4. Chapter 4 - Housing - Rushcliffe Borough Council...4. CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING OBJECTIONS NOT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC POLICY SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS Although the draft replacement

4. CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING

OBJECTIONS NOT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC POLICY

SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS

Although the draft replacement Circular has only recently been issued for consultation, and therefore can be given little weight, it does propose to continue the requirement for local authorities to identify suitable sites for Gypsies and Travellers in their development plan documents. It also proposes that only exceptionally will it be acceptable to meet needs by specifying criteria.

NCC acknowledges that the planning role of the County Council will be limited to a vestige of responsibility in the JSP, beyond which its future role will be in assisting in the preparation of the RSS and sub-regional strategies. It will be for the RPBs to maintain an up-to-date assessment of needs and for the LPAs to make provision for sites to ensure identified needs are met. Of course, all of this is for implementation in the future through the RSS/LDF system.

The Panel Report following the EiP of the Deposit Draft JSP recommended adding a new policy on accommodation for gypsies and travellers and this has been accepted by the JSP authorities. However the new policy provides for actions under the RSS/LDF system. There will be a considerable period during which guidance will not be available under the new system and this Local Plan will be the only source of detailed policy at the local level. This will include the period during which the Local Plan is ‘saved’ under the new legislation. I don’t therefore accept RBC’s view that it is not possible to respond at present.

There is no detailed information before the Inquiry regarding numbers of Gypsies or the current or anticipated scale of need or demand in the Borough. Nor have any sites been suggested as appropriate locations for Gypsy or Traveller accommodation. As a result it is not possible to recommend a policy relating to specific identified sites for inclusion in the Plan.

Therefore for the interim period prior to the RSS/LDF system, the Local Plan should include a criteria based Policy against which applications for sites not allocated in the Plan will be judged.

INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Plan be modified by incorporating a new criteria based Policy against which applications for Gypsy or Traveller sites can be judged. The Council may wish to consider a Policy along the following lines, together with an appropriate justification.

“PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR BOTH PERMANENT AND TRANSIT CARAVAN SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS PROVIDED THAT THE PROPOSED SITE HAS:

a) GOOD ACCESSIBILITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES;

b) GOOD ACCESS TO THE MAIN ROAD NETWORK, SUITABLE FOR LARGE VEHICLES AND TRAILERS, AND NOT RESULT IN UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY OR TRAFFIC VOLUMES; AND

c) WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE AMENITY OF NEARBY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT;

d) RESULT IN ENCROACHMENT ON OPEN COUNTRYSIDE, OR

e) BE WITHIN LAND DESIGNATED AS GREEN BELT.

WHERE POSSIBLE, PREFERENCE WILL BE GIVEN TO THE RE-USE OF PREVIOUSLY-DEVELOPED (BROWNFIELD) SITES, AND ENCOURAGEMENT WILL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION OF SITES SUITABLE FOR MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS USE.”

And that the justification includes the following text:

“Additionally, the Council encourages early consultation by Gypsies considering the purchase of land for which it is intended that planning permission will be sought.”

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Partially accept recommendation. Following the publication of circular 01/2006 in February 2006 there is a requirement for the Borough Council to include such a policy within the Local Plan. At this stage however there is no requirement, nor is there any evidence from a Gypsy and Traveler Accommodation Assessment or other appropriate study of need for the Council to make a specific allocation for a site to meet the needs of travellers. The assessment of such need will be undertaken as part of the ongoing review of the Regional Spatial Strategy and will therefore be considered in the preparation of the relevant Site Allocation Development Plan Document in due course. In the meantime all proposals will be considered in accordance with the proposed policy and circular 01/2006. In addition paragraph 56 of the circular indicates that consideration of mixed use sites should be carried out through DPDs and that mixed uses are not permitted on rural exceptions sites. Accordingly it is not considered necessary to include within the policy the proposed wording “AND ENCOURAGEMENT WILL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION OF SITES SUITABLE FOR MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS USE.” In addition, the Inspector’s proposed criterion (d) conflicts with advice given in Annex C of Circular 01/2006 which list criteria considered to be unacceptable. This criterion should not therefore be included within the policy. The inspector’s proposed wording is not grammatically correct, particularly in relation to the reference to the Green Belt and therefore a slightly revised form of wording is propose which nevertheless retains the intention of the proposed policy.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.3 Include a new policy and justification at the end of the Housing Chapter to read;

“The Borough Council wishes to ensure that either permanent or transit caravan sites for gypsies and travellers are only established in suitable

locations. In considering proposals for such sites the Council will have regards to the contents of circular 01/2006. In particular the Council encourages early consultation by Gypsies and Travellers considering the purchase of land for which it is intended that planning permission will be sought.”

“PLANNING PERMISSION WILL ONLY BE GRANTED FOR BOTH PERMANENT AND TRANSIT CARAVAN SITES FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS WHERE THE PROPOSED SITE:

a) HAS GOOD ACCESSIBILITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES;

b) HAS GOOD ACCESS TO THE MAIN ROAD NETWORK, SUITABLE FOR LARGE VEHICLES AND TRAILERS, AND NOT RESULT IN UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY OR TRAFFIC VOLUMES; AND

c) WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE AMENITY OF NEARBY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND

d) IS NOT WITHIN LAND DESIGNATED AS GREEN BELT.

WHERE POSSIBLE, PREFERENCE WILL BE GIVEN TO THE RE-USE OF PREVIOUSLY-DEVELOPED (BROWNFIELD) SITES.”

POLICY H1 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU1 - REVISED DEPOSIT

HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS It is clear that during the preparation of the FDD the Council faced a dilemma, not of its own making, where it was expected to take a substantial share of the housing requirement generated - particularly by the Nottingham conurbation - whilst the whole transport infrastructure was clearly under pressure. Improvements to that infrastructure were either not forthcoming, as with the A52 and A46 schemes, or had very little prospect of implementation within the Plan period, as with the fourth Trent crossing. From the evidence provided, and from what I have seen and heard during the Inquiry, it is my view that, even with the reduced housing requirement, the Borough still faces difficult choices and, wherever development allocations are made, there will be an impact on a transport system that remains under strain with little expectation of early relief.

The Regional and strategic context

There are, from my analysis of the evidence before me, four strands to the regional and strategic context of the plan:

1 RSS8 proposes significant levels of new housing should be located in the PUAs (including Nottingham);

2 The LPAs should stick rigorously to the sequential approach to allocations;

3 There will be a strategic review of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt (RSS8, Policy 14) to be undertaken in relation to development requirements up to 2026. Prior to which reviews have been, or in the case of Rushcliffe are being taken through local plans. However, the JSP Panel, noting that the JSP Policy 1/2 is needed to ensure Rushcliffe’s review, expresses concern that the application of the sequential approach could on occasion be fundamentally at odds with the Green Belt policy of keeping land permanently open. It advises those tensions can only be resolved at a regional level and for this reason local plan reviews should only delete such land as is necessary to provide for identified development needs;

4 The potential for conflict between the policy of concentration and the agricultural protection policy at strategic level.

Housing numbers

It appears that the Council’s approach to housing numbers bears up to scrutiny in the short term, and provides a reasonable basis for identifying the need for allocations, certainly over a five year period and possibly up to the adoption of site specific allocations under the LDF process in 2011. It is reliance on the windfall calculations in the longer term that causes concern and suggests that this Plan should concentrate its allocation strategy on the five and ten year periods as I indicate below.

In addition reliance on windfall sites, rather than allocations, means that there are less opportunities for the provision of affordable housing to meet the identified need. Equally importantly, the concentration on one or two large allocations has implications for the spread of affordable housing within the rural parts of the Borough.

The allocation strategy

The long period adopted for the Local Plan Review is intended to keep it in line with the JSP period, following the advice in PPG12, para 6.8, that where possible, local plans should be prepared for the same period covered by structure plans, or where the structure plan is in the course of replacement it may be more sensible to cover the period of the emerging structure plan. However, this does add to the problems of accurately assessing the windfall contribution to the total housing requirement. It also has the effect of exacerbating the conflict between the sequential approach and Green Belt policy.

The Council has based its allocation strategy on the locational priorities for development set down in RSS8, Policy 2 and I consider the Council’s interpretation of the strategic basis for identifying allocations to be correct.

Whilst I have accepted that the Local Plan Review should properly be concerned with the period to 2021, in line with the JSP, I shall also have regard to the Council’s intention to replace the Local Plan with the LDF in a timely manner, ideally by 2009. By 2011 it is expected that the LDF will be in place, with the site specific allocations under consideration through 2009-2010 for adoption in early 2011. As a result it is appropriate to concentrate on the PPG12, para 6.8 advice that the proposals should extend for a period of 10 years from the forecast adoption date, together with the PPG3, para 34, requirement that there should be sufficient sites to accommodate at least the first five years of housing development. This would focus the requirement for allocations into a timescale where confidence in the windfall calculations is highest and it would reduce the pressure for the deletion of a substantial amount of Green Belt land in advance of the strategic review proposed in RSS8.

Taking account of the completions, commitments and windfall rates identified by

the Council would leave 1,236 dwellings to be found through Local Plan allocations over the remaining 17 years of the plan, equating to 73 dwellings per annum. It follows that a five year supply would require a minimum of 365 dwellings and a ten year supply 730 dwellings. If the Council accepts my recommendations both the five and ten year supply could be easily secured, even if the Council’s expectations concerning windfalls turned out to be over-optimistic.

The strategic search sequence

The strategic search sequence relies heavily on ‘sustainability’. The Council has correctly interpreted the search sequence in RSS8, Policy 2, and the sustainability criteria in Policy 3. It has applied the approach rigorously as required by the JSP;

The first priority is previously developed sites in urban, followed by other suitable locations within urban areas. I have not reached the same conclusion as the Council in respect of the second priority since I have concluded that the Edwalton site is unsuitable. Following the sequential process logically, the next most preferable locations would be within or adjacent to the six larger settlements. Of these, it seems to me that Bingham and Radcliffe-on-Trent score highest on the grounds of sustainability because their accessibility by non-car modes of transport include rail links, albeit poor in quality, to Nottingham whilst the case for Cotgrave, argued strongly at the Inquiry, is based on the needs of regeneration and support for local services. Ruddington appears to have a congested road network and has development potential through sites already in place and in my view is inappropriate for further significant allocations in the immediate future. Keyworth and East Leake perform less well in sustainability terms, although the H1(B) allocation at Gotham Road, East Leake, included at FDD stage is, in my view, worthy of further consideration.

To meet the five and ten year requirements the sequentially preferable sites would, in my judgement, be as follows:

Sites within the Principal Urban Area

The Château site (as extended) 110

Land south of Wilford Lane 200

Land north of Wilford Lane 50

360

Sites adjacent to the Principal Urban Area

The Melton Triangle 430*

430

Land outside the Principal Urban Area

Bingham, Tithby Road 100

Cotgrave 500**

(including the Colliery site & Hollygate Lane)

Radcliffe-on-Trent, The Paddocks 80

Gotham Road, East Leake 230

910

1700

These sites would provide the potential for more development than is necessary or desirable within the first five or ten year period, but not all of the sites may be deliverable within those periods.

• It has to be acknowledged that apart from the small site north of Wilford Lane, the sites within the PUA, and therefore the most sequentially preferred, involve drainage problems which may take time to deal with leading to potential delays in implementation.

• There is very little information before this Inquiry on which to base an assessment of the Melton Triangle, either in terms of its potential capacity, accessibility or deliverability: it to this extent an unknown quantity.

• The Cotgrave allocations would only be a sustainable option, in my view, if they formed part of a strategy for regeneration of the settlement to be implemented as a whole rather than piecemeal.

• Whilst I have included the land north of Nottingham Road, Radcliffe-on-Trent, my findings in respect of that site are that a ten year requirement could be fulfilled without its allocation.

For the above reasons I agree with the Council’s view that, in the event of the Edwalton site being unacceptable for any reason, it would be necessary to undertake a Borough-wide review of allocations.

INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS That the Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy HOU1, and that the Council gives further consideration to the housing allocation strategy, to take account of the recommendation that the Sharphill, Edwalton allocation be deleted and that a Borough-wide review of allocations is undertaken using the findings of this Inquiry.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation not accepted. The Regional and strategic context

In paragraph 4.6.3 of his report the Inspector concludes that the scale of housing provision on which the FDD was based is no longer relevant and has been overtaken by events. In addition the emerging Joint Structure Plan, as proposed to be modified, provides the basis for the Local Plan Review (PPG12, para 6.2) including housing allocations and that RSS8 confirms the JSP housing requirement for Nottinghamshire (JSP, paras 3.1 – 3.2 and RSS8, Policy17). As a result the requirement for Rushcliffe, as a District within the South Nottinghamshire Sub-Area is a total of 5,600 dwellings. The Inspector has therefore rejected the suggestion by the limited number of developers who proposed that the plan should not run to 2021 in accordance with the JSP. Furthermore, in proposing that the Council look at making allocations to meet a maximum of 10 years requirement the Inspector is in effect suggesting that the Council should undertake a short term review of the Local Plan. Members may recall that this was considered by the Council in the past and rejected as it would not meet the Council’s strategic obligation to produce a plan that was in accordance with the Structure Plan. Paragraph 6.8 of PPG12 (Development plans) is very clear on this matter “Where possible, local plans should be prepared to the same period covered by structure plans.” In addition it goes on to deal with the situation in which Rushcliffe found itself in relation to the emerging Joint Structure

Plan “Where a structure plan is in the course of alteration or replacement, it may be more sensible for the local plan to cover the period of the emerging structure plan. The Inspector himself recognises this in paragraph 1.35.2 of his report, in rejecting an objection that the plan period is too lengthy. Such an approach is inconsistent with the Inspector’s recommendation that the plan should in effect cover a maximum of 10 years. In addition, relying upon the emerging Regional Strategy to justify the need not to provide for the full requirement within the Joint Structure Plan fails to acknowledge that the Regional Strategy will cover a different time period and roll forward the strategic requirement in accordance with updated household projections, this should not be used as a reason not to meet the requirements of the Joint Structure Plan. With reference to the Inspector’s suggestion that, in line with paragraph 6.8 of PPG12, the plan should extend for 10 years, it is important to consider the full text of this section of paragraph 6.8 which reads; “In order to ensure that policies and proposals in local plans and Part II of UDPs extend for a reasonable period beyond their adoption, the duration of a local plan and Part II of a UDP should be for a period of 10 years from the plan's forecast adoption date.” This is clearly intended to indicate that plans should extend for a reasonable period of time and not to limit their timescales. When read inconjunction with the rest of that section of PPG12 it is clear that there is no intention to provide a maximum limit the the time period that Local plans should cover. The Inspector also provides no evidence to show that the PPG12 paragraph 6.8, reference to 10 year time periods would preclude plans from covering the same period as existing or emerging Structure Plans as also indicated in the same paragraph. It should also be noted that Nottinghamshire County Council issued a conformity objection to the First Deposit Draft on the basis that the Plan provided for around 1200 fewer dwellings than the requirement in the Nottinghamshire Structure Plan – Policies 4/1 and 13/1. Clearly at this stage they were of the opinion that the Local Plan should aim to provide for the full dwelling requirement as set out within the Structure Plan, something which the Borough Council was aiming to do with the Revised Deposit Draft of the Replacement Local Plan.

In addition, the County Council have not raised a conformity objection to the fact that it is now proposed that the plan should cover the period 2001 to 2021 in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Structure Plan. It is not therefore considered appropriate to take forward what is in effect a short term plan when there is a clear lead set by the Joint Structure Plan in terms of the dwelling requirement to 2021. Housing numbers With reference to land supply issues the Inspector raised concerns about the over-reliance on windfall sites continuing to come forward, particularly in the longer term, although he then goes on to use these very assumptions in reaching his conclusions about the level of short term allocations required. It should be noted that the rate of development of windfall sites remains strong and in the Land Availability report for the six months to April 2005 a further 302 dwellings came forward on non allocated sites, the majority being on large sites within the West Bridgford area. This means that the average annual development rate since 2001 is 310 dwellings of which only 31 dwellings were on allocated sites. Of this figure, whilst an average of 99 dwellings per annum were on small windfall sites, an average of 212 per annum were on large windfall sites, which is significantly greater than anticipated at the Inquiry. Clearly significant new redevelopment sites

keep coming forward beyond those identified in the Urban Capacity Study, which is inevitably a snap shot based on the information available at the time. Therefore the Inspector’s concerns about the likely rate of windfall development are not being borne out in practice. This completion rate remains well in excess of the Joint Structure Plan annual requirement of 260 dwellings per annum. The Council is therefore making good progress towards meeting its development assumptions and as a result there is no concern about long term rates. In addition any supply issues that do emerge in the coming years can be addressed in subsequent review of the plan as has been the case with recent plans. In December 2005 as part of the new planning regulations Rushcliffe submitted its first Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). This included amongst other issues a housing trajectory which aims to show how the Council is progressing towards meeting its strategic dwelling requirement. The trajectory used within the AMR used same assumptions as the housing LP in preparing housing trajectory and following scrutiny of the AMR by the Government Office no concerns were raised. Indeed, as the Borough Council were one of the authorities who participated in the ODPM Annual Monitoring Report Feedback on Emerging Best Practice 2004/05 published in September 2005 this AMR must have received considerable scrutiny at both a regional and national level. Whilst PPS 3 (Housing) is only in draft form and therefore carries limited weight, it does give an indication of the direction of Government thinking. PPS3 indicates proposes that Local Development Frameworks should allocate sufficient land and buildings for housing or mixed use development to deliver the first five years of the housing trajectory and for the following 10 years of the housing trajectory, allocate land wherever possible. This would therefore require a minimum of 15 years supply of land to be allocated, which in current circumstances would mean that the allocations would be required for the period up to 2021. The allocation strategy The Inspector’s comment that “it seems to me that development of a substantial greenfield, Green Belt site would be contrary to the spirit of the emerging JSP Policy 3/5 and the findings of the Panel report, referred to and fundamentally at odds with the thrust of Government policy.” is not considered to take full account of the Structure Plan Examination Panel findings. The Panel made a clear indication that they envisaged that Rushcliffe would be required to review its Green Belt boundary, ahead of the formal Strategic Review of the Green Belt, to meet the development requirements set out within the Joint Structure Plan. In addition, PPG2 (para 2.7) makes clear that Green Belt boundaries may be amended where required to meet development requirements within approved Structure Plans. In this case the release is considered to be 'conservative' in nature in that it is only proposed to meet the residual strategic requirement left after account had been taken of all recent completions, commitments and projected windfall sites. It should also be noted that no objection was made by either the County Council or Go-em, to this approach. Paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12 of the Revised Deposit Draft of the Local Plan contained a clear explanation of the approach taken by the Borough Council and given that there were no strategic objections to this approach it must be considered that it is not therefore at odds with Government policy. With reference to the Inspector’s view that the Edwalton development would constitute a serious erosion of Green Belt land it is useful to look elsewhere in the Greater Nottingham area at other recently adopted Local Plans. The Gedling Local Plan, adopted in July 2005 and which runs to 2011 allocates land for some 2810 dwellings within the Green Belt, with an additional 420 at Gedling Colliery proposed

for development post 2011. Of this development some 2,363 (plus the additional 420 at Gedling Colliery) are adjacent to the Principal Urban Area. No strategic objections to the scale of this development were made by the County Council. It is difficult to reconcile the Inspector’s concerns about Edwalton with other Green Belt land releases. Clearly, in comparison to the Gedling proposals the development of 1,200 dwellings proposed at Edwalton to 2021 cannot be considered to be significant within the strategic Green Belt context. The strategic search sequence The Inspector indicates that the Council has correctly interpreted the search sequence in RSS8, Policy 2, and the sustainability criteria in Policy 3 and has applied the approach rigorously as required by the JSP. However in concluding that the Edwalton site is unsuitable he indicates that the next most preferable locations would be within or adjacent to the six larger settlements. However, having weighed all the factors it is considered that the housing allocation strategy in the Local Plan is justified as the most sequentially preferable and sustainable site and that the allocation at Edwalton should remain. In the circumstances a Borough wide review of alternative sites for allocations is not necessary.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.7 No modification proposed

CHANGE NO. HOS.039 – RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATIONS


Since allocated sites are expected to be progressed through the use of development briefs – and this presumably would apply to any sites included as a result of my recommendations – Policy HOU1 should make the appropriate reference to the requirement.

INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS That the Plan be modified by the deletion of paragraph 3.10 and by the inclusion of the following statement as an addition to a new Policy HOU1, as detailed:

“DEVELOPMENT BRIEFS, AS DETAILED IN POLICY GP4, WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW SITES ALLOCATED BY THIS POLICY”.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation not accepted as this proposal introduces unnecessary cross referencing and is inconsistent with the approach taken by the Inspector elsewhere.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.10

No modification proposed

CHANGE NO. HOS.041– RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATIONS


The Edwalton site is the specific subject of some of these objections. If my recommendations are accepted the final sentence of para 3.12 is no longer necessary and should be deleted. The remaining objections concern the extent of dependency on windfall sites, and the impact of the Trent Fluvial Study. The Council’s response is that issues concerning flooding are dealt with through Policy WET2 and supporting text so it is not necessary to incorporate additional requirements in this part of the Plan. WET2 is the subject of criticism, as a result of which I have recommended its replacement with a policy providing detailed criteria which development in areas with a high risk of flooding, together with amendments to the supporting text. As a consequence I do not think further text is necessary in para 3.12.


That no modification be made to the Replacement Local Plan in respect of these objections.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Accept Inspector's Recommendation


CHANGE NO. HOS.043 – HOUISNG DEVELOPMENT ON UNALLOCATED SITES


The objections relate specifically to the allocation of land at Edwalton for housing purposes, and its consequent removal from the Green Belt. The specific reference to allocations set out in Policy H1(b) has been deleted in the RDD. The issue is dealt with in detail in the context of the proposed allocation and there is no need to make specific reference in para 3.13.





CHANGE NO. HOS.044– HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON UNALLOCATED SITES

SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS It appears to me that the text suggested by the objector MM3 Design would be contrary to the spirit of advice in PPG3, para 36, concerning windfall sites since infilling and rounding-off suggests the use of greenfield sites. I am inclined to the view of Gedling Borough that the text is not very clear in that there are two unrelated matters contained in the one small paragraph. I’m not convinced it adds anything of significance to the reasoned justification for Policy HOU2 and, in my view, paras 3.15 – 3.18 provide sufficient supporting text for the Policy.

INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS That the Plan be modified by deleting paragraph 3.14.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION It is considered that this paragraph sets the context for the section and deleting it would provide no benefit.



SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS The previous paragraph 3.14 was deleted in the RDD. The question of the need to control developments in order to protect the character of villages is addressed through Policy HOU2, and particularly criterion (a). No further amendment is necessary.


That no modification be made to the Replacement Local Plan in respect of this objection.



CHANGE NO. HOS.046– HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON UNALLOCATED SITES


In my view the paragraph does deal with both the issue of windfall sites and the preparation of SPG on open space. It could benefit from being split into two paragraphs after the second sentence.

There is an objection to Change HOS.046 from the Environment Agency, not listed above, requesting additional text to highlight flood risk issues and the need for pre-application discussion with the EA for proposed development on unallocated sites that benefit from flood defences. The Council has accepted the additional text for para 3.15 suggested by the EA (LPA/10/7690; para 3). This appears to me an appropriate response, although the reference to RPG8 requires updating to RSS8.


That the Plan be modified by splitting paragraph 3.15 after “..upon local character or amenity.”, with the second paragraph commencing at “The Borough Council is currently…”; and that the following text be added to the first new paragraph, following “…upon local character or amenity”:

“In assessing the suitability of a location and the nature of development, consideration will need to be given to physical site constraints including flood risk, in line with sustainability criteria set out in Policy 3 of RSS8”.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION It is not considered that splitting the paragraph will provide any significant benefit to the reader. The proposed addition text is also unnecessary as it would introduce uneccessary duplication as the development plan must be read as a whole.




The Council has indicated that the amendment to para 3.18 is not intended to imply other aspects of Policy GP1 are of less importance as suggested by objectors. This is true since the Plan must be read as a whole. The supporting text to Policy GP1 (paras 1.3 – 1.5) provides a clear indication of its importance, and the matters to be taken into account in considering planning applications. Para 3.18 simply makes reference to aspects of particular importance where proposals for housing on unallocated sites as concerned. No further change is necessary.

INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS That no modification be made to the Replacement Local Plan in respect of these objections.



POLICY H2 (FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT) – DEVELOPMENT ON UNALLOCATED SITES


Policy H2 in the FDD indicates that allocated sites within Tranche 2 of the phasing programme will only be granted planning permission when required to maintain a five year land supply. That Plan was placed on hold in 2001, and subsequently replaced by the RDD which does not include a phasing policy. Effectively, this answers the objections to the principle of Policy H2 which is no longer part of the Plan. Those objections to the status within the Policy of specific sites, such as Edwalton, Bunny Brickworks and RAF Newton are no longer relevant, and objections concerning allocation of those sites is considered along with other objections to Policy HOU 1 in the RDD.





POLICY H3 - FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT – DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS


Policy H3 in the FDD was concerned with ensuring that developers met, or made contributions towards on- and off-site costs of improvements to services and facilities required in connection with the development. The Policy has not been carried through to the RDD, but the essential content has been included in new Policy GP2 – Development Requirements. That Policy has, in turn been the subject of objections which are dealt with at the appropriate place together with the objections to Policy H3, where appropriate.





H4 OBJECTIONS - FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT – DEVELOPMENT BRIEFS


Policy H4 in the FDD provided for development briefs for allocated sites. As noted on p51 of the RDD, the development brief section was moved to the General Policy section 1.9 and Policy GP3. Those objections are considered in the appropriate place and I shall also have regard to the objections raised at FDD, where appropriate.



RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION

Accept Inspector's Recommendation


POLICY H5 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU2 - REVISED DEPOSIT – DEVELOPMENT ON UNALLOCATED SITES


Policy H5, dealing with new unallocated development was renumbered HOU2 in the RDD. The Council considers such development should be strictly controlled to ensure the objectives of the Green Belt are achieved and the open countryside is protected.

In my opinion the Policy should give a more positive message. This is particularly important as the housing strategy has been predicated on an assumption that a substantial number of windfall sites will be forthcoming in the Plan period. PPG3 (para 36) makes it clear that there should be no allowance in calculations for greenfield windfall sites, implying that these should not be permitted, reinforcing my conclusion that the Policy should refer specifically to sites within settlements, and that these should involve previously developed land.

The Policy includes an unnecessary “normally” in the first sentence that should be deleted. I also consider the final criterion, that the site should not be precluded from development by other Plan policies, to be unnecessary since the Plan should be read as a whole.


That the Plan be modified by amending the first sentence of Policy HOU2 to read as follows:

“PLANNING PERMISSION FOR NEW UNALLOCATED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND WILL BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT:”;

and by deleting the final criterion (h).

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation partially accepted, however the reference to previously developed land is unnecessary given the range of criteria within the policy.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.40 Amend the first sentence of Policy HOU2 to read:

“PLANNING PERMISSION FOR NEW UNALLOCATED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SETTLEMENTS WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT:”;

Delete the final criterion (h).

POLICY H6 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU3 - REVISED DEPOSIT – CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO DWELLINGS


Policy H6 has been revised and expanded as Policy HOU3 in the RDD Plan to include criteria to be applied if the principle of conversion is acceptable. The Council has not included the changes proposed by the CPRE. I do not consider they are necessary changes since reference to a “building worthy of retention by reason of its architectural or historic qualities” appears to me a clear and unambiguous statement.

In response to the objection by A C Thompson for the Flintham Estate, the Council has proposed to insert “where” at the front of criterion (b). This partially, but not wholly, answers the criticism that the criterion could lead to an increasing number of derelict buildings in the countryside. This is a consequence of simply adding “where” rather than looking at the criterion as a whole. I have suggested a simpler form of wording in my recommendation.

The Policy includes an unnecessary “normally” which should be deleted in the interests of clarity and precision. Although not the subject of objection the Policy makes no reference to the need for proposals to meet sustainable development objectives. In the case of proposals for the conversion of isolated buildings in the countryside, it would be necessary to consider these in the context of the Government’s stated intentions to reduce the need to travel and secure more sustainable patterns of development.


That the Plan be modified by deleting “NORMALLY” from Policy HOU3, and by amending criterion (b) as follows;

“IN THE CASE OF A BUILDING WORTHY OF RETENTION BY REASON OF ITS ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC QUALITIES, THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING AND ITS SURROUNDINGS IS RETAINED, AND NO EXTENSIONS OR ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH MATERIALLY ALTER ITS FORM AND CHARACTER.”;

and that the Council gives consideration to including further criteria concerning the conversion or change of use of buildings to residential use in isolated locations in the open countryside.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation partially accepted. Issues concerning Sustainable Development objectives is considered through the General Policies section, in particular policies GP1 and GP2. Delete criterion c) in accordance with general recommendation 1.3

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.43 That the Plan be modified by deleting “NORMALLY” from Policy HOU3

Criterion (b) is amended to read;

“IN THE CASE OF A WHERE A BUILDING IS WORTHY OF RETENTION BY REASON OF ITS ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC QUALITIES AND, THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING AND ITS SURROUNDINGS IS RETAINED, AND INCORPORATES NO EXTENSIONS OR ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH MATERIALLY ALTER CHANGE ITS FORM AND CHARACTER.”

Delete criterion c)

POLICY H7 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU4 - REVISED DEPOSIT – NEW DWELLINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE


Policy H7, HOU4 in the RDD, has been amended to incorporate reference to a “temporary building” in criterion (d) and to include a new criterion, (e) concerning an appropriate size for dwellings, in line with Government advice (PPS7, Annex A, para 9). I do not agree with the CPRE objection that para 3.33 is unclear. It remains unchanged in the RDD and I see no reason to delete the word “therefore”. However, I consider the objectors are correct in considering the Policy to be insufficiently restrictive with the inclusion of “normally”. As elsewhere, this causes imprecision and lack of clarity. However, I support the use of “reasonably” in criteria (c) and (d) since it is not the purpose of the planning system to force unreasonable solutions to situations.

The requirement for financial viability, or in the case of a proposed business, evidence that it has been planned on a sound basis complies with advice in PPS7, Annex A, para 2, which indicates that it is essential that all applications for occupational dwellings in the countryside are scrutinised thoroughly to detect attempts at abuse. The Annex advises the use of financial tests to aid this scrutiny (para 8). The Council is right to include this requirement in the Policy.

Although not the subject of specific objection, the term “outside settlements” is open to interpretation and, in my judgement, lacks clarity. As with other policies I consider it would be better to identify the “open countryside” as the appropriate location for this Policy. This would also accord with the title of the Policy.


That the Plan be modified by incorporating the Council’s proposed change on p 114 of CD/LA/22, and by amending Policy HOU4 to read as follows:

“NEW DWELLINGS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE UNLESS THEY ARE NECESSARY…”.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation partially accepted. The use of the phrase “OUTSIDE SETTLEMENTS” is considered to be clear and in accordance with the spirit of the policy, as use of the phrase “IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE” would not refer to land within the Green Belt. The deletion of “NORMALLY” is a factual amendment and the revision gives greater clarity to the policy.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.46 Change reference to PPS7 in first sentence of 3.23 to read “Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas - ….. Amend Policy HOU4 to read:

“NEW DWELLINGS WILL NORMALLY NOT BE PERMITTED OUTSIDE SETTLEMENTS UNLESS THEY ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURAL OR OTHER ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATE TO THE COUNTRYSIDE AND WHERE IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT: a) THE EXISTING FARM OR FORESTRY BUSINESS IS FINANCIALLY

SOUND, OR IN THE CASE OF A PROPOSED BUSINESS, THAT IT HAS BEEN PLANNED ON A SOUND FINANCIAL BASIS;

b) THERE IS A LONG-TERM NEED FOR A DWELLING VERIFIED BY AN EXPERT REPORT;

c) THE NEED FOR THE ACCOMMODATION CANNOT REASONABLY BE MET IN A NEARBY SETTLEMENT OR DWELLING; AND

d) THE DWELLING CANNOT BE PROVIDED BY A TEMPORARY BUILDING OR REASONABLE CONVERSION OF BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.

e) THE DWELLING SIZE SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO THE FUNCTIONAL NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS.”

CHANGE NO. HOS.056– NEW DWELLINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE


The Council has amended the text of para 3.25 to extend the period for a temporary dwelling from two to three years, in line with the advice in PPS7, Annex A, para 12. The second point raised by GO-EM concerns the criteria contained in para 12, relating to the acceptability of temporary dwellings. The Council considers that Policy HOU5 follows the spirit and intention of PPS7 when read with Policy HOU4. In general I agree with the Council, but I consider the text of Policy HOU5 could be amended with benefit to make it clear that temporary dwellings do require evidence of firm intention and a sound financial basis, and will fulfil a function need.


That the Plan be modified by amending Policy HOU5 as follows:

“WHERE A NEW DWELLING IS ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT A PROPOSED NEW FARMING ACTIVITY OR OTHER ACTIVITY APPROPRIATE IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE AND THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE BOTH OF A FIRM INTENTION TO DEVELOP THE ENTERPRISE AND THAT IT HAS BEEN PLANNED ON A SOUND FINANCIAL BASIS, THEN TEMPORARY ON-SITE

ACCOMMODATION MAY BE PERMITTED, DURING WHICH TIME THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT DWELLING MUST BE ESTABLISHED.”

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation accepted as this makes the intention of the policy clearer

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.49 Amend Policy HOU5 to read:

“WHERE A NEW DWELLING IS ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT A PROPOSED NEW FARMING ACTIVITY OR OTHER ACTIVITY JUSTIFIED IN ASSOCIATION WITH A PROPOSALS WHICH IS APPROPRIATE IN THE OPEN COUNTRYSIDE BUT THE VIABILITY OF WHICH IS NOT PROVED AND THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE BOTH OF A FIRM INTENTION TO DEVELOP THE ENTERPRISE AND THAT IT HAS BEEN PLANNED ON A SOUND FINANCIAL BASIS, THEN TEMPORARY ON-SITE ACCOMMODATION MAY BE PERMITTED, DURING WHICH TIME THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT DWELLING MUST BE ESTABLISHED.”

POLICY H9 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU7 - REVISED DEPOSIT – AFFORDABLE HOUSING


The Council argues that the JSP does not set targets for the scale of affordable housing to be provided in the Borough so it is not considered appropriate for this Plan to do so. This ignores the advice in PPG3, para 13 that LPAs “..should work jointly with housing departments to assess the range of needs..” and (para 15) that local plans should “indicate how many affordable homes need to be provided throughout the plan area”. Clearly the Government sees the identification of local housing need as an issue for the Local Plan. This is reinforced through RSS8, para 4.1.9: “..the requirement for affordable housing should be addressed at the local level in the light of local housing needs surveys”.

It seems clear to me that the Council has established evidence of need through 2 detailed studies and the first part of the Policy statement is unnecessary. I agree with those who consider that the reference SPG to determine the proportion of affordable dwellings that will be sought is contrary to advice in PPG12 (para 3.18) that plan policies should not attempt to delegate the criteria for decisions to SPG. In this respect I have noted the conclusion of the Inspector for the Uttlesford Inquiry of 2004, quoted by the HBF. Although the Council argues that para 3.8 of the SPG makes it clear that the proportion of affordable housing will “be sought” rather than required, the Policy retains the latter emphasis and should, in my opinion, be amended.

I do not accept the arguments that key workers, or the elderly should merit special attention in the Policy. There is no detailed evidence before the Inquiry to suggest Rushcliffe is a special case in respect of these needs. I consider that the supporting text could be clarified to indicate the purpose of the SPG and its role in supplementing Policy HOU7.



“THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK A PROPORTION OF UP TO 15% OF THE TOTAL DWELLINGS ON ALLOCATED SITES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS. A SIMILAR PROPORTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE SOUGHT ON UNALLOCATED SITES OF 0.5 HECTARES OR 15 DWELLINGS OR MORE WHICH COMPLY WITH POLICY HOU2. ON ALL OTHER SITES OF UNDER 0.5 HECTARES OR LESS THAN 15 DWELLINGS PERMITTED UNDER POLICY HOU2 THE PROVISION OF AN ELEMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE ENCOURAGED. THE CO-OPERATION…..ON LOW INCOMES.

THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION SOUGHT WILL…..”;

And that the Council gives further consideration to the reasoned justification to clarify the role of the SPG in support of Policy HOU7.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Partially accept recommendation. Whilst the revised wording simplifies the policy, there are concerns about the reference to 15% as the proportion of affordable housing to be sought, as this is not up to date. The Housing Strategy approved in November 2005 has been the subject of detailed public scrutiny and is based on detailed evidence of need, both contain reference to the requirement now being up to 30% on the basis of the available evidence. It is clear that the Inspector accepts that the proportion of Affordable Housing should be based on evidence, therefore policy should refer the requirement being 30%. The text in the final sentence of paragraph 3.28 should be amended to refer to the emerging SPD and paragraph 3.31 should be updated to refer to the most recent Housing strategy to draft PPS3.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.52 Amend policy HOU7 to read; “THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK A PROPORTION OF UP TO 30% OF THE TOTAL DWELLINGS ON ALLOCATED SITES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS. A SIMILAR PROPORTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE SOUGHT ON UNALLOCATED SITES OF 0.5 HECTARES OR 15 DWELLINGS OR MORE WHICH COMPLY WITH POLICY HOU2. ON ALL OTHER SITES OF UNDER 0.5 HECTARES OR LESS THAN 15 DWELLINGS PERMITTED UNDER POLICY HOU2 THE PROVISION OF AN ELEMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WILL BE ENCOURAGED. THE CO-OPERATION…..ON LOW INCOMES.

THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION SOUGHT WILL…..”;

Add the following to the end of 3.28: “and within the emerging Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document which is due to be adopted in Summer 2006.” In paragraph 3.31 amend reference to the date of the Council’s Housing Strategy from 2003/2006 to 2004/2007. Also amend “…proposed change PPG3 (Housing) published in July 2003…” to read “…draft PPS3 published in December 2005…“

POLICY H10 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU8 – REVISED DEPOSIT – EXCEPTIONAL LOCAL NEEDS HOUSING


In my view the Government Office is correct in that anything which forms the basis for deciding planning applications should be included within the Policy. In this instance it is clear that the statement required will form a basis for the decision and so it should be a requirement of the policy.

Although not the subject of specific objection, as with other policies I consider criterion (f) is superfluous and the Council may wish to consider its deletion.


That the Plan be modified by amending Policy HOU8 by incorporating a new sentence at the end of the Policy as follows:

“APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE POLICY SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT INDICATING:-“

followed by the list of requirements previously included in Statement of Intent H/C;

and the Council may wish to consider deleting criterion (f) as unnecessary.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation accepted as the change makes the intention of the policy clearer

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.55 Delete Criterion (f) Move second sentence and subsequent criteria from paragraph 3.37 to a new section at the end of the policy to read; “APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER THE POLICY SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT INDICATING:

1) THAT A LOCAL NEED EXISTS. WHERE APPROPRIATE THIS SHOULD

BE SUBSTANTIATED BY A HOUSING SURVEY; THE METHODOLOGY FOR THIS SHOULD BE AGREED IN ADVANCE WITH THE BOROUGH COUNCIL.

2) THAT THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ACCOMMODATION WILL ENSURE THE PROVISION OF LOW COST HOUSING FOR THE AREA IN THE LONG TERM. THIS WILL REQUIRE THE INVOLVEMENT OF A REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD

3) THAT THE HOUSING IS TRULY LOW COST. TO PROVE THIS IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLY DETAIL OF A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY.

4) PROSPECTIVE OCCUPIERS FOR THE PROPOSED UNITS NB: THE ORDER OF PRIORITY FOR SUCH HOUSING IS: I) RESIDENTS OF THE PARISH II) RESIDENTS OF ADJACENT PARISHES III) PEOPLE RESIDENT ELSEWHERE IN THE BOROUGH

POLICY H11 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU9 - REVISED DEPOSIT – CONVERSIONS TO FLATS AND BEDSITS


It seems that the issue of conversions to flats and bed sits is one that particularly affects the built-up area of West Bridgford and so a policy specific to that area is appropriate. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Policy area should be extended beyond West Bridgford to the more rural parts of the Borough. I do not accept that it is necessary to require development briefs where the Policy sets down specific criteria with which proposals are expected to comply. Whilst I sympathise with the view that more dwellings could be provided by conversions of large houses, this is a matter for individual owners and not a matter for policy. I also consider it unnecessary to make cross-references to other policies, since the Plan must be read as a whole.

It is necessary to revise the wording of criterion (d) since the parking standards are not those of the Borough Council, but are included in a document produced by the County Council. I also agree that it seems quite illogical to include an area not yet developed within a policy area for the conversion of existing houses. There is added force to the argument if the Council accepts my recommendations regarding the Edwalton site.

I agree that Policy HOU9 will effectively prevent further conversions in West Bridgford, whilst controlling them elsewhere in the Plan area and consider that, in any case, the planning system is not an appropriate means for dealing with social problems and would be contrary to the Government’s aim of achieving mixed communities (PPG3, para 2).

The Policy includes a superfluous “normally” in the second sentence which should be deleted in the interests of clarity and precision.


That the Plan be modified by amending Policy HOU10 by deleting the word “NORMALLY” in the second sentence, and by amending, criterion (d), as follows:

“THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES ADEQUATE CAR AND CYCLE PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE IN THE COUNTY COUNCIL’S PARKING PROVISION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS”;

and by amending the Policy area by deleting the Edwalton and Landmere Lane areas.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation partially accepted, as in general the changes take account of general changes considered elsewhere and clarifies the intention of the policy. However the intention of the policy is to prevent conversion with West Bridgford and this should include areas of new build, therefore no change should be made to the proposals map.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.58 Delete “NORMALLY” from the opening paragraph of HOU10. The reference to carparking standards is actually in criterion e), which should be amended to read;

“THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES ADEQUATE CAR AND CYCLE PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE IN THE COUNTY COUNCIL’S PARKING PROVISION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS;”

POLICY H12 - FIRST DEPOSIT & HOU10 - REVISED DEPOSIT – RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS


There is merit in the suggestion by Barton-in-Fabis Parish Council and I have suggested an amendment in my recommendation.

In respect of the Central West Bridgford Community Association objection the Policy provides criteria for proposals and there is no need for development briefs in addition to these.

The amended text to the statement of policy preceding the criteria is not clear in that it states proposals and extensions will normally be permitted, without qualification, or reference to the criteria. In my view a simpler form of words would provide clarity and precision.

The Use Classes Order has been amended through Statutory Instrument 2005 No.84 so that, although Class C2 has not been affected, the reference should be updated.

The advice on car and cycle parking in Appendix 1 is provided by the County Council and so cannot properly be described as the “Borough Council’s” standards in criterion (e).

Additionally, although not the subject of specific objection, I consider criterion (f) to be superfluous since the Plan must be read as a whole so that all proposals must comply with all the relevant policies. It also lacks clarity in that it does not specify which policies should be the subject of compliance.



“PROPOSALS FOR RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS (AS DEFINED BY CLASS C2 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (USE CLASSES) ORDER 1987, AS AMENDED), OR EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL PREMISES WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT:”

by amending criterion (e) to read:


by amending criterion (g) to read:

“WHERE NEW BUILDING IS PROPOSED THE SCALE, DESIGN, CHARACTER AND IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE IN THE LOCATION AND SYMPATHETIC TO ITS SURROUNDINGS”;

The Council may also wish to consider deleting criterion (f) as lacking clarity and being unnecessary.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation accepted as the changes take account of general changes considered elsewhere and clarifies the intention of the policy.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.61 Amend the opening section of Policy HOU10 to read:

“PROPOSALS FOR RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS (AS DEFINED BY CLASS C2 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (USE CLASSES) ORDER 1987, AS AMENDED), OR EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL PREMISES WILL NORMALLY BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A PROPOSAL APPLICANTS MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT:”

Amend criterion (e) to read:


Delete criterion (f)

Amending criterion (g) to read:

“WHERE NEW BUILDING IS PROPOSED THE SCALE, DESIGN, CHARACTER AND

IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE IN THE LOCATION AND SYMPATHETIC TO ITS SURROUNDINGS”

POLICY H14 - FIRST DEPOSIT - HOUSE EXTENSIONS


The section concerning house extensions, and Policy H14 have not been carried over into the RDD, but have been incorporated into a new Policy HOU12 – Standards of Design. This covers all new residential developments, whether involving a new dwelling, or an extension to an existing dwelling. It includes a re-worded criterion (c) concerning pitched roofs. The new Policy has also been subject to objections, and criterion (c) has again been amended through PIC HOS.077, which has not been the subject of further comment. Objections to Policy HOU12 are dealt with below.





CHANGE NO. HOS.076 – STADARDS OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT


The objection by the HBF relates to para 3.54 in the FDD. The Council has not changed the wording, now para 3.46, in response to the objection. However, paras 3.43 – 3.46 have to be reconsidered in relation to my recommendation for Policy HOU12, below. I have recommended that the Policy should be deleted since its requirements are already incorporated into Policy GP2. It follows that appropriate aspects of the reasoned justification must now be incorporated in that for Policy GP2.


That the Plan be modified by incorporating appropriate aspects of the

content of paragraphs 3.43 – 3.46 into an amended reasoned justification for Policy GP2


PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.67

Delete paragraphs 3.43 to 3.46. Amend paragraph 1.4 to read; The Borough Council recognises the link between the quality of the environment and the health and welfare of residents. Issues such as pollution, access to social housing, sport and recreation facilities, public transport and health facilities are all important factors in considering the impact of new development. In considering proposals for new development, account will be taken of existing nearby uses, where an existing use could cause nuisance to the new occupants, the proposal may be considered unacceptable in amenity terms. If permitted, the proposal could result in the new occupants making complaints which may jeopardise the operation of the existing use. In addition account will also be taken of the impact of the development itself upon the amenity, character and infrastructure of the surrounding area. In certain cases this may indicate that development in any form is not acceptable. Include former paragraph 3.45 after paragraph 1.4. This reads; “Well designed development can make a significant contribution to an area, the Borough Council will therefore wish to encourage good design for both new dwellings and extensions to existing dwellings. To assist in this matter the Borough Council has produced Space Between Building Guidance which details how residential amenity can be protected. Further guidance about sustainable design principles can be found in the publication Sustainable Developer Guide for Nottinghamshire which is available from the Borough Council.”

Re-number following paragraphs.

POLICY HOU12 - REVISED DEPOSIT – STANDARDS OF DESIGN


The Council has proposed to change Policy HOU12 by amending criterion (c) to ensure single storey dwellings are not flat roofed. This change encapsulates the problem of too much detail with Policy HOU12. The Policy has evolved from the previous, adopted Local Plan which provided a more general set of requirements, mostly now incorporated in Policy GP1 (GP2 if my recommendation is accepted). It is now contrary to the advice in PPS1 concerning design policies (para 38), that they should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail. Rather, they should concentrate on guiding “..the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area generally”. It also relies on SPG in the form of the Council’s standards

on space between buildings, contrary to the guidance in PPG12 (para 3.17.

Criterion (b) concerning the “terracing effect” which can harm street scenes is too prescriptive and deals with only one aspect of design. Criterion (c) is equally prescriptive in requiring pitched roofs in all developments of new houses irrespective of the setting and/or individual circumstances pertaining to a particular site. Those matters are in any case included as a consideration of the character and appearance of neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area, within the requirements in Policy GP2, criterion (d). The issue of amenity for occupiers of new and existing dwellings is already covered by criteria (a) and (g) of Policy GP2. In my view “privacy” is already included as an aspect of “amenity”, although it has also been specifically included in Policy GP2, criterion (d).

Development densities are determined, not only by policy, but by individual circumstances pertaining to the location and context of a site as well as its character and physical attributes. National policy in PPG3 gives a clear indication of the Government’s concern with the efficient use of land. The Council considers its ‘space about buildings’ requirement is adequate, but this does not comply with the guidance in PPG12 concerning SPG. Taking account of advice in PPS1 (para 38) I believe the consideration of density forms an aspect of Policy GP2, criterion (d) in relation to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I have proposed amendment to that criterion in this respect [para 2.8.6].

Policy GP2 extends to cover extensions and conversions in addition to new development and its list of criteria includes all of the matters pertaining to Policy HOU12. As a result it seems that HOU12 should be deleted to prevent the overlap and duplication of the two policies.


That the Plan be modified by deleting Policy HOU12.

RBC RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION Recommendation accepted. However, whilst the majority of the criteria set out within this policy are already covered in Policy GP2, the reference to the need to “ensure that the occupants of new and existing dwellings have a satisfactory degree of privacy” is not fully covered in GP2 (d). This criteria should therefore be amended to include this reference.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.70 Delete Policy HOU12.

Amend GP2 criterion (d) to include reference to new and existing dwellings having a satisfactory degree of amenity.

“THE SCALE, DENSITY, HEIGHT, MASSING, DESIGN, LAYOUT AND MATERIALS OF THE PROPOSALS ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBOURING BUILDINGS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THEY SHOULD NOT LEAD TO AN OVERINTENSIVE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT, BE OVERBEARING IN RELATION TO

NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES, NOR LEAD TO UNDUE OVERSHADOWING OR LOSS OF PRIVACY AND SHOULD ENSURE THAT OCCUPANTS OF NEW AND EXISTING DWELLINGS HAVE A SATISFACTORY DEGREE OF PRIVACY.”

POLICY HOU13 - REVISED DEPOSIT – SITE DESIGN STATEMENTS

SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS Policy HOU13 is not a land use policy in the true sense of the word – it does not provide criteria for the grant or refusal of planning permission, nor does it make an allocation or propose a use or development for a particular site. It simply indicates an administrative procedure and does not provide a basis for allowing or refusing a particular proposal. It does not fulfil the requirements for a local plan policy set down in PPG12 (para 3.14 and Annex A para 23) and should be deleted.

INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS That the Plan be modified by deleting Policy HOU13.


PROPOSED MODIFICATION 4.73 Delete Policy HOU13.

Documents

4. Chapter 4 - Housing - Rushcliffe Borough Council...4. CHAPTER 4 - HOUSING OBJECTIONS NOT RELATED TO A SPECIFIC POLICY SUMMARY OF INSPECTOR'S CONCLUSIONS Although the draft replacement