north east lincolnshire pre-submission draft local plan ......north east lincolnshire pre-submission...

North East LincolnshirePre-Submission Draft Local Plan (2016) Examination

Matter 3: Settlement Hierarchy and General Policies

Hearing Statement

March 2017Pl

anni

ng fo

r gro

wth

NorthEastLincolnshireCouncilNorth East Lincolnshire Council

4Issue 3.11

4A Settlement Hierarchy6B: Specific policies6Policy 1, Presumption in favour of sustainable development7Policy 2, Development boundaries (and SPM43-52)13Policy 3, Infrastructure (and SPM55) (viability)

North East Lincolnshire Council

2017 - Matter 3 - Hearing Statement

Issue 3.1

3North East Lincolnshire Council


Issue 3.1:Whether the settlement hierarchy is effective and whether thegeneral policies are clear, justified and consistent with national policy?

A Settlement Hierarchy

Question 3.1

What is the basis for the proposed Settlement Hierarchy set out in Table 10.1? Is itconsistent with the Spatial Zones? Is it based on robust, up-to-date and reliableevidence? Is each settlement placed within the most appropriate tier? Will it lead tothe sustainable spatial distribution of new development?

1.1 The Settlement Hierarchy forms an integral part of the Plan's overarching spatialstrategy. Whilst it closely reflects the results of the Council's Settlement AccessibilityAssessment (2013)(1), it has also been informed by understanding of the spatial rolesand relationships that currently exist across the Borough (as illustrated in paragraphs5.1 to 5.7 of the Plan and expressed in terms of Spatial Zones in Figure 5.1) anddetailed examination of the spatial options to accommodate the Borough's futuregrowth, which has taken in to account the range of factors that have the potential torestrict the scale of growth in a settlement and the relevant Sustainability Appraisal(CD-04) findings. This work began at the Issues and Options stage of the Plan'sdevelopment and the preferred approach to the hierarchy - as presented in theConsultation Draft Local Plan (2015) - remained largely unchanged in later iterationsof the plan.

1.2 Paragraph 10.4 of the Plan recognises the role of the Settlement Profiles in informingthe settlement hierarchy. The settlement profiles simply draw together a number ofstatistics (largely from ONS 2011 Census datasets) relating to demographics,employment and education, housing, transport and accessibility. The documentpresents no analysis of the data.

1.3 The Settlement Accessibility Assessment provides an objective and methodologicallysound basis for understanding residents' accessibility to a range of services andfacilities. Whilst it has not been formally updated since publication in 2013, the Councilhas is not aware of any significant change in circumstances that would substantiallyalter the results or the conclusions drawn from them. The assessment is, therefore,considered to be robust and up to date.

1 Available on the Council's website at:http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/planning-and-development/planning-policy/the-local-plan/the-new-local-plan/consultation-draft-local-plan/.

North East Lincolnshire Council4


http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/planning-and-development/planning-policy/the-local-plan/the-new-local-plan/consultation-draft-local-plan/

1.4 Paragraphs 1.6 to 1.25 of the Settlement Accessibility Assessment outline the keyissues that are believed to influence the growth potential of the Borough's settlementsand have been considered alongside the results of the study itself. Paragraphs 5.32to 5.36 of the Sustainability Appraisal (CD-04) also provide a detailed account ofthese issues, but with particular emphasis on setting out the balance ofconsiderations and the competing / conflicting nature of some issues that haveinfluenced the spatial strategy and the Council's chosen approach. In essence, theapproach is rooted in a desire to deliver a sustainable spatial distribution of newdevelopment. The Settlement Hierarchy supports this by establishing the frameworkfor growth to be directed to those areas with the right level of services andinfrastructure in place.

Question 3.2

What is the justification for the distribution proposed in Table 10.2? How has theproportion of development between the various tiers of the hierarchy been arrived at?Is there any correlation between the distribution of employment land and the distributionof housing? Is the proportion for Immingham consistent with its expected role in thelocal economy?

1.5 The proportion of development attributed to each settlement tier reflects the positionin the hierarchy, the various strategic and physical constraints to development, knownmarket conditions (including sale and completion rates) and the availability of land.The figures in Table 10.2 are intended to be indicative.

1.6 The focus is upon the main urban centre recognising the availability of services andamenities. The distribution recognises that the land between the ports of Imminghamand Grimsby will continue to be the focus for employment development and promoteshousing development with good accessibility to these employment opportunities -including strategic housing which is orientated to strategic employment sites.

1.7 The proportion of new homes directed to Immingham reflects its current proportionof the Borough's population. Indeed, the Council considers it important to recognisethe strong market forces that exist and the need to deliver a choice of sites acrossthe Borough to reflect different aspects of the housing market.



B: Specific policies

As a general point, application of specific paragraphs or criteria of individual policieswould be greatly helped if paragraphs and bullet points were numbered. In the followingquestions, ‘P’ refers to a specific paragraph and ‘bp’ to a bullet point.

Policy 1, Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Question 3.3

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that there is no need to reiterate policiesthat are already set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. (Paragraph: 010Reference ID: 12-010-20140306). On that basis, is there sufficient justification to includePolicy 1?

1.8 Shortly after the publication of the NPPF, Government issued a statement which, ineffect, made it compulsory for a local plan to include such a policy. Whilst the Councilis not aware that such advice has changed, it is also aware that such advice doesnot appear readily available on the .gov website. That said, over the years, there aremany local plan Inspector Reports which have required, via a Main Modification, theinclusion of the Policy (or very similar policy) if one was not already included. Assuch, the Council followed such national precedent. The Council finds no harm inPolicy 1, but equally it considers no particular need for it, and would have no objectionto its removal if it is in the interest of creating a more streamlined, and therefore moreeffective, Plan.



Policy 2, Development boundaries (and SPM43-52)

Question 3.4

P1: This policy fulfils the twin purposes of defining settlement boundaries as well assetting out generic considerations. Is this sufficiently clear from the way the policy isworded? Should the first paragraph make clear that the policy defines the settlementboundaries and state that the boundaries are defined on the Policies Map?

1.9 It is agreed that the clarity of P1 could be improved and the following revision istherefore suggested:

Revision 1

Development area boundaries are defined on the Policies Map. Developmentproposals locatedwithin the defined development boundaries will be permitted subjectto its suitability and sustainability considerations in relation having regard to:

Question 3.5

Has a consistent approach been taken to defining the settlement boundaries? Is theresufficient evidence to justify each settlement boundary? (particular reference shouldbe made to those settlements where the boundary has been disputed, including EastRavendale, New Waltham)

1.10 Suggested revisions in CD-19 relating to table 11.1 (SPM45 to SPM51 inclusive)seek to provide greater clarity as to the approach taken to defining settlementboundaries. The revisions relating to table 11.1 are presented below:



Revision 2

Key aspects considered in defining development boundaries

Ensuring that sufficient sites are available to accommodatefuture requirements by incorporating sites that:

The need for newdevelopment

contribute to the supply of housing (allocated sites);and,contribute to the supply of employment land.

Boundaries are not drawn so tightly to exclude all newdevelopment: they are influenced by the physical featuresthat define the settlement edge and will provide someopportunities for small scale development above andbeyond allocated sites.

Considering the particular landscape and surroundingcountryside features in the vicinity of the settlement edge:

The setting of thesettlement

recreation and amenity open space (including schoolplaying fields), which is physically surrounded bythe settlement or adjoining the settlement on threesides, is included within the boundary.recreation or amenity open space that extends intothe countryside or primarily relates to thecountryside, is excluded from the boundary.

Considering the impact of further development on the existingdevelopment pattern.

The existing form,character and patternof development

Ensuring boundaries are not contiguous if the form ofthe settlement does not reflect this. If the settlement ischaracterised by small groups this is reflected in theboundaries.

The defined boundaries are not drawn so as to “roundoff” or “straighten” settlement edges as this would becontrary to an approach that seeks to safeguard localcharacter and distinctiveness, as it is often the irregularityof settlement edges that adds to a settlement’sattractiveness.



Seeking to prevent the physical amalgamation of settlementsto retain individual identity and character by including:

Preventingcoalescence ofsettlements the gardens (curtilage) of properties, unless

functionally separate from the dwelling, or, wherethe scale of the site is such that it could, throughfuture development, lead to ribbon development orcoalescence with a nearby settlement

Recognising that natural or manmade features such as rivers,woodlands, or roads and railways can form logical definingboundaries. However, areas of caravan, chalet and othertemporary accommodation are excluded from the definedboundary reflecting their temporary status.

The presence ofphysical boundaries

Recognising the sensitivity of particular landscape, noting inparticular the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding NaturalBeauty designation.

Safeguarding thecharacter of opencountryside

Ensuring that development does not creep along roadfrontages in to open areas, or result in scattered developmentunrelated to existing development form:

Avoiding ribbon orscattereddevelopment

freestanding buildings, individual and small groupsof dwellings, including farm buildings which aredetached or peripheral to the main built-up area ofthe settlement are excluded from boundaries(reflecting NPPF paragraph 55)

Ensuring that sites of heritage or biodiversity value areidentified and not put at risk

Retaining sites ofheritage orbiodiversity value

Recognising that development opportunities may be limitedor restricted in specific areas.

The presence of HSEconsultation zones

Road surface noise, particularly from the A180 exceedsacceptable noise levels to allow enjoyment of garden inexternal areas that lie within the 68dB (A) L10 contourexceed 50dB-55dB

Traffic noise

Referring specifically to the Settlement AccessibilityAssessment (2013)

Accessibility toservices and facilities

Table 11.1 Key aspects considered in defining development boundaries



1.11 The approach has been consistently applied across all settlements in the Borough.Where allocated sites have been identified, these are shown as being within thedevelopment boundaries. Indeed, (CD-19, SPM336) recognises that the boundaryrelating to an allocated site at New Waltham required slight adjustment to reflect thefact the site layout has yet to be approved.

1.12 Other land included within boundaries relates to windfall development that has comeforward since the previous PoliciesMap was prepared, and is considered to conform tothe principles identified in Table 11.1, such asWOL08 at East Ravendale. As a resultof the Council's review process, land is also proposed to be excluded from the EastRavendale boundary (WOL07). At this part of the village, an established hedgerowand mature tree belt enclose gardens and provide a clear demarcation of thesettlement edge. It is therefore proposed at Figure B.5 that the boundary is amendedto align with these features.

1.13 Land at Barnoldby le Beck (WOL02), Hatcliffe (WOL09), Healing (WOL10 andWOL17), Stallingborough (IMM04, IMM05 and IMM06) is also identified for exclusionas a result of the Council's assessment against the considerations listed in Table11.1, which has been applied consistently to all settlements in the Borough.

Question 3.6

The considerations listed in bp 1-11 lack structure, being an assortment of generic andsite-specific matters. How many of matters identified in bp 1-11 are actually coveredin more detail in other policies? Should the focus of this part of the policy be on theimpact on the settlement and its boundary, rather than seeking to cover site-specificissues? If so, what generic criteria would apply to whether a proposal might beacceptable in principle? Alternatively, if the Council wishes to retain its current approach,this part of the policy would be more effective if bp1-11 were reviewed to improve clarity(eg bp1: should this be the size, scale, and density of the proposed development?);and to eliminate repetition (bp2/bp5) and unnecessary references to other policies(bp11).

1.14 Policy 2 takes forward the policy principles established by saved policies GEN 1 andGEN 2 of the North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003. These principles have beensuccessfully implemented over the years since the Plan's adoption and it is anapproach that the Council is keen to retain. It is, however, accepted that revision tobp1-11 would improve clarity. The following revision is, therefore, suggested inaddition to the suggestion at 3.4:

Development area boundaries are defined on the PoliciesMap. Development proposalslocatedwithin the defined development boundaries will be permitted subject to its suitabilityand sustainability considerations in relation having regard to:



the size, scale, and density of the proposed development buildings, and theirimpact on the character and appearance of the area;the relationship to existing uses;access and traffic generation;provision of services;impact upon neighbouring land uses by reason of noise, air quality, disturbanceor visual intrusion;advice from the Health and Safety Executive;flood risk;the quality of agricultural land;measures to address any contamination of the site; andimpact on areas of heritage, landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity value,including open land that contributes to settlement character.; and,the requirements of other appropriate policies in the Plan.

Question 3.7

P2: Does the phrase ‘Where possible and where appropriate’ detract from theeffectiveness of the policy? Should all development contribute to green infrastructureetc or is this requirement specific to development adjacent to defined boundaries?

1.15 Whilst it is accepted that contributions to green infrastructure apply - generally - toall development, it is considered that development adjacent to defined boundariesis likely to have good prospect of making a contribution by virtue of its location.However, this may be an unrealistic expectation in some instances. The Councilsuggests the following revision to P2:

1.16 Development proposals located adjacent to defined boundaries will be permittedwhere schemes respond to:

the nature and form of the settlement edge;the relationship between countryside and the settlement built form; andopportunities to contribute to the network of green infrastructure.



Question 3.8

P3 and bps 12-19: taken as a whole, is this part of the policy positively worded and isit consistent with NPPF paragraph 28? How does it relate to policy 9?

1.17 As explained above, Policy 2 seeks to continue with the policy approach establishedin the Council's Local Plan 2003 and p3 of the Policy reflects Policy GEN2 of thatPlan. The policy has been considered against p28 NPPF and it is the Council's viewthat it is consistent.

1.18 Policy 9 is focused on proposals related to the rural economy and it is expected thatelements of both policies will apply to proposals in certain instances. Policy 9 setsout additional provisions that are considered necessary for certain uses identified inP3.

Question 3.9

P4: what is the primary intention of this section of the policy? Is it effective to apply thesame criteria to proposals which are within the defined boundaries as to those whichare beyond them, or would some considerations carry greater weight than others inthese circumstances?

1.19 P4 of Policy 2 seeks to ensure that those development proposals in the countryside,that are acceptable in principle, are subject to suitability and sustainabilityassessments. The criteria set out in P1 of the policy are deliberately generic, andapply equally to proposals in the countryside (where the use is consistent with theprovisions of P3). Considerations carrying greater weight will vary from proposal toproposal and will be dependent on the location and form of development proposed- as is the case for proposals located within development boundaries.



Policy 3, Infrastructure (and SPM55) (viability)

Question 3.10

Is policy 3 based on robust, up-to-date evidence and is this made clear in the supportingtext? Does it properly consider the viability and funding of physical, social and greeninfrastructure requirements?

1.20 Yes. The requirement for infrastructure to be provided as a result of developmenthas been identified in CD-16. This is identified in Paragraphs 11.18 - 11.20, andconsiders the specific requirements of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations2010 (and subsequent amendments).

1.21 The Viability of the identified infrastructure requirements have been considered aspart of the overall viability of the Local Plan. The appropriate cost assumptions areidentified in CD-16, paragraphs 4.11 - 4.22. The appraisals contained within CD-16were undertaken on the assumption that the allowances identified were applied inall circumstances. The report concludes that the delivery of infrastructure via traditionals106 methods was likely to be challenging in parts of the North East Lincolnshirearea (para 7.8).

1.22 A number of proposed revisionsCD-19, SPM53 and SPM54 to Policy 3 are suggestedto improve clarity and effectiveness, as follows:

Revision CD-19, SPM53 and SPM54

Fourth para

Existing infrastructure will be safeguarded, except where there is clear evidence thatparticular infrastructure is no longer required to meet current or future needs, or canbe delivered through alternative provision.

Final Para

... . All such submissions, where required by the Council, will be subject to anindependent assessment prior to the determination of the application.



Question 3.11

Is the supporting evidence (CD17, CD20) sufficiently robust and based on reasonableassumptions? Does it adequately reflect the nature and circumstances of the proposedallocations?

1.23 Yes. Both CD-17 and CD-20 have considered the overall requirements of the areain a robust manner, and on reasonable assumptions.

1.24 CD-17 has specifically considered infrastructure requirements identified as a resultof consultation with appropriate infrastructure providers to ascertain the specificrequirements. The infrastructure requirements were assessed as a result of theidentified potential for growth and the specific locations where it is anticipated tooccur.

1.25 CD-20 sets out the assumptions utilised in Section 4. Much of the assessment hasconsidered local market evidence, together with standard appraisal assumptions.Consideration of specific infrastructure requirements has been based uponcontributions towards schemes generated from planning applications in the past fiveyears.

1.26 CD-20 had specific regard to the development typologies identified within the planas potentially proposed allocations, and the basis of the typologies proposed withinthat document reflect the sites identified. This approach was considered moreappropriate than a standard "development site" approach as it more accuratelyreflects local circumstances.

Question 3.12

Has the cost of the range of expected requirements for new development been takeninto account, including those arising through Local Plan policies (for example, in relationto affordable housing)? Does the evidence demonstrate that such costs would notthreaten the delivery of the development planned for?

1.27 The range of costs reasonably anticipated for development have been robustlyidentified in Section 4 and Section 6 CD-20. The assumptions include provision forall plan requirements to be addressed.

1.28 CD-20, Section 4, paragraphs 4.23. and 4.24 conclude that the use, as currently,of a blanket 20% affordable housing threshold is unsustainable in low and mediumvalue areas. This places a significant burden on development in high value areas



and is considered to be contrary to the Spatial Development strategy. A variableapproach to the provision of affordable housing specifically is therefore proposed,and identified in Policy 16.

1.29 However, the evidence indicates that provision of any infrastructure provision in lowto medium areas is unlikely to be supported in addition to maintaining viabledevelopment. As a result, Policy 3 makes provision for appropriate reductions inrequirements to be met where viability concerns are at issue.

Question 3.13

Policy 3, P5: is this part of the policy necessary or does it reiterate matters set outelsewhere? How much of SPM 55 reiterates national policy?

1.30 Policy 3 P5 is not stated elsewhere and is considered a necessary part of the Policyin order to provide clarity to developers on how contributions will be treated if theyeither are no longer required or not implemented.

1.31 RevisionCD-19, SPM 55 summarises national policy, but again provides appropriateguidance to developers on how and when contributions will be required, and thecircumstances where they can be required. It is therefore considered appropriate toinclude these statements.

Revision CD-19, SPM55

The Council recognises that contributions may be delivered through planningobligations or levy.

To ensure that planning obligations and the levy can operate in a complementaryway, the levy Regulations 122 and 123 place limits on the use of planningobligations in three respects:

they put the Government’s policy tests on the use of planning obligations(also found in paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework) ona statutory basis, for developments that are capable of being charged thelevy;they ensure the local use of the levy and planning obligations does notoverlap; and,they impose a limit on pooled contributions from planning obligationstowards infrastructure that may be funded by the levy.



Aplanning obligation can only be taken into account when determining a planningapplication for a development, or any part of a development, if the obligationmeets all of the following tests is:

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;directly related to the development; and,fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.




Document Availability

If you would like to receive this document in any other language or in another format such as large print, Braille or on audiotape, please contact:

Spatial Planning TeamTel: (01472) 323370 / 324272

Email: [email protected]

Spatial PlanningENGIE

Origin Two2 Origin Way

GrimsbyNorth East Lincolnshire

DN37 9TZ

Published/printed March 2017by North East Lincolnshire Council

In partnership with ENGIEOrigin Two

2 Origin wayGrimsby

DN37 9TZ

North East Lincolnshire Council and ENGIE, working in partnership to deliver a stronger economy and stronger communities

north east lincolnshire pre-submission draft local plan ......north east lincolnshire pre-submission...

Documents