Item 10 - DMP and LDS.pdf - Meetings, agendas, and minutes

Executive Agenda Item: 10 21st June 2018 DMP and LDS update

REPORT OF: HEAD OF PLACES AND PLANNING

AUTHOR: Andrew Benson

TELEPHONE: 01737 2767175

E-MAIL: [email protected]

TO: EXECUTIVE

DATE: 21 June 2018

EXECUTIVE MEMBER: COUNCILLOR K. FOREMAN

KEY DECISION REQUIRED:

YES

WARD (S) AFFECTED: ALL

SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) That the Head of Places and Planning be authorised, in consultation with the

Leader of the Council and Executive member for Planning Policy, to: • Agree and submit correspondence, supporting documents, statements

of common ground, technical evidence and topic papers as necessary to support the DMP through examination;

• Provide formal responses to questions from the appointed Planning Inspector throughout the duration of the examination and agree actions that are necessary to ensure the soundness and legal compliance of the DMP; and

• Recommend additional (minor) modifications to the Inspector as required throughout the duration of the examination.

where required to support the submitted Development Management Plan during the examination process under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

(ii) That the revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) (Annex1) be adopted and

take immediate effect.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

(i) To ensure that all necessary correspondence, evidence updates, statements and other actions, including any additional (minor) modifications to the submitted DMP that do not go to the heart of the Plan can be made in a timely fashion to ensure the smooth running of the examination process.

(ii) Reigate & Banstead BC is required to maintain an up to date LDS by the Planning

and Compulsory Purchase Act, as amended by the planning Act 2008 and the localism Act 2011.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report relates to the DMP which was submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 18 May following endorsement by Executive on 9 November 2017 and Council on 14 December. It also seeks to update the adopted LDS.

The report seeks authorisation for the Head of Places and Planning, in consultation with the Executive Member, to undertake the various actions necessary to progress the Plan through the examination process.

During the examination process there will be a need to update various reports or evidence in response to changes in national policy, legislation, circumstances or case law; to provide written responses to matters, issues and questions raised by the Inspector and to engage in correspondence with a variety of interested parties in an attempt to resolve objections and/or to agree statements of common ground. During and in the lead up to Examination, the Inspector may request that the Council gives immediate consideration to suggested modifications proposed by him/herself or another party, or may ask the Council to propose a modification on its own or in agreement with other parties that can be brought back to a later session of the hearings or submitted at the end of the hearings stage. There may also be a number of additional (minor) modifications that the Council wishes to suggest be made to the plan to clarify elements of it or to make factual corrections. Given the tight turnaround for responding to requests from the Inspector for actions and decisions, it will often be impractical to consider the responses through meetings of Council. It is in the Council’s interest to ensure that the Local Plan Examination proceeds as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is therefore proposed that authority be delegated for these purposes during the examination process. Changes that materially affect the policies or go to the heart of the plan (main modifications) can only be recommended by the Inspector and would require Executive approval and further public consultation. Examples of minor and main modifications are provided.

The LDS (Annexe 1) requires updating to reflect the further round of consultation undertaken and the revised submission date.

Executive has authority to approve the above recommendations

Executive Agenda Item: 10 21st June 2018 DMP and LDS update STATUTORY POWERS 1. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004), The Planning Act

2008, The Localism Act 2011, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and associated regulations (including the Town and Country (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 ('the 2012 Regulations'), set the statutory framework for the production of local plan documents by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). National policy in relation to the production of local plan documents is provided through the National Planning Policy Framework ('the NPPF'), supported by national Planning Practice Guidance ('the NPPG').

2. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council is required to prepare and maintain a Local

Development Scheme (LDS) by section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning Act 2008 and the Localism Act 2011.

BACKGROUND 3. The Council has submitted the DMP to the Secretary of State for Housing,

Communities and local Government for examination following publication, (essentially formal consultation), which commenced on 10 January and ended on 4 May 2018. The purpose of the examination process is to determine if the Plan is sound and can be adopted for development management, forward planning and corporate objectives. This entails the checking of the DMP by the appointed Inspector to test its soundness and (usually) a round of Examination Hearings where oral representations can be made.

4. The LDS was last revised in April 2017 and needs updating following the recent changes to the publication and submission dates.

KEY INFORMATION The Development Management Plan (DMP) Examination 5. The Council has submitted a Plan that it considers to be sound and that meets the

Government tests for policy and legal compliance. However, during the examination process there are various actions, including updating evidence and other papers to respond to changes in circumstances/policy and providing written responses to matters, issues and questions raised by the Inspector as well as the need to engage in correspondence with different interested parties in an attempt to overcome objections and/or agree statements of common ground. There will also be a need to respond to suggested changes made by the Inspector or other parties during the examination as well as to suggest additional modifications to clarify elements or make factual corrections. . These can be proactive additional modifications, i.e. points of clarification etc. suggested by the Council, or reactive, i.e. recommended minor modifications by the Inspector. The ability to make these changes to the plan without prior Executive authorisation enables the process to run smoothly and avoid suspension of the Hearings and delay, given the imperative to have the DMP adopted as soon as practicable.

Executive Agenda Item: 10 21st June 2018 DMP and LDS update 6. Any main modifications (i.e. those which materially affect the policies) can only be

suggested by the Inspector and would require Executive approval and further public consultation. There is no legal definition of what can and cannot constitute a main modification but examples would include:

• Removal of a site allocation • Addition of a site allocation • Changes to designations (e.g. expansion or reduction of green belt; additional

RASCs or employment areas) • Significant alteration to how a policy proposes development be considered

(e.g. significant change to parking standards).

7. The additional modifications for which authority is sought therefore relate to minor matters, mainly to clarify or correct the wording of policies or minor responses to updated evidence. An example of the minor modifications proposed to support the submission of the DMP are included at Annexe 2. These are provided for context to illustrate the nature of what may require approval during the examination stage.

8. This report seeks delegated authority to the Head of Places and Planning, in consultation with the Executive Member, to make undertake these actions and make these modifications to the Plan as necessary.

The Local Development Scheme 9. The Local Development Scheme (LDS) is effectively the programme for the

production of plans. The LDS sets out the timetable for the key stages in local plan preparation. This is a legal requirement. The LDS was last amended in April 2017. The DMP publication and submission deadlines have changed for several reasons; notably for the need to consult parties who made representations at the earlier consultation phase and to clarify issues raised by Natural England, in order to ensure soundness. An endorsed, revised LDS will give the Ministry for Housing, Communities and local Government and the Planning Inspectorate the certainty they need that RBBC is committed to plan preparation in line with Government policy.

OPTIONS

10. The following options have been identified as being available to the Executive:- Recommendation (i)

11. Option 1: Approve the delegated arrangements set out to undertake the various actions required to support the examination process including the making of additional minor modifications to the Development Management Plan. This option will ensure the smooth running of the Examination Hearings and allow the DMP to be considered in an expedited and timely fashion.

12. Option 2: Do not approve delegated arrangements. This option will delay the process and the achievement of the Plan timetable, specifically the adoption date as minor changes would need to be considered by Executive.


Recommendation (ii)

13. Option 1: Approve the LDS. Approving the LDS will ensure that the Council is complying with the requirements of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In addition, having an up-to-date LDS provides certainty for local communities and other stakeholders about what Local Plan documents are being prepared and the timetable for their production.

14. Option 2: Do not approve the LDS: Without an up to date LDS, the Council would fail

to comply with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 15. Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England)

Regulations 2012 covers the submission of a local plan. This is a statutory stage of the process.

16. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council is required to prepare and maintain a Local Development Scheme (LDS) in accordance with the requirements of section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning Act 2008 and the Localism Act 2011. The LDS must be revised when the Council considers it appropriate to do so (section 15(8)).

17. The LDS must specify— (a) the local development documents which are to be

development plan documents; (b) the subject matter and geographical area to which each development plan document is to relate; (c) which development plan documents (if any) are to be prepared jointly with one or more other local planning authorities; (d) any matter or area in respect of which the authority have agreed (or propose to agree) to the constitution of a joint committee; and (e) the timetable for the preparation and revision of the development plan documents.

18. There are no statutory consultation requirements necessary for the preparation of a

LDS.

19. A resolution of Executive is required in order to bring a LDS into effect (section 15(7)) and that resolution must specify the date from which the scheme is to have effect.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 20. Future costs associated with the DMP include the examination process (inspector

and programme officer fees) and any consultation arising from modifications recommended by the Inspector. It is not possible to allocate an exact cost at this stage, although it is estimated that costs may be up to £100,000. These costs are funded from the Corporate Plan Delivery Fund.

21. There are no direct financial implications arising from the revision of the LDS.

Executive Agenda Item: 10 21st June 2018 DMP and LDS update EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

22. An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) screening of the DMP has been undertaken

to ensure that equalities implications are mainstreamed in the document.

23. The EIA screening can be found at www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/dmp. It identifies no negative equalities impacts, and identifies positive equalities impacts in relation to: older people, younger people and children, disability, pregnancy and maternity, racial and ethnic groups (Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers).

24. An equalities impact screening assessment of the LDS was undertaken. No equalities implications were identified as resulting from the LDS. The changes will not have any equalities implications.

COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS 25. The DMP has been subject of extensive consultation at Regulation18 and Regulation

19 Stage. There is a communications plan in place to publicise the Plan.

RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 26. The Council’s Strategic Risk Register identifies that the process for the allocation of

specific sites for development will be politically sensitive and could result in negative publicity and impact on the Council reputation. It also notes that delay to the adoption of the DMP could increase the risk of speculative planning applications.

27. Reputation: The Regulation 22 submission document includes proposed development sites and safeguarded land. As noted above, a range of communication channels will be used alongside the examination process as required to assist in managing reputational impact.

28. Governance and resource management: To ensure that the Council is able to adopt

a Development Management Plan, it is important that all statutory requirements are met, but also that Plan development proceeds in line with the agreed timetable. The DMP process will continue to be carefully managed to ensure that this adoption date is met; although it should be noted that the examination timetable is determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

29. Legal: Submission in accordance with Regulation 22 of the 2012 Regulations is

required as part of the Local Plan preparation process. 30. Environmental: There will be environmental implications arising from development

proposed in the final DMP. Integrating the sustainability appraisal, strategic environmental assessment and habitats regulations assessment as part of the plan preparation process allows for potential environmental implications to be identified, and for mitigation and / or avoidance measures to be identified. Criteria based and site specific policies within the final DMP will be used to secure measures to minimise the environmental impact of new development.

Executive Agenda Item: 10 21st June 2018 DMP and LDS update 31. Customers: Some borough residents are hard to reach when it comes to

consultation. A consultation strategy for the DMP Regulation 19 consultation was prepared in conjunction with the Communications team. This included using a range of different channels and methods to raise awareness of the consultation process, thus helping to manage the risk associated with residents being unaware of plan proposals.

32. Without a revised LDS, the Council is failing to provide up-to-date information to local

residents and interest groups about the timetable for preparation of local plan documents.

33. It is a legal requirement that all local planning authorities have an up-to-date LDS;

without this, the Council will be failing to comply with the relevant legislation. To ensure that the Council is able to adopt a DMP, it is important that all statutory requirements are met.

34. It is important that the Council continues to demonstrate its commitment to pursuing

the DMP and - more generally - to the plan-led approach to managing development. Without a clear programme for the preparation of the DMP in a timely manner, the Council’s commitment to being plan-led may be questioned and/or challenged through speculative planning applications.

OTHER IMPLICATIONS 35. No other implications have been identified.

CONSULTATION 36. Consultation on this report has been carried out with the Council’s Legal Services

and Finance Teams. In preparing the draft DMP, a range of consultation has been undertaken. This has included:

a. Informal consultation with local community groups inviting suggestions about potential development sites and designations. Comments provided have been incorporated within the evidence base development work.

b. Considerable informal consultation with all members on the main aspects within

the DMP consultation document. This has included the Development Management Advisory Group, member workshops, briefing sessions and one-to-one meetings. Comments have been used to inform the preparation of the consultation document.

c. Input from neighbouring authorities and other ‘duty to cooperate’ bodies.

d. The 2016 Regulation 18 consultation

e. The recently completed Regulation 19 Consultation

Executive Agenda Item: 10 21st June 2018 DMP and LDS update 37. The LDF Scrutiny Panel met on 2 and 12 October 2017 to consider the DMP

principles and processes followed in preparing the Plan. 38. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 12 October 2017 received the Panel’s

report from its meeting on 2 October and a verbal report from the Chairman of the Panel from its meeting earlier that evening (12 October).

39. The Programme Officer will notify all those who have made representations of the

arrangements for the Examination Hearings. 40. No consultation on the revised LDS is required. POLICY FRAMEWORK 41. The Development Management Plan is part of the Council’s Policy Framework. It is

anticipated the DMP will be adopted in late 2018 following the Examination Hearings and the recommendations of the Planning Inspector. Responsibility for adopting the final DMP will lie with Full Council.

42. The LDS forms part of the Council’s Local Development Framework and is a

statutory requirement. It sets out the scope and timetable for the preparation of the Development Plan documents, which form part of the Council’s Policy Framework.

Background Papers:

The revised Local Development Scheme (Annex 1) Minor modifications already proposed prior to submission (Annex 2)

Executive Agenda Item: 10 – Annex 1 21 June 2018 DMP and LDS update

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council

Local Development Scheme Revised June 2018


1

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2

2. Policy context....................................................................................................... 2

3. New planning policy documents .......................................................................... 4

4. Risk assessment .................................................................................................. 8

5. Monitoring and Review ........................................................................................ 8

6. Further information .............................................................................................. 8

Annex 1: Glossary ...................................................................................................... 9

Annex 2: Risk Management ..................................................................................... 10


2

1. Introduction

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended by the Planning Act 2008 and the Localism Act 2011) requires a Local Planning Authority to prepare and maintain a Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS must set out the scope, and timetable for production/review, of Local Plan documents1.

1.2 This LDS supersedes and updates the previous version that was agreed in April 2017, and covers the period to 2018.

1.3 Following changes in legislation in 2011 and 20122 there is no longer a

requirement for Local Planning Authorities to specify the timetables for producing other planning policy documents (such as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD), the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)) in the LDS.

1.4 This LDS was approved by the Council’s Executive on 21 May 2018 and is brought into effect from 6 July 2018. A glossary of terms is provided at Annex 1.

2. Policy context

Legislation

2.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: This Act introduced new requirements for the preparation of planning policy documents across England and Wales. This included requirements for Local Planning authorities to prepare Development Plan Documents (DPDs), a Statement of Community Involvement, and a Local Development Scheme

2.2 The Localism Act 2011: This Act introduced further changes to the planning system, including the abolition of regional spatial strategies, the introduction of a new duty to cooperate on local authorities, and new arrangements for neighbourhood planning.

2.3 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012: These regulations prescribe the form and content of a Local Plan documents and the Policies Map, and set out revised procedural arrangements for preparing Local Plans.

2.4 All legislation is available to view at http://www.legislation.gov.uk.

1 Known in the legislation as Development Plan Documents (DPDs) 2 The Localism Act 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/


3

National policy and guidance

2.5 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): The NPPF was published in March 2012. It requires that local authorities plan positively to meet the development needs of their area; and that each local authority should produce a Local Plan for its area. Local Plans should be based around a presumption in favour of sustainable development and should set out strategic priorities for the area. The NPPF requires that plans are kept up-to-date, are based on joint working to address larger than local issues, and should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made.

2.6 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG): The NPPG provides more detail about how the NPPF should be applied in practice. It provides more information about the process for preparing Local Plans, including evidence gathering, sustainability appraisal and public consultation.

2.7 The NPPF and NPPG are available online at http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk. The current Development Plan for Reigate & Banstead

2.8 Legislation and national planning policy require that decisions on planning applications are made in accordance with the Development Plan for a local area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan in Reigate & Banstead comprises: a. The Core Strategy: The Reigate & Banstead Core Strategy was adopted

in July 2014. It sets the overarching framework for planning and development in the borough until 2027, including the scale and location of growth. The Core Strategy is available on the Council’s website at www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/corestrategy.

b. The Borough Local Plan: The Reigate & Banstead Borough Local Plan (BLP) was adopted in 2005. The majority of policies in the BLP were ‘saved’ by the Secretary of State in Autumn 2007. A small number of saved policies were replaced by policies within the Core Strategy, however the majority of BLP policies remain in effect, until such time as they are replaced by new policies. The BLP, and accompanying Proposals Map, is available on the Council’s website at http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/blp.

c. Minerals and Waste Planning Documents: Minerals and waste planning documents are prepared by Surrey County Council but form part of the Development Plan for the borough. The Surrey Minerals and Waste Development Framework comprises the following documents: (i) Surrey Waste Plan (2008) (ii) Surrey Minerals Plan Core Strategy and Primary Aggregates

Development Plan Document (2011) (iii) Aggregates Recycling Joint Development Plan Document (2013).

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/corestrategy

http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/blp


4

2.9 These are available at http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/minerals-and-waste-policies-and-plans. Supplementary Planning Documents and Guidance

2.10 The Council has adopted a range of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to provide supporting information and additional detail on the implementation of policies included within adopted Development Plan documents. Whilst not a formal part of the Development Plan, SPD and SPG are material considerations in the determination of planning applications.

2.11 The Council’s adopted SPD and SPG are available on the Council’s website. Background evidence

2.12 Local Plans are prepared drawing on a wide range of technical evidence, to ensure that future planning policies and decisions are based on robust and up-to-date information. Assessment of the implications of Local Plan documents is also required, including Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Evidence and appraisal documents are available on the Council’s website at http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/planningpolicy.

3. New planning policy documents

3.1 The following section provides a summary of the work planned on formal Local Plan documents, the Development Management Plan and the Policies Map. Separate documents setting out the timetables for preparation of new/updated SPDs are available on the Council’s website.

3.2 Development Management Plan Overview Geographical area Borough-wide Description of content Detailed policies to guide decision making on planning

applications; Development site allocations Chain of conformity National Planning Policy Framework; Core Strategy Type of document Development Plan Document Priority High Timetable and key milestones Preparatory work Until June 2016 Regulation 18 consultation

August – October 2016

Regulation 19 publication January – May 2018 Submission May 2018 Examination August – October 2018 Adoption December 2018

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/minerals-and-waste-policies-and-plans

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/minerals-and-waste-policies-and-plans

http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/planningpolicy



5

Working arrangements Organisational lead Head of Places and Planning Political management Executive Member for Planning Policy

Development Management Plan Task Group Development Management Advisory Group

Internal resources Officers: Planning Policy team; Other Council officers, including from Development Management, Regeneration, Economic Prosperity, and Property. Members: All members input into plan preparation process. Financial: staff costs, costs associated with public consultation, printing and the examination process (Planning Inspector and Programme Officer)

External resources External consultants as required Stakeholder and community groups Developers and landowners Duty to Cooperate bodies Infrastructure Providers

Stakeholder involvement Informal engagement with partners and stakeholders during preparatory work, including those organisations that fall within the scope of the Duty to Cooperate. Public consultation on Preferred Options DMP, including a range of consultation methods as described in the Statement of Community Involvement. Statutory publication consultation on issues of soundness and legal compliance, and involvement at Examination stage.

Evidence Key pieces of evidence: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment; Green Belt

Review; Infrastructure Delivery Plan; Sustainable Urban Extensions Study; Sustainability Appraisal; Habitats Regulations Assessment

3.3 Policies Map Overview Geographical area Borough-wide Description of content Map illustrating geographically the application of policies

within the adopted Development Plan, including local and national policy designations and local and county development allocations.

Chain of conformity Any Development Plan Document (including Core Strategy, DMP, Minerals and Waste Plans)

Type of document Local Development Document Priority High Timetable and key milestones Preparatory work To be progressed on the same timetable as the DMP,

and updated as required to incorporate any changes resulting from the adoption/review of other Development Plan documents.

Regulation 18 consultation Regulation 19 consultation


6

Submission Examination Adoption Working arrangements Organisational lead Head of Places and Planning Political management Executive Member for Planning Policy Internal resources Officers: Planning Policy team

Financial: Costs associated with printing and online interactive mapping.

External resources External companies may be required to undertake printing of policies map and preparation of interactive online map.

Stakeholder involvement Stakeholder engagement undertaken as part of preparation of associated Development Plan documents (over this period, primarily the DMP).

Evidence Key pieces of evidence: n/a 3.4 In addition to the above the Core Strategy states that a review of the Core

Strategy will commence within 5 years of its adoption date. As such, a review of the Core Strategy will be required in 2019.

Revised Core Strategy

Overview Geographical Area Borough Wide Description of Content Strategic vision and policies to guide

future development in the Borough Chain of Conformity National Planning Policy Framework Type of Document Development Plan Document Priority High Timetable and Key Milestones Preparatory work Commencing Summer 2018 Regulation 18 consultation Autumn 2019 Regulation 19 consultation Spring 2020 Submission Summer 2020 Examination Autumn 2020 Adoption Winter 2020 Working Arrangements Organisational Lead Head of Places and Planning Political management Executive Member for Planning Policy

Development Management Plan Task Group Development Management Advisory Group

Internal resources Officers: Planning Policy team; Other Council officers, including from Development Management,


7

Regeneration, Economic Prosperity, and Property. Members: All members input into plan preparation process. Financial: staff costs, costs associated with public consultation, printing and the examination process (Planning Inspector and Programme Officer)

External Resources External consultants as required Stakeholder and community groups Developers and landowners Duty to Cooperate bodies Infrastructure Providers

Stakeholder involvement Informal engagement with partners and stakeholders during preparatory work, including those organisations that fall within the scope of the Duty to Cooperate. Public consultation on Preferred Options, including a range of consultation methods as described in the Statement of Community Involvement. Statutory publication consultation on issues of soundness and legal compliance, and involvement at Examination stage.

Evidence Key Pieces of Evidence Strategic Market Housing

Assessment. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment;


8

4. Risk assessment 4.1 It is important to identify the risks that could affect the work programme set out

in this LDS, and consider how the risks may be minimised and mitigated. Identified risks are set out in Annex 2.

5. Monitoring and Review 5.1 The Council compiles an Authority Monitoring Report (AMR). Amongst other

things this monitors progress against the milestones set out in the LDS. The AMR will identify whether milestones have been met, and if not, the reasons for this, and any proposed actions resulting from delays. It will also outline whether there has been any new technical information, changes to legislation/guidance, or other unforeseen circumstances that may warrant amendments to the LDS.

5.2 The AMR will also monitor a. Policies in adopted plans to identify whether they are being successfully

implemented b. Progress towards the delivery of development targets in adopted plans c. The delivery of allocated sites.

5.3 Where policies are not being implemented, development targets are not being met or allocated sites not being delivered, the AMR will identify management actions and / or contingency measures.

5.4 The latest AMR is available to view on the Council’s website at http://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/planningpolicy.

6. Further information

6.1 For further information about this document, or about the preparation of Local Plan documents in Reigate & Banstead, please contact: Planning Policy Team Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Town Hall, Castlefield Road Reigate Surrey RH2 0SH Tel: 01737 276178 Email: [email protected]

6.2 If you wish to be added to our consultation database, to receive notifications

about relevant consultations, please email the Planning Policy Team at the above email address or complete our Planning Policy mailing list online form.


mailto:[email protected]

https://reigate-banstead.firmstep.com/default.aspx/RenderForm/?F.Name=DcbDmJNdYbw&HideToolbar=1


9

Annex 1: Glossary Abbreviation Term Definition AMR Authority’s Monitoring

Report Previously known as Annual Monitoring Report. Monitors progress in preparing Local Plan documents, and assesses the extent to which planning policies are being implemented successfully. Also updates monitoring information for key subject areas including housing, the economy and the environment.

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy

Sets the financial contributions to be paid on new development in the borough, to fund a wide range of infrastructure to support development.

DP Development Plan Legislation requires decision making on planning applications to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Comprises DPDs and saved ‘old-style’ Local Plan policies

DPD Development Plan Document

Local Development Documents that have Development Plan Status, and are subject to independent examination.

LDD Local Development Document

A range of different types of planning policy documents, including DPDs, SPDs, the SCI and the LDS.

LDF Local Development Framework

An overarching term for the suite of Local Development Documents prepared by a local authority.

LDS Local Development Scheme

A three year project plan setting out the programme for the production of planning policy documents.

LP Local Plan The Development Plan Documents that together comprise the Development Plan for a local authority area.

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

Document setting out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied

NPPG/PPG (National) Planning Policy Guidance

Additional guidance provided by Government about how the NPPF should be implemented.

SA Sustainability Appraisal

Assesses the social, environmental and economic impact of policy options and proposed plans and projects to inform decision making.

SCI Statement of Community Involvement

Document setting out who, how and when the Council will involve communities and other stakeholders in the preparation and review of planning policy documents and on planning applications.

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

Assessment of the environmental impact of plans and programmes, required under European legislation.

SPD/SPG Supplementary Planning Document/Guidance

Document providing supporting information and additional detail on how Local Plan policies should be implemented.


Annex 2: Risk Management

Risk Likelihood Impact Possible consequences and mitigation National policy changes

High Medium Further changes to legislation/national guidance may place different requirements on local authorities. Emerging legislation/policy will be monitored, and officers will work closely with CLG, PINs etc as required. Local Plan documents will be based on best information available at the time.

Changes in local political control/leadership

Medium Medium Changes in corporate priorities may result. Officers will work closely with the Leader & Portfolio Holder, and other members through existing groups, to understand and manage any policy changes required.

Staffing and resources Medium High Government spending cuts will continue, placing more pressure on Council resources. However the Council’s plans to mitigate these are well advanced. There may, however, be pressures to reduce planning policy staff or budgets. Project planning will help understand resourcing pressures. External consultants may be used. As a last resort, document preparation timetables may be adjusted.

Resourcing of external agencies

High Medium Spending cuts may also impact on Government agencies/bodies, including the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees. If these organisations have insufficient resources, delays to document production timetables may result. Officers will work closely with external agencies to understand possible risks as early as possible and maintain positive working relationships. Officers will keep PINs informed about any timetable alterations

Legal challenge Medium High External parties may seek to legally challenge all or part of Local Plan documents. Officers will seek to ensure that all local plan documents are legally compliant and sound, and work closely with the Legal team and PINs to ensure that requirements are met. External legal advice may also be sought.

High levels of public interest/high volume of consultation responses

High Medium These risks place pressures on staff and other resources due to the need to respond to enquiries and process and consider representations. Officers will work closely with the Council’s Communications Team when issues that are likely to generate a high level of interest are consulted upon. Additional time may need to be programmed into project plans to allow for the proper analysis of representations.

Evidence base becomes dated

Medium Medium External factors may lead to the Council’s evidence base becoming out of date. Additional delays to document preparation timetables as the result of other risk factors may also result in evidence documents becoming out of date. Officers will monitor changes and prepare or commission updated evidence studies where necessary.

Joint working with neighbouring authorities

Medium High Joint working with neighbouring authorities is a statutory requirement of the Localism Act (the Duty to Cooperate). In addition, some topic areas require the preparation of joint evidence bases. Different local authorities are at different stages in the plan making process, which means that joint working is not always straightforward. Officers will continue to work closely with neighbouring authorities to share plan development timetables, identify where joint working is needed, and maintain positive working relationships.


SCHEDULE 2: Suggested changes to the DMP, arising from representations to the DMP Regulation 19 publication

Policy number

Proposed change

Them

e 1

- S

ectio

n 1

EMP1 None EMP2 None EMP3 None EMP4 None EMP5 None

Them

e 1

–

Sec

tion

2

RET1 None RET2 None RET3 None RET4 None RET5 None RET6 None

Them

e 2

– Se

ctio

n 1

DES1

Suggested paragraph 3.2.9 should be amended to read: ‘these requirements cover a number of aspects including; tall structures building/ structure heights/ crane heights, wind turbines and solar installations, blue/ green infrastructure and lighting. More information is available on the Gatwick Airport website’. Strengthened wording is suggested, as follows: Point 6: ‘…Developments should incorporate measures and principles consistent with those recommended by Secured by Design where appropriate.’

DES2 Change of wording to better express what is required by the policy is suggested:


1a) Suggest the word ‘reflect’ should be changed to ‘respect’. Change of wording suggested to ensure correct emphasis - that development should be in keeping with surrounding forms : 1) (b) to be amended to read: ‘Be of a height, bulk and mass, and siting, to ensure the development does not appear prominent and conspicuous is in keeping within the existing street scene’ A definition of ‘infill’ would usefully be included in the Glossary.

DES3

Suggest inclusion of an amplified version of the name of the Walton on the Hill RASC to include additional street names. Hurst Green should be amended to Hurst drive. Nursery Road is mentioned in the RASC assessment. Suggested that Point 1 and Point 6 are joined for a more comprehensive point on design and boundary treatment, as follows (the sizing of plot frontages are covered in other points): 1) Plot frontages and boundary treatments reflect the existing street context. 6) Soft landscaping is sensitive to the plot, its setting and prevailing plot boundary characteristics. Suggest merged as follows: ‘Soft and hard landscaping is sensitive to the plot, its setting, and prevailing plot boundary characteristics, with plot boundary treatments reflecting the existing street context.’

DES4

None

DES5

None

DES6

Additional wording to be added to 2), to allow for financial contributions in lieu of affordable housing provision on-site, where this is more appropriate:


‘Provision from retirement and sheltered housing on site or as a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision - In exceptional circumstances should the Council consider it would not be suitable or practical to provide affordable housing on site it may be accept affordable housing provided on an alternative site or as a payment in lieu.’

DES7

Suggest addition of following wording: The loss of existing care homes, housing for older people and those with support needs will be resisted unless adequate alternative provision is provided locally or evidence is provided - to the satisfaction of the Council - that there is no longer a need for the facilities or it is not viable for continued care home use. Suggest DES7 makes specific reference that it should comply with DES6.

DES8

None

DES9 Additional wording is suggested for the policy’s explanation, to ensure consistency with Crawley BLP in regard to Gatwick noise contours for runways

DES10 No comments

Them

e 2-

S

ectio

n 2

OSR1 None OSR2 Suggest update Glossary to include definitions of the following acronyms: LAP, LEAP, NEAP, and MUGA (in

relation to recreational/sports related open spaces) OSR3 A wording update is suggested to reflect that openness is not that applicable to countryside in the same way it

is for Green Belt: ‘Preserve the openness of the countryside and Not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt.’

Them

e 2

– S

ectio

n 3 TAP1

Additional wording is recommended to clarify that – with adequate additional evidence provided in regard accessibility, parking demand, etc – some variation from the parking standards may be acceptable: TAP1 (c) ‘Include car parking…in accordance with adopted local standards (Annexe 4) unless evidence can be provided that not complying with the parking standards would not result in unacceptable harm. Such


evidence could include on-street parking surveys, evidence of parking demand, and/or further information on accessibility.’ Wording is suggested to be consolidated, suggest 1a) iv is removed and 1a is updated as follows:

1) a) ‘Provide safe and convenient access for all road users, taking account of cumulative impacts, in a way which would not:…’

TAP2 Inclusion of additional wording is suggested to emphasise cross-authority working and also with Gatwick airport) on airport parking/modal shift targets; Suggest new paragraph after 3.4.9: “The Council will continue to work with relevant adjoining authorities and Gatwick Airport Ltd to ensure sufficient airport parking spaces are provided, whilst meeting modal shift targets.”

Them

e 2-

Sec

tion

4

CCF1

None

CCF2

Suggest wording is expanded in explanation section to make it clear that site-specific flood risk assessments should take account of information already available, including by taking account of the advice and recommendations and set out in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. CCF2(3) - Wording is in line with NPPF para 100. Would be beneficial to make it clear that this would apply to existing flood risk as well. The sequential test confirms that the land parcels used for various studies are for options analysis and appraisal only but it can be made clearer that the land parcels do not limit an alteration to these boundaries for the purposes of any future allocation through the Local Plan process, in line with the Green Belt review. Suggest CCF2(1) is updated for clarity around when the sequential test is required and to ensure the wording as written does not conflict – wording currently says that development proposals must avoid areas at risk or flooding and then goes on to talk about proposals in areas known to flood which could be interpreted as a


contradiction. Suggest reference is made to Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority in paragraph 3.4.23

NHE1 It is recommended that the policy provides further/clearer advice, as follows: 1) Within or adjacent With regard to the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty:

a) Great weight will be attached to the impact that the development proposals would have on the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty The same principles will apply to proposals within the current Area of Great Landscape Value and maintained as such, until such a time as the AONB Boundary Review is completed which may extend the AONB onto current AGLV.

b) Proposals for major development within the AONB will be supported only in exceptional circumstances and where it is demonstrated as being in the public interest.

c) Proposals must conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB and development proposals outside its boundaries must have regard to protecting its setting.

d) Development proposals should have regard to the current Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan. 2) The principles set out in Policy NHE1(1) above will apply in the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) as designated on the Policies Map until such a time as the AONB Boundary Review is completed which may extend the AONB onto current AGLV. 2 3) Proposals for development …

Them

e 2

– S

ectio

n 5

NHE2 Drafting error at the end of clause (4) – clause (6) is inserted by accident Include Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and Local Nature Reserves on the Policy Map

NHE3 None NHE4 Typo amendment (3.5.21 as per published consultation document) NHE5 None NHE6 None NHE7 None


NHE8 None NHE9 Suggest wording is updated as follows to ensure consistency with national policy:

7) Proposals affecting a Conservation Area must have special regard to preserving and, where appropriate, enhancing the Conservation Area, the quality of the proposal having particular regard to those elements that have been identified as making make a positive contribution to the character and its setting, and the special architectural or historic interest of the area. 8) Demolition (full or partial) of a building or removal of trees, structures or other landscape features in a Conservation Area will be permitted only where a) the loss of the existing building, structure, tree or landscape feature or proposed replacement building, structure, feature or works will not detract or where appropriate enhances detracts from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area having regard to character, by reason of its design and construction (but not its condition), and b) An approved replacement development scheme is in place, which has had special regard to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Them

e 3

– S

ectio

n 1

GTT1 Changes to the layout of the policy are suggested, to make it clearer and easier to understand. GTT1 It is suggested that the site allocations policies are updated to include pitch requirements (where relevant). GTT1 A policy amendment is suggested re reference to ‘future need’ - to specifically state ‘years 6-19’ and ’11-15’ –

to avoid confusion with the Explanation’s use of the term ‘future need’, meaning beyond the plan-period. GTT1 Correction of site G12 - The location should be Woodmansterne,and not Chipstead as stated.

Them

e 3-

S

ectio

n 2

CEM1 None

SITES


A

rea

1 -

the

Nor

th

Dow

ns BAN2 None

BAN3 An amendment to the diagram is needed, to exclude areas that are parts of Chucks Meadow (which has been bequeathed for recreational use).

BAN1 None

Sect

ion

3b: A

rea

2a -

Wea

lden

Gre

ensa

nd

Rid

ge -

Red

hill

and

Mer

stha

m

RTC2 No comments received RTC6 No comments received

RTC4 Current wording may not allow efficient use of land in line with national policy. Propose that wording is amended to read: “In addition to protected trees, as many trees as possible should be retained, along with enhancement of landscaping and green infrastructure on site.”

RTC5 No comments received

RED1 No comments received






RED9 Suggest the sentence is deleted and inclusion of the following wording: Protecting existing tree belts and enhancing landscaping, in particular to ensure a suitable transition between the Hospital site and the Green Belt


The Ancient Woodland is not included within the Site allocation however, additional wording can be added to the policy to ensure any development near it takes account of the Ancient Woodland. Additional wording can be added to require development to not have an adverse effect upon the East Surrey Hospital Ponds Site of Nature Conservation Importance, and appropriate measures taken to protect and enhance this area where applicable. Reference to 500m minimum separation between urban edges should be removed – does not reflect the actual separation between East Surrey Hospital and the Royal Earlswood development to the north. Suggest the sentence is deleted and inclusion of the following wording: Protecting existing tree belts and enhancing landscaping, in particular to ensure a suitable transition between the Hospital site and the Green Belt Suggest the following is deleted from the policy: These to be prepared as a Supplementary Planning Document to ensure the proper planning and on-going functioning of the site.

ERM1 Agreed that topography comments relate to the land outside of the site allocation (which formed part of the wider area assessed in technical assessments). Suggest amend wording of ERM1 “Explanation”. Recommend deleting from the policy : 4.6.38 There is a steep slope on the southern part of the parcel which means these areas are unsuitable for development. Suggested wording is amended as follows for accuracy: 4.6.39 There are extensive areas of ancient and other woodland which limit development potential and require protection and there is high visibility of wooded slopes and the paddock to the south of the site within long distance views, particularly from the south.


ERM2/3 Allocation could be reworded to include alternative higher housing should part of the site not be needed for a

school. However, 300 homes would be an additional 90 homes on the school site land of 1.5ha (i.e. density of 60dph). At 24dph, 1.5ha would accommodate 36 homes) Delete “free” from Policy ERM2/3 Suggest remove alternative community use requirement as this is not based on any identified demonstrable need by the Council Include land area for school in the Policy (1.5 ha) Delete “Any additional land value to be reimbursed to developer by Surrey County Council as the Local Education Authority).” From PE3 of the Infrastructure Schedule at Annex 6. Suggest moving the first sentence of paragraph 4.6.47 into the design approach and mitigation requirements from the explanation section so has more weight, wording as follows: A phasing plan will be required for this site, informed by the phasing plan for the Landfill site. Suggest the policy is updated as follows: Appropriate buffer zone to the adjoining landfill and mitigation measures to safeguard residential amenity, including appropriate access to boreholes. Amend site allocation boundary as currently includes part of adjacent residential curtilage

ERM4a None ERM4b None ERM5 None

Sect

ion

3c

: A

rea

REI2 None REI1 None REI3 None


SSW2 It is recommended that there is a re-configured boundary line, to include the Scout Hut but exclude the skate

park, and amendment to the site allocation policy Requirements section – for the inclusion of a community facility/scout hut.

SSW6 None SSW7 None SSW9

There is a need to remove the common land verge from the site description, because it is outside of the extent of the site.

Woodhatch SUEs (SSW2, 6, 7, and 9)

Further text is suggested to site allocations to provide greater clarity regarding traffic-management measures: ‘Measures to manage the effects on nearby rural and residential roads from rat-running and re-routing to potentially include speed restrictions, traffic calming measures and limited one-way or no entry access to local rural roads including Park Lane.’

Sect

ion

3d: A

rea

3 - T

he L

ow

Wea

ld

HOR1 None HOR2 None HOR3 None HOR4 None HOR5 None HOR6 None HOR7 None HOR8 None HOR10 None NWH1 Amend wording - design of Green Infrastructure to deliver against objectives & targets of the River Mole (&

tributaries) Biodiversity Opportunity Area. NWH2 Amend wording - design of Green Infrastructure to deliver against objectives & targets of the River Mole (&

tributaries) Biodiversity Opportunity Area. SEH4 None


HOR9 In light of the development’s location and scale, the Council recommends that an additional requirement be

added to “Requirements: Movement and Accessibility” a new 2nd bullet point • Air quality modelling should be submitted alongside a Transport Assessment, to include consideration of

cumulative impacts Policy HOR9 would benefit from additional wording under “Drainage” Policy Requirements “Early engagement with Thames Water would be beneficial to discuss drainage requirements and trade effluent consents.” Recommend an additional requirement to be added to Policy HOR9 “Requirements: Movement and Accessibility”, due to the legal status of Public Right of Way: “Public Right of Way footpath (362a) to be retained or re-routed across the site to maintain a pedestrian link from Balcombe Road to the footbridge across the railway.” Factual correction to paragraph 4.8.52 (bullet point 3) : To replace “ as would” with “followed by” Recommend additional text to Policy HOR9 Requirements : Design “As the southern part of the site is within the 57dB LEQ airport noise contour, design of buildings within this area must ensure an appropriate interior environment for users” For clarity, it is recommended that the first bullet point of the Site Allocation Policy is amended to read : A mix of business space for strategic business park of predominantly offices employment purposes and suitable for a range of occupiers within Class B1 uses


A small factual correction is needed to paragraph 4.8.55 to delete: “predominantly focussing on B1(a) , B1(b) and B1(c Delete parts of HOR9 Policy Explanation “Key Considerations” From second sentence of bullet point 1 “The southern/central par of the site is reserved for public open space provision in the Borough Local Plan 2005..” and bullet point 2 : “In the southern part of the site the land falls within the Gatwick Open Setting designation in the Borough Local Plan 2005 and is effected by ” and bullet point 3 : “The site was previously identified as part of the rural surrounds of Horley and making a contribution to the open setting of Gatwick airport. There continues to be …” Add wording to the first sentence of paragraph 4.8.58 : “This will also ensure that the impact on the surrounding area is properly managed and minimised, with infrastructure improvements and mitigation provided when needed to support the development, including cross-boundary infrastructure, whilst allowing flexibility for future market changes.” Delete from Policy HOR9 “Requirements: Uses” “or Transport Statement” Add wording to Policy HOR9 “Requirements” that : “Early discussions with Thames Water to consider on- and off-site drainage requirements; impact of the likely load/flow; and potential need for trade effluent license”.


Th

eme

3 –

Sect

ion

4

INF1

It is recommended that the relevant site allocations policies are updated (HOR9, RED9, BAN2), to include specific requirements in regard to the implementation of conditions for advance lead-in where upgrades are needed to the system for sewerage and waste water treatment infrastructure, for the avoidance of flooding and pollution. It is recommended that wording be updated to include emergency service infrastructure (as well as buildings), for police as well as fire services is included – ‘fire stations’ to be replaced with ‘fire and police infrastructure’ in the Explanation. Additional wording to set out the need for partnership working in regard to the provision of cross-border infrastructure is suggested (included within point 2).

INF2 None

INF3 No comments received

Them

e 3

– Se

ctio

n 5

MLS1 Suggest that the wording is changed from “ensure that the landfill sites operation is not compromised” to “ensure that the efficient operation of the landfill site is not compromised” to give greater assurance that the impact of any development on the Copyhold site will have minimal impact on the operation of the landfill. Split up ERM4 into ERMa and ERMb as per policies The policy as written does not conflict with paragraph 8 of the NPPW, this is reflected by Policy MLS1 and paragraph 4.10.15 which requires that delivery of ERM2/3 must ensure that the landfill sites operation is not compromised. However, for clarity it is recommended that the following wording is added to Policy MLS1(3): Planning permission will not be granted for any proposals which would prejudice or compromise the long-term comprehensive development of an urban extension allocation. This excludes proposals for necessary works to support the efficient operation of the Patteson Court Landfill

MLS2 None


Appendices Annex 4 – Parking standards

Annex 4 clarifies that a lower amount of parking may be considered in areas within or close to town centres. Suggest this bullet point is amended to refer to areas of high accessibility as well. Suggest amendment of bullet point 7 (make this sentence come before the table) to say “a lower amount of parking may be acceptable required in areas within or close to town centres, or areas of high accessibility.” Suggest amending bed to bedrooms in the residential parking standards for clarity

Annex 6 – IDP schedule

Delete “Any additional land value to be reimbursed to developer by Surrey County Council as the Local Education Authority).” From PE3 of the Infrastructure Schedule at Annex 6.