ANSLOW NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN - East Staffordshire · Anslow Neighbourhood Plan Independent ... 1.15 I...

Anslow Neighbourhood Plan Independent Examiner’s Report Rosemary Kidd MRTPI Planning Consultant Page 1

ANSLOW NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Publication Version

A report to East Staffordshire Borough Council

into the examination of the Anslow Neighbourhood Plan

by Independent Examiner, Rosemary Kidd

Rosemary Kidd, Dip TP, MRTPI

Planning Consultant

March 2014


Contents:

Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Basic Conditions 5

3 Background Documents 8

4 Public Consultation 9

5 The Neighbourhood Plan -

Overview and Introductory Sections

10

6 The Neighbourhood Plan - Policies 13

H1 New Housing 13

H2 Conversions and Extensions 16

LE1 Local Employment 17

CF1 Local Shopping Provision 17

CF2 Burial Ground Provision 18

TR1 Traffic Management 18

TR2 Transport and New Development 18

TR3 Footway to Church 19

E1 Nature Conservation 20

E2 Built Environment 20

CL1 Landscape and Countryside Management 21

CL2 National Forest 21

CL3 Renewable Energy Installations 21

CL4 Telecommunications Installations 22

Proposals Map 23

7 Summary and Referendum 23


1. Introduction

1.1 Neighbourhood planning is a relatively new process introduced by the

Localism Act 2011 which allows local communities to create the policies

which will shape the places where they live and work. The Neighbourhood

Plan provides the community with the opportunity to develop a vision to steer

the planning of the future of the parish, to prepare the policies and allocate

land for development which will be used in the determination of planning

applications in the parish.

1.2 Neighbourhood development plans that are in general conformity with the

strategic policies of the local development plan for the local area (and which

together form the local development plan), and have appropriate regard to

national policy, have statutory weight. Decision-makers are obliged to make

decisions on planning applications for the area that are in line with the

neighbourhood development plan, unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.

1.3 The neighbourhood plan making process has been led by Anslow Parish

Council which is a “qualifying body” under the Neighbourhood Planning

legislation which entitles them to lead the plan making process.

1.4 This report is the outcome of my examination of the Publication Version of the

Anslow Neighbourhood Plan. My report will make recommendations based on

my findings on whether the Plan should go forward to a referendum. If the

plan then receives the support of over 50% of those voting then the Plan will

be made by East Staffordshire Borough Council which is the Local Planning

Authority.

The Plan Area

1.5 The Neighbourhood Plan relates to the area that was designated by East

Staffordshire Borough Council as a Neighbourhood area on 29 November

2012. This area is coterminous with the Anslow Parish boundary. The village

of Anslow is located to the eastern part of the Parish and is surrounded by

attractive countryside, most of which is actively farmed. The Neighbourhood

Plan does not relate to more than one Neighbourhood area and so complies

with that legal requirement.

The Examiner’s Role

1.6 I was appointed by East Staffordshire Borough Council in February 2014, with

the agreement of Anslow Parish Council, to conduct this examination. The

role is known as Independent Examiner. My selection has been facilitated by

the Neighbourhood Planning Independent Examiner Referral Service.

1.7 In order for me to be appointed to this role, I am required to be appropriately

experienced and qualified. I have over 30 years’ experience as a planning

practitioner in local government primarily in senior management roles in

preparing development plans. I am a Chartered Town Planner. I am


independent of both East Staffordshire Borough Council and Anslow Parish

Council and I have no interest in any land that is affected by the

Neighbourhood Plan.

1.8 Under the terms of the neighbourhood planning legislation I am required to

make one of three possible recommendations:

That the plan should proceed to referendum on the basis that it meets all

the legal requirements.

That the plan should proceed to referendum if modified

That the plan should not proceed to referendum on the basis that it does

not meet all the legal requirements.

1.9 Furthermore if I am to conclude that the Plan should proceed to referendum I

need to consider whether the area covered by the referendum should extend

beyond the boundaries of the Anslow Neighbourhood Plan area.

1.10 In examining the Plan the Independent Examiner is expected to address the

following questions:

(a) the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan relate to the development and use

of land for a designated neighbourhood area;

(b) the Neighbourhood Plan meets the requirements to: specify the period to

which it has effect; not include provision about excluded development; and

not relate to more than one neighbourhood area;

(c) the Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared for an area that has been

properly designated for such plan preparation;

(d) the Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared and submitted for

examination by a qualifying body.

1.11 I make my recommendation in this respect in the final section of this report. If

recommending that the Neighbourhood Plan is submitted to referendum my

report must also recommend whether the area for the referendum should

extend beyond the neighbourhood area to which the Neighbourhood Plan

relates, and if to be extended, the nature of that extension. I make my

recommendation regarding the referendum area also in the last section of this

report. It is a requirement that my report must give reasons for each of its

recommendations and contain a summary of its main findings.

1.12 Subject to the contents of this report I am able to confirm that I am satisfied

that each of the above requirements has been met. I can confirm that the plan

does specify the period in paragraph 1.2 over which the plan has effect

namely 2013 to 2031 although the front cover of the plan does not show the

date of the plan.


The Examination Process

1.13 The presumption is that the neighbourhood plan will proceed by way of an

examination of written evidence only. However the Examiner can ask for a

public hearing in order to hear oral evidence on matters which he or she

wishes to explore further or if a person has a fair chance to put a case.

1.14 I am required to give reasons for each of my recommendations and also

provide a summary of my main conclusions. I am satisfied that I am in a

position to properly examine the plan without the need for a hearing. I had

before me background evidence which have assisted me in understanding

the background to the matters raised in the Neighbourhood Plan. Furthermore

no parties have requested a hearing.

1.15 I carried out an unaccompanied visit to familiarise myself with the parish and

the sites referred to in the Plan.

2.0 Basic Conditions

2.1 An Independent Examiner must consider whether a neighbourhood plan

meets the “Basic Conditions”. To meet the basic conditions and it be

appropriate for a Neighbourhood Plan to be ‘made’, the Plan must:

have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued

by the Secretary of State;

contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;

be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the

Development Plan for the area;

not breach, and be otherwise compatible with, EU obligations and human

rights requirements.

2.2 In this section, I consider the national context for neighbourhood planning, the

status of the relevant development plan and whether the Neighbourhood Plan

is compatible with EU obligations and human rights requirements.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Planning Practice Guidance

(2014)

2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (paras183 – 184) state:

“Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a

shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth

of their local area to deliver the sustainable development they need.

Neighbourhood plans should reflect the strategic policies set out in the Local

Plan and neighbourhoods should plan positively to support them.

Neighbourhood plans should not promote less development than set out in

the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies”.


Planning Practice Guidance (in Neighbourhood Planning Section 5) states:

“A policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear and unambiguous. It should

be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently

and with confidence when determining planning applications. It should be

concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence. It should be distinct

to reflect and respond to the unique characteristics and planning context of

the specific neighbourhood area for which it has been prepared.

“National planning policy states that neighbourhood plans should support the

strategic development needs set out in the Local Plan, plan positively to

support local development and should not promote less development than set

out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies. Nor should it be used

to constrain the delivery of a strategic site allocated for development in the

Local Plan”.

2.4 In considering the Anslow Neighbourhood Plan, I have had concern that

several policies are not “clear and unambiguous” and their justifications do

not provide explanations that would provide clarity to future decision makers.

Where appropriate, I have made recommendations to provide greater clarity.

2.5 Very little factual evidence has been collated to provide information on the

specific local circumstances in the plan area. It is disappointing to note that a

number of policies are not locally distinctive and provide little information

about the unique character of the plan area that would aid decision makers.

2.6 I considered whether the policies would support the strategic development

needs set out in the Local Plan and whether the Neighbourhood Plan would

support more development than set out in the Local Plan. My

recommendations are set out under the relevant policies.

2.7 National guidance on specific policy areas is considered under relevant

policies.

Contribute to sustainable development

2.8 Subject the amendments proposed I am satisfied that the Anslow

Neighbourhood Plan will support the delivery of sustainable development and

help to meet the social and economic development needs of the parish within

the environmental context of the area.

Development Plan

2.9 The adopted development plan covering Anslow is the East Staffordshire

Local Plan (2006). The Council is currently preparing a revised Local Plan

and undertook pre-submission consultation on this new plan between October

and November 2013.

2.10 Policies relevant to the parish in the adopted plan includes a settlement

boundary around the ribbon of development at Henhurst Hill on the B5017

and Hopley Road. The remainder of the parish lies within open countryside.


The plan includes policies setting out the exceptional forms of housing and

employment development that may be permitted in open countryside. The

National Forest designation covers the southern half of the parish.

2.11 The Pre Submission Local Plan was subject to consultation between

October and November 2013. Although the Plan is well advanced, it is

recognised that it could be subject to change before it is adopted. I note that

no changes are proposed in the emerging plan to the settlement boundaries

affecting property in the parish and the boundaries of the National Forest. A

strategic green gap is proposed to the east of Anslow village separating the

village from the built up area of Burton on Trent. A significant new proposal is

a strategic site allocation to the west of Burton on Trent. This lies immediately

to the east of Anslow parish and outside the Neighbourhood Plan area. It is

noted that outline planning permission has subsequently been granted for a

mixed use development on the proposed strategic site allocation at Upper

Outwoods Farm.

2.12 Strategic Policy 14 on the Rural Economy makes provision for new

employment development in rural areas subject to satisfying criteria.

2.13 Strategic Policy 8 on Development in the Open Countryside differs from that

in the adopted Local Plan and follows the advice of the National Planning

Policy Framework.

2.14 There are a number of other relevant policies referred under specific policies.

EU obligations and human rights requirements

2.15 A neighbourhood plan must be compatible with European Union obligations

as incorporated into UK law, in order to be legally compliant. Key directives

relate to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, the

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats and Wild Birds

Directives. A neighbourhood plan should also take account of the

requirements to consider human rights.

2.16 A Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Determination was made in

December 2013 concluding that an Environmental Assessment of the

emerging Neighbourhood Plan is not required as it is unlikely to have

significant environmental effects. This Screening Determination was included

in the Basic Conditions Statement and was subject to consultation at the

same time as the Publication draft Neighbourhood Plan. Natural England and

English Heritage have confirmed in writing that they consider the SEA

screening to be reasonable and that an SEA is not required. The Environment

Agency has written to confirm that they have no comments on the screening

determination.

2.17 Neither an Environmental Impact Assessment nor a Habitats Regulations

Assessment screening statement has been produced. Neither the

Neighbourhood Plan documentation nor representations received suggest


that such a screening is appropriate. There are no proposals or habitats in the

Plan area that would trigger such assessments.

2.18 No equalities impact assessment has been undertaken of the Neighbourhood

Plan. Consultation has been comprehensive. No representations have been

received to suggest that the plan may give rise to any equalities impacts.

2.19 I consider that the Neighbourhood Plan does not breach, and is otherwise

compatible with, EU obligations and human rights requirements and therefore

satisfies that Basic Condition.

2.20 Subject to the modifications recommended, it is considered that the Anslow

Neighbourhood Plan has regard to national policies and advice contained in

guidance issued by the Secretary of State, contributes to the achievement of

sustainable development and is in general conformity to the strategic policies

in the Local Plan.

3. Background Documents

3.1 In undertaking this examination, I have considered each of the following

documents

Anslow Neighbourhood Plan Publication Version January 2014 (includes

a Proposals Map of the Plan area)

Basic Conditions Statement

Statement of Public Consultation

Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening determination

National Planning Policy Framework March 2012

Planning Practice Guidance March 2014

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

The Localism Act 2011

The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

DCLG July 2013

Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England 2013

The Adopted East Staffordshire Local Plan, 2006 (saved policies edition)

East Staffordshire Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft October 2013

East Staffordshire Borough Integrated Transport Strategy 2013-2031

(draft)

Committee Report P/2013/00429 for Outline planning permission for 950

dwellings, school, retail development, heath centre and community

facilities at Upper Outwoods Farm, Beamhill Road, Burton upon Trent.

East Staffordshire Reuse of Rural Buildings SPD (September 2010)

3.2 Further to the above, I spent an unaccompanied day visiting the Anslow

Parish


4. Public Consultation

4.1 Public consultation on the production of land use plans, including

neighbourhood plans, is a legislative requirement. Building effective

community engagement into the plan-making process encourages public

participation and raises awareness and understanding of the plan’s scope

and limitations.

4.2 The Anslow Neighbourhood Plan Working Group identified the importance of

consultation to create a successful Neighbourhood Plan. This was undertaken

in two stages:

Awareness raising and consideration of issues and options, vision and

objectives

Consultation on the draft plan.

A final third stage is proposed to promote of the final plan and awareness

raising for the referendum

4.3 The first stage was undertaken between March and April 2013 through a

newsletter, questionnaire, a parish meeting on 8 May and a session with the

primary school on 13 June. Letters were also sent to statutory consultees and

local businesses. A second newsletter was circulated in May 2013 seeking

views on the vision and objectives.

4.4 The second stage consultation on the draft vision, objectives and policies was

carried out between July and September 2013 involved a third newsletter with

a questionnaire sent to all households and businesses with an event in the

village hall on 7 September. Statutory consultees were invited to comment on

the draft plan with a 6 week period allowed up to 14 September 2013.

4.5 Publicity of the Publication Draft was carried out by East Staffordshire

Borough Council for 6 weeks between 13 January and 24 February 2014

4.6 Despite a low response to the first newsletter and questionnaire, a good level

of response was generated for the interactive workshop in March when the

main concerns of residents were identified and prioritised. The outcomes of

this consultation event helped the Working Group to develop a draft vision

and objectives which was presented to the Annual Parish Meeting where 48

people attended. Discussion at this session helped to highlight concerns

about the wording of some aspects of the vision and objectives.

4.7 Young people at the village primary school were asked to think about what

they liked about Anslow and what was not so good. This was followed up with

a second session explaining the plan.

4.8 A third newsletter was circulated to all households and businesses in the

parish which included a questionnaire on the vision, objectives and policies of

the draft plan. There was further publicity through the parish council’s

website, the annual Village Festival and a public event on 7 September.


4.9 In total 85 questionnaires were returned which represented a 26% rate. Most

policies were well received and further consideration was given to those

where more than 10% of respondents disagreed with the policy. At the final

event on 7 September, local residents were able to discuss those aspects of

the draft plan that were not clearly supported, leading to final changes being

made to the draft plan.

4.10 In addition to local residents and businesses, statutory consultees and other

interested organisations have also been invited to input into the preparation of

the plan and to comment on the draft plan. Several have responded by

providing information concerning the local area.

4.11 Anslow Parish Council and the Working Group are to be congratulated on

their commitment to promoting awareness of the process of preparing the

Neighbourhood Plan and their efforts to involve all sections of the local

community and the speed that they have worked to prepare their

Neighbourhood Plan. Their easy to understand and attractive newsletters

were very eyecatching.

4.12 The publication draft plan was published for comments on 13 January for 6

weeks, until the 24 February. Responses were received from 7 organisations.

5. The Neighbourhood Plan - Overview and Introductory

Sections

5.1 Where modifications are recommended, they are highlighted in bold print,

with any proposed new wording in italics.

5.2 The Introduction to the Anslow Neighbourhood Plan includes a map of the

plan area and states that it relates to a plan period 2013 to 2031 and so

satisfies that legal requirement. It may be helpful to future users of the plan to

include the plan period on the front cover of the plan.

Recommendation: Include plan period 2013 – 2031 on front cover of plan

5.3 Section 2 Parish Profile includes a summary of key facts about the parish

concerning population, households, economy, community activity, built

environment, archaeology, countryside, environment and landscape

character. A review of planning applications within the parish for the period

from 1997 to 2013 demonstrates the level of development that has taken

place in the parish with 66 dwellings (including a site for 20 houses) having

been approved in the 16 year period and 29 new employment units (including

live/work units).

5.4 This section includes a summary of major development proposals in nearby

parishes which it is considered may impact on the parish. These include

outline permission for two significant mixed used development at Outwoods

and Branston, Burton on Trent which together are planned to deliver about

1600 new homes, retail and employment uses. The Outwoods site was


included as a strategic site allocation in the pre-submission draft East Staffs

Local Plan. This site lies immediately to the east of Anslow parish.

5.5 Paragraph 2.38 highlights concerns about the reduced separation distance

between Burton on Trent and the parish and concerns about increased traffic.

It is noted that these concerns about increased traffic levels have led to the

transport policies in the plan. It is also noted that the parish wishes to see a

wider strategic solution to traffic. However, no evidence was included with the

plan to support these concerns. Subsequently I have been supplied with the

draft East Staffordshire Integrated Transport Strategy and information

concerning the transport impacts from the planning applications for the

development at Upper Outwoods Farm.

5.6 This section provides a valuable background to the development of the parish

and contains much of the background evidence that underpins the

Neighbourhood Plan. However, background evidence does not form part of

the plan and should be placed in an Appendix. It would be helpful to

summarise the key facts in this section to provide a context for the plan.

5.7 In addition to the factual record of planning applications, the planning history

section includes a number of issues and concerns about the possible

implications of approved and proposed developments in and around Burton

on Trent which lies 2 miles to the south east of the village of Anslow. These

issues should be included within Section 3 Issues.

5.8 Recommendation:

It is recommended that Section 2 the Parish Profile be summarised to

set out only the essential contextual material for the Plan. The factual

contents of Section 2 should be clearly distinguished from the plan and

moved to an Appendix. The issues contained in the Planning History

Section should be included in Section 3: Issues.

5.9 Section 3 The Issues summarises the challenges facing the plan area.

These include the impact of large scale development in nearby areas and the

potential impact of traffic arising from the developments on highway safety in

the parish. A wide range of other issues raised during consultation on the plan

is summarised. The section heading also refers to opportunities, however, I

can find nothing in this section describing the opportunities available in the

plan area.

5.10 Section 3 also includes the Vision and Objectives. This is a key component of

the Plan and as such it would be more appropriate to set them out in a

separate section.

5.11 Recommendation:

Create a new section entitled “Vision and Objectives”. Renumber

subsequent sections.


5.12 The Vision has been developed with input from the local community. It

provides a robust approach tailored to the circumstances of the plan area.

However, the term “limited sustainable development” is considered to be

restrictive and imprecise and it is recommended that it be revised in line with

national guidance to refer to “a limited amount of sustainable development to

meet local needs”


Revise the second sentence of the Vision to “A limited amount of

sustainable development to meet local needs will help to maintain….”

5.14 There are five objectives in the Neighbourhood Plan covering new

development, community facilities, traffic, locally important buildings and

features, and landscape enhancement.

5.15 It is good practice to frame objectives in a plan as a statement of the desired

outcome or long term direction of travel. They should emphasise what is to be

achieved not how it is to be accomplished.

5.16 As set out the objectives appear to be little more than a summary of the

relevant policies. Some also include statements concerning implementation or

monitoring of policies. It is considered that the objectives are not worded in a

clear or appropriate manner to set out the desired outcomes for the plan.

5.17 Objective 5 refers to landscapes but makes no reference to the importance of

safeguarding and enhancing biodiversity features which forms an important

aspect of landscape quality.


It is recommended that the objectives be reworded as follows:

“Objective 1: The Neighbourhood Plan will provide for a limited amount

of new residential and employment development outside settlement

boundaries to meet local needs, having regard to national and local plan

policies for development in the countryside.

“Objective 2: The Neighbourhood Plan will promote the need for

improved community facilities, in particular a local shop and an

extension to the burial ground.

“Objective 3: The Neighbourhood Plan will encourage measures to

improve highway safety for all road users.

“Objective 4: The Neighbourhood Plan will promote the safeguarding

and enhancement of locally important buildings and features that

contribute to the environment and character of the Parish.

“Objective 5: The Neighbourhood Plan will recognise the distinctive

quality of the landscape of Anslow Parish, and will seek to protect and


enhance the local landscape character, its biodiversity, footpaths and

bridleways.”

6. The Neighbourhood Plan - Policies

Policy H1 New Housing

6.1 Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that “new residential

development will be limited to infill sites and the conversion of buildings in

other uses and the provisions of ESBC LP(s) and Policy H2 of this plan will

apply to the detailed consideration of any development proposals of this

nature”.

6.2 National Planning Practice Guidance states that policies in neighbourhood

plans should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence.

When considering housing in rural areas, national guidance states that all

settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural

areas so policies restricting housing development should be avoided unless

supported by robust evidence. I consider that the wording of Policy H1 is

restrictive in that it seeks to “limit” housing development. Moreover the policy

is unclear and provides no explanation about how the provisions of ESBC

LP(s) policies should be applied.

6.3 I have considered whether the policy wording is in general conformity with the

strategic local plan policies. The adopted East Staffordshire Local Plan (2006

saved policies) makes provision for a limited amount of windfall development

in small villages such as Anslow and there is no change to this general

approach in the draft Pre-submission Local Plan.

6.4 The 2006 Local Plan “saved policies” include a criteria based policy governing

development outside development boundaries, as well as policies on the

conversion of rural buildings, replacement dwellings in the countryside, and

rural affordable housing exceptions sites.

6.5 The Pre-Submission draft Local Plan defines settlement boundaries around

the higher tier settlements. Anslow village is identified as one of 15 Tier 3

villages which have not been given settlement boundaries because of their

small size and lack of facilities. No site allocations are made in these

settlements but there is an allowance for windfall development for the 15

villages of 90 houses in total in the plan period. The emerging Local Plan

proposes that this will be delivered through development under the

exceptions policies controlling housing development outside settlement

boundaries or through proposals in Neighbourhood Plans. (Strategic Policies

4, 8 and 18 refer)

6.6 The draft Local Plan Strategic Policy 8 on Development in the Open

Countryside is different to that in the adopted Local Plan in that it makes

provision for housing in the open countryside in the following circumstances:

where it is required to support a rural business;


where it accords with a “made” Neighbourhood Plan;

on a Rural Exceptions Site providing affordable and possibly some

“enabling” market housing; and

where “otherwise appropriate in the countryside”.

6.7 As and when the new Local Plan is adopted, Policy SP8 will provide the

framework for Neighbourhood Plans in East Staffordshire to consider

allocating sites in small villages in the countryside such as Anslow for future

development. However there is no requirement that Neighbourhood Plans

should allocate sites.

6.8 It is considered that the wording of Policy H1 is imprecise and does not fully

reflect the range of housing that may be permitted in the open countryside

under national and strategic Local Plan policies. ESBC has pointed out in

their representation that the Local Plan policies include a number of types of

housing development that may be permitted under the existing and emerging

Local Plan policies. For clarification, these should be referred to in the

justification to the policy.

6.9 It is unclear whether the policy applies only to the village of Anslow or to the

Plan area as a whole which contains several clusters of farmsteads and

isolated homes as well as the ribbon of development at Henhurst Hill along

the B5017 and Hopley Road. The latter lies within the settlement boundary for

Burton on Trent. The Parish Council has stated that they consider that the

policy should apply to all the Neighbourhood Plan area.

6.10 If the policy were to be applied throughout the parish, I consider that it could

give rise to the development of new housing on infill sites in the clusters of

isolated housing in the parish without the special circumstances required by

NPPF paragraph 55 and the Local Plan. Furthermore, any new housing

development at Henhurst Hill within the settlement boundary will contribute

towards the housing requirement for Burton on Trent and it may therefore be

helpful for the policy to exclude this area from the Neighbourhood Plan

housing policy and to explain in the justification that any development in this

area should be considered against policies in the Local Plan.

6.11 An explanation in the justification of the term “small scale infill sites” and the

size of development that would be acceptable would help improve the clarity

of the policy. The Parish Council has indicated that they consider that these

are normally sites suitable for single dwellings although they may be capable

of accommodating up to a maximum of 3 dwellings depending on the layout

and design of the scheme. They have confirmed that an assessment of

potential sites has not been undertaken and no information has been

provided about the number of dwellings that may be delivered by small scale

infill sites in the parish.

6.12 The justification to Policy H1 refers to the settlement hierarchy and windfall

allowance set out in the draft Local Plan for the group of 15 Tier 3 villages.

The draft Local Plan’s approach to considering Anslow as a small village in


open countryside does not materially differ from that in the adopted Local

Plan. However, the justification to Policy H1 goes on to set out a “pro-rata

requirement” based on the draft Local Plan to give a figure of 6 dwellings for

the village for the plan period and to argue that a recent permission for 7

dwellings at Hill Top Farm meets that requirement. Although there is

recognition that there may be scope for further development to take place

through conversions, single plots and possibly small scale infill sites.

6.13 I consider that reference to a housing figure based on a pro-rata of the draft

Local Plan’s housing windfall allowance for the 15 villages is misleading. The

figure of 90 homes in the Local Plan is a windfall allowance and not a housing

requirement. The draft Local Plan does not set out a figure for each

settlement and refers in general terms to “about a handful of new houses in

each village”. There may be greater or lesser potential for windfall housing

development in each village depending on site availability. Neither is it helpful

to refer to past development rates. The introduction of neighbourhood

planning gives local communities the opportunity to assess and identify

potential development sites in their village in order to meet local needs. As no

evidence has been collected on either aspect to support the plan, the policy

on housing can only be framed in general terms that does little more than

reflect national and Local Plan policies.

6.14 The justification states that it has not been necessary to undertake a local

housing needs assessment because there are no large scale sites for

residential development proposed. I consider that this is a misunderstanding

of the purpose of local housing needs studies which can provide evidence of

need for affordable housing and other special forms of housing required by

the local community. Where there is such evidence in a rural area, the Local

Plan Rural Exceptions Policy would enable a suitable site to be developed for

housing to meet the identified need. It is noted that new housing development

is planned not too far away on the edge of Burton on Trent, however, this may

not meet the needs of local residents who may wish to live in the parish.

6.15 The justification (or documents list) could usefully make reference to advice in

the ESBC Reuse of Rural Buildings SPD to provide guidance on the

conversion of buildings in other uses.

6.16 It would be helpful to include a list of relevant ESBC policies in an Appendix,

rather than refer to them in the manner set out in the policy. There is no need

to include reference to Neighbourhood Plan Policy H2 in the wording of Policy

H1.


Revise Policy H1 New Housing as follows:

a. “New residential development will be permitted outside

settlement boundaries in the Plan area through the re-use of rural

buildings and in other exceptional circumstances permitted

under policies of the ESBC Local Plan. Additionally, in Anslow


village new residential development will be permitted on small

scale infill sites.”

b. Revise sentence 2 of the first paragraph to read: “The proposed

windfall allowance for new housing in Tier 3 villages is 90 which

represents a handful of houses in each village”.

c. Delete sentences 3, 4 and 5 of the justification.

d. Revise sentence 6 to read: “The policy enables housing

development to occur outside the settlement boundaries through

the re-use of suitable buildings; in the exceptional circumstances

set out in Local Plan policies, where they are essential to support

a business appropriate in the countryside; for affordable housing

on rural exceptions sites; and replacement dwellings. In Anslow

village, small scale development of up to 3 houses on infill plots

may also be permitted on suitable sites, subject to satisfactory

design and layout to reflect the character of the local area. Within

those parts of the parish within Henhurst Hill that lie within the

settlement boundaries of Burton on Trent, proposals for new

housing will be considered against the policies of the ESBC

Local Plan”.

e. Delete the second paragraph of the justification.

Policy H2 Conversions and Extensions

6.18 This policy relates to design matters only and may be entitled more

appropriately.

Recommendation: revise title of Policy H2 to “Policy H2 – The design of

residential conversions and extensions”

6.19 The first paragraph covers two matters: general design principles and

sustainable design. To improve the clarity of the policy, it would be helpful to

move the final sentence of this paragraph to become the second sentence.

The first sentence refers to “extensions requiring planning permission”. It is

noted that many domestic extensions do not require planning permission,

however, this principle of good design should apply to all domestic extensions

and the reference to “requiring planning permission” should be deleted. The

final sentence of the justification is unnecessary and should be deleted.

6.20 ESBC has commented that standards of insulation and glazing are matters

for the Building Regulations and are not planning matters. They comment that

the policy could be strengthened by “requiring where appropriate / feasible”

other features of sustainable design rather than seeking “to encourage” them.

6.22 ESBC has commented that the second paragraph of the policy could be

strengthened by replacing “encouraged” with “required” as the paragraph

begins with the phrase “where it is possible”. The strengthening of the policy

in this way would help to redress the loss of hedgerows which is highlighted

as a matter of concern elsewhere in the plan.

6.23 I concur with the points made by ESBC.


6.24 Recommendation: revise Policy H2 as follows:

a. Delete “requiring planning permission” from the first sentence of

the policy.

b. Move the final sentence of the first paragraph of Policy H2 to

become the second sentence.

c. Delete “enhanced insulation, double or triple glazing” from the

first paragraph of the policy.

d. In the first paragraph, replace “encouraged” with “required where

feasible”.

e. In the second paragraph replace “encouraged” with “required”.

f. Delete the final sentence of the justification to Policy H2.

Policy LE1 – Local Employment

6.25 ESBC has commented that this policy is very similar to Local Plan policies

with “no local distinctiveness”.

6.26 Whilst it may be unfortunate that the Neighbourhood Plan has not availed

itself of the opportunity to develop a locally distinctive policy to deliver local

employment, it is considered that the policy accords with national and local

plan policies and no changes to the policy are recommended.

6.27 The second paragraph of the justification includes a summary of the

temporary changes to permitted development rights introduced in 2013. This

does not help to explain how the policy will be applied to deliver improved

employment opportunities in the plan area. It is recommended that they are

deleted, or placed in an appendix.


a. Retain sentence 1 of paragraph 2 of the justification. Delete the

remaining sentences of this paragraph.

Policy CF1 – Local Shopping Provision

6.29 This is an aspirational policy to encourage the establishment of a small scale

shop to serve the needs of the community. It may be helpful to recognise that

the use may be provided within an existing community or commercial

building.


a. Amend the wording “limited new development associated with”

to “or a small scale extension or by the incorporation of the use

within an existing community or commercial building, public

house or farm”.


b. Delete “(see above)” in the final sentence of the justification

which relates to text in the justification in Policy LE1 which it is

recommended to be deleted

Policy CF2 Burial Ground Provision

6.31 This is an aspirational policy to encourage the provision of additional burial

space for the community. The policy refers to “adjoining the existing Holy

Trinity Church burial ground”. However no site has been identified and the

justification refers to other options such as a remote site or woodland burial

site which may be considered.


Delete “adjoining the existing Holy Trinity Church” from the

policy. Amend the final sentence of the justification to read “A

site adjoining the existing Holy Trinity Church is preferred, if this

is not feasible, other options, such as ….”

Policy TR1 Traffic Management

Policy TR2 Transport and New Development

6.33 These policies arise from concerns expressed from consultation about

perceived traffic levels in the parish and concerns about the potential increase

in traffic arising from planned and proposed new developments in adjoining

areas. They refer to the Parish Council’s aspiration to have surveys of traffic

movements undertaken by Staffordshire County Council of Anslow and

adjoining parishes as a basis for considering the need for additional traffic

management measures when considering proposals for new development in

adjoining areas.

6.34 Staffordshire County Council has commented that they are “aware of the

concerns that the developments close to the A511 at Beamhill may impact on

rat running of traffic through the parish and they are seeking to mitigate this

somehow, but short of full scale traffic calming then it is doubtful whether this

would be feasible”.

6.35 Staffordshire County Council has stated that they are unaware of any

concerns about HGV movement is the area. If there were, these concerns

could be raised directly by the Parish Council to the highway authority for

consideration and action where appropriate.

6.36 No background evidence to substantiate traffic concerns was supplied by the

Parish Council. In order to appreciate the extent of the issues I have

considered the draft East Staffordshire Integrated Transport Strategy 2013-

2031. This refers to community concerns that have arisen through public

consultations on recent planning applications for major development sites at

Beamhill, Branston Locks and Red House Farm. As a result, it is suggested

that traffic management measures may be required in 4 settlements including

Anslow. (para 6.3)


6.37 I have also reviewed the committee report for the outline planning permission

for 950 dwellings, school, retail development, heath centre and community

facilities at Upper Outwoods Farm, Beamhill Road, Burton upon Trent.

(P/2013/00429) It is noted that the Highway Authority has advised that a raft

of improvements to the local highway network is necessary to ensure the

development is acceptable from a highway safety perspective. These include

improvement to a number of road junctions and an Anslow traffic calming

scheme.

6.38 It is appreciated that highway safety is a concern for local residents, in

particular the potential impacts arising from development that have been

recently approved which may lead to the narrow winding roads through the

parish being used as rat-runs. It is evident that these concerns have been

taken into account by the Local Planning Authority and Highways Authority.

However, I have not received any evidence that the Highways Authority is

committed to undertaking the widespread traffic surveys proposed in Policy

TR1.

6.39 It is recommended that the aspirations for improved traffic management in the

plan area be set out in a combined policy:


Amalgamate Policies TR1 and TR2 and renumber subsequent policy

a. New Policy TR1 entitled “Traffic Management and Highway Safety”.

“Where appropriate, traffic management measures will be

encouraged that will improve highway safety. Any measures should

be of a design appropriate to the character of the rural area”.

b. Revised Justification: “Highway safety on roads in the parish is a

major concern identified through consultation. Concerns have also

been expressed about the potential impact of planned development

in adjoining areas on roads in the parish. The Parish Council is keen

to work with the SCC and ESBC and adjoining parish councils to

survey the existing traffic movements in the parish, to consider the

impacts of new development on roads through the parish and to

agree traffic management measures in Anslow parish, where

appropriate”.

Policy TR3 – Footway to Church

6.41 This policy sets out the aspiration to improve pedestrian links from the village

to Holy Trinity Church which is located some distance to the west of Anslow

village. This stretch of road was kerbed around 2006 and the verge was

levelled and is mown. From my visit to the area it was not apparent that this is

a continuous route, requiring the crossing of the road because of hedges

alongside the verge, or that it was in use as a footway. The County Council

has indicated that they consider that the improvement to tarmac the route


would be expensive and would not be covered by S106 agreements from

nearby developments.

6.42 Nevertheless, this is an aspiration that has emerged from consultations on the

Neighbourhood Plan and as such deserves to be included in the Plan. It

would help to improve linkages to the parish’s community facilities from the

village. More work is required to determine the feasibility of the proposal and

the means of funding it. However, no evidence has been submitted to

demonstrate the County Council support for the project and reference to this

should therefore be deleted.


a. Revise Policy TR3 to read “The Parish Council will seek to secure

funding to provide improved pedestrian access along Hanbury

Road to improve links between Holy Trinity Church and the

village.”

b. Move the second and third sentences of the policy to the

justification and place after “The highway safety issues

associated with walking and cycling to the church increase

pressure for vehicular access and parking”.

c. Delete the penultimate sentence of the justification “The County

Council support this proposal….”

Policy E1 – Nature Conservation

6.44 This is a comprehensive policy supported by Natural England.

6.45 Recommendation: no change to policy or justification.

Policy E2 – Built Environment

6.46 This policy lists 6 small scale features that the community wish to see

protected and enhanced in view of their contribution to the attractiveness of

the local area. English Heritage has commented that it would be highly

appropriate for this policy (and objective 4) to also make reference to the

need to positively conserve the “Historic Farmsteads” and their settings

referred to in paragraph 2.20 of the Neighbourhood Plan. As these

farmsteads may not necessarily be listed, it would be appropriate to highlight

their local importance through this policy.

6.47 The final sentence of the justification to the policy is unclear and suggestions

are proposed to improve its clarity.


a. Revise Policy E2 to read: “Historic farmsteads and their settings,

and the following locally important features which contribute to

the attractiveness and interest of the area, will be protected and

enhanced:……”


b. Revise first sentence of the justification to read: “These buildings

and features which may not be of sufficient architectural or

historic merit to justify listing, are an important part of the

character of Anslow parish….…..”

c. Revise the final sentence of the justification to Policy E2 to read: “The

policy will help to ensure they are retained. Enhancements to the

local features will be sought through funding bids to support

their management”.

Policy CL1 – Landscape and Countryside Management



Policy CL2 – National Forest



Policy CL3 – Renewable Energy Installations

6.53 This policy supports the development of renewable heat and energy

proposals, provided “that there is no adverse effect” in terms of 5 factors.

6.54 It is considered that this form of wording is too restrictive and does not accord

with guidance in para 14 of DCLG “Planning practice guidance for renewable

and low carbon energy”(July 2013) which states that “policies based on clear

criteria can be useful when they are expressed positively (i.e. that proposals

will be accepted where the impact is or can be made acceptable)”.

6.55 The policy refers only to renewable energy and should be amended to relate

to renewable and low carbon energy to accord with national guidance. It

makes no reference to the consideration of the cumulative effects of

proposals. The justification says little to explain how the policy will be applied

apart from stating that the policy “takes account of the intimate nature of the

countryside”. A more detailed explanation of the assessments for renewable

and low cost energy proposals that are to be carried out is set out in the

national guidance and it would be helpful to refer to the guidance by name in

the justification.

6.56 National guidance advises (para 18) that “Neighbourhood plans are an

opportunity for communities to plan for community led renewable energy

developments.” No evidence has been submitted about the types of

renewable and low carbon energy installations that may be acceptable in the

parish or any areas that may be suitable nor about any community led

initiatives that have been considered.


6.57 The adopted Local Plan policy has not been saved. A new policy is proposed

for inclusion in the draft Local Plan setting out a wide range of factors to be

considered in determining proposals for renewable and low carbon energy.

6.58 The final bullet point of the policy refers to “archaeological assets”. This

should be broadened to include all heritage assets.

6.59 The justification quotes form national guidance to support the policy. This is

considered unnecessary. However, it would be helpful to refer to the

document by name.


a. Revise the title of the Policy CL3 to “Renewable and Low Carbon

Energy Generation”

b. Revise wording of Policy CL3 to read: “Renewable and low carbon

energy generation applications will be approved if their impacts

are (or can be made) acceptable. The following considerations

will be taken in account in assessing proposals:”……

c. The final bullet point of the policy should be revised to include all

heritage assets as follows: “Sites of local nature conservation and

heritage assets”

d. The final sentence of the policy to be revised by adding at the end

“and to consider the cumulative impacts.”

e. The fourth line of the justification should be corrected to read

“physical separation from….”

f. Delete final sentence of justification and bullet points. Replace

with “Further guidance on renewable and low carbon energy

development is set out in “Planning practice guidance for

renewable and low carbon energy (July 2013) DCLG”.

Policy CL4 – Telecommunications Installations

6.61 This policy supports the provision of installations to improve

telecommunications and broadband coverage, provided “that there is no

adverse effect” in terms of 5 factors. It is considered that this form of wording

is too restrictive and does not accord with national planning guidance in

NPPF Para 16 which advises that neighbourhood plans should “plan

positively to support local development, shaping and directing development to

their area that is outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan”.

6.62 National guidance on telecommunications development is set out in “Code of

Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2013)”. This is an

industry standard code that set out in detail how assessments for

telecommunications proposals are to be considered.


6.63 The justification does not refer to any evidence of local telecommunications

requirements and says little to explain how the policy will be applied apart

from stating that the policy “takes account of the intimate nature of the

countryside”. The policy adds nothing locally specific to aid decision makers.

6.64 The adopted Local Plan Telecommunications Policy has not been saved. The

importance of providing telecommunications development is included in the

Infrastructure Policy in the emerging Local Plan.


a. Delete Policy CL4 retaining the heading for the section which

should become an informative section rather than a policy.

b. Retain sentence 1 of the justification. Revise sentence 2 to read

“It is acknowledged that there needs to be a positive context for

telecommunications development in appropriate locations, taking

account of the local landscape character of the parish of

Anslow.”

c. Add at end of the justification: “Further advice on the siting and

design of mobile telecommunications development can be found

in the “Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in

England 2013”.

Proposals Map

6.66 The following recommendations are made to reflect revisions to policies set

out above.

6.67 Recommendation;

a. Include a title “Anslow Neighbourhood Plan Proposals Map”

b. Indicate the settlement boundary around Henhurst Hill

c. Amend the key under Plan wide policies and proposals to reflect

recommended revisions

d. Delete CF2 Burial ground extension in the absence of a site

specific allocation.

7. Summary and Referendum

7.1 Anslow Parish Council is to be congratulated on the speed that they have

prepared their Neighbourhood Plan. It clearly reflects the views held by the

community as demonstrated through the consultations and, subject to the

modifications proposed, sets out a realistic and achievable vision for the

future of parish. However, the plan would have no doubt been stronger if

consideration had been given to ensuring that projects are deliverable and not

just aspirational.


7.2 Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the Neighbourhood Plan meets all the

statutory requirements, in particular those set out in paragraph 8(1) of

schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and, subject to the

modifications I have identified, meets the basic conditions namely:

has regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued

by the Secretary of State;

contributes to the achievement of sustainable development;

is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the

Development Plan for the area;

does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations and

human rights requirements

7.3 I am pleased to recommend to East Staffordshire Borough Council that

the Anslow Neighbourhood Development Plan should, subject to the

modifications I have put forward, proceed to referendum.

7.4 I am required to consider whether the referendum area should be

extended beyond the Neighbourhood Plan area. In particular, I have

considered whether the area should be extended to properties in the

Henhurst Hill area adjacent to the parish boundary. In all the matters I

have considered I have not seen anything that suggests the referendum

area should be extended beyond the boundaries of the plan area as they

are currently defined. I recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan should

proceed to a referendum based on the neighbourhood area defined by

East Staffordshire Borough Council on 29 November 2012.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	voquynh
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times