…Demonstrates…Conforms…Comprises"). However, this text may be re-cast anyway if the recommendation on this policy is implemented.

29. In the text in the left hand column above Objective 6, referring to "where

land is allocated as suitable for development the Council will require…." etc, it is not clear which council is being mentioned, although this must presumably be the District Council as local planning authority.

29. In the text following Objective 7, I suggest the statement that: "The

importance….is an important issue" should be re-phrased as: "Off-road parking is an important issue…."

30. The reference to off-site infrastructure "listed on 43/44" appears to be

incorrect, assuming this is intended to refer to pages 43-44 of the plan. Page 44 contains photographs, with no lists.

31. In Policy H13, "adopted local Plan policies" should either be "adopted local

plan policies" or "adopted Local Plan policies". 31. The reference to the adoption of the CIL "perhaps in 2015" appears to have

become out of date. 33. In Policy E1, "developmnet" should be "development". 33. In Policy E1, "sclae" should be "scale. 34. "Investment" should be "investment". (With a lower case "i" in the policy,

there is no reason for a capital "I" in the supporting text.) 36. There appears to be some inconsistency of naming between the main plan

document and the appendices. Allcourt Meadow, also known as Tom Warner's Field, seems to be "Little London" in one of the maps in Appendix 8.

36. In Policy G1, some text appears to have been inadvertently repeated. The

words "Proposals for built development on these Local Green" should be deleted.

40. "approx." should be "approximately". 40. The bracketed reference to Appendix 2 should apparently be a reference to

Section 3. 46 "Statement of Basic Conditions (Compliance Statement)" should be

"Statement of Conformity" (assuming this is intended to refer to the Statement of Conformity).

46. "Housing Needs Analysis March 2014 by GRCC" should be "Town Housing

Needs Survey Report March 2014". 46 "Appendicies" should be "Appendices". 46. "AECOM Strategic Environmental Appraisal Screening" should be "Strategic

Environmental Assessment Screening Statement".


32

Other General Editing Points 1. Planning policies which set out criteria, of which there are a number in this plan,

should always avoid using the term "and/or", because it causes imprecision and room for alternative interpretations. Where a series of criteria are listed with "and" between them, or between the penultimate and last criteria with punctuation such that the conjunction applies to all the criteria, all the criteria have to be satisfied. Where the word "or" is used, only one criterion has to be satisfied. The use of "and/or" is neither exclusive nor inclusive, or possibly both, and is therefore unsatisfactory.37

2. I leave for those finalising the plan to decide whether policies should be re-numbered to allow for any policies deleted. The alternative would be to insert a note in the plan explaining that policy numbering is not consecutive where policies have been deleted between draft and final versions of the plan.

3. Some policies in the submission version of the plan start with a group of words (not a sentence) which appear to be intended as a kind of heading (eg Policies H7 and H10); other policies do not, but they have headings alongside the policy number (eg "Policy H9 Local Character"); yet other policies do not have either headings or a group of heading-like words at the start (eg Policies H12 and H13). If policies are to have headings (which I think is optional as headings are not necessary), it would be preferable to have a consistent format across all the policies.

4. The maps on pages 38 and 41 of the plan are difficult to interpret because of blurred lettering. Either the map scales or the print quality needs to be reviewed. This appears to affect the electronic online version as well as the printed paper version of the plan. (I realise these maps are reproduced from other documents, where the lettering can be read.)

37 To make things more complicated, whether the words "and" and "or" are inclusive or exclusive may depend on their context. For example, off-licence premises may display a notice that the premises are "Licensed to sell wines and spirits" - but customers cannot be required to buy both wines and spirits. Such points may seem esoteric, but if not carefully considered can cause problems when attempting to apply criteria-based planning policies to development proposals.