policy writing – lets have a go!
DESCRIPTION
Policy writing – lets have a go!. Joanna Widdecombe BSc ( Hons )) DipTP MRTPI Neighbourhood Planning Advisor. Today’s Presentation. Just a recap-the not so ‘Basic Conditions’ and more! What the Examiner’s are saying Policy writing-the basics Let’ s have a go!. Evidence gathering. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Joanna Widdecombe BSc (Hons))DipTP MRTPI Neighbourhood Planning Advisor
Policy writing – lets have a go!
Today’s Presentation
•Just a recap-the not so ‘Basic Conditions’ and more!•What the Examiner’s are saying•Policy writing-the basics•Let’ s have a go!
2
3
Evidence gatheringEvidence gathering
Community engagementCommunity engagement
Research and fact finding
Research and fact finding
Identify issues and options
Identify issues and options
Create visionCreate vision
ObjectiveObjective ObjectiveObjective ObjectiveObjective
Policies and proposals
Policies and proposals
Policies and proposals
Policies and proposals
Reasoned justificationReasoned
justificationReasoned
justificationReasoned
justificationReasoned
justificationReasoned
justification
Policies and proposals
Policies and proposals
The Basic Conditions-keep your eyes on them!1. Must have appropriate regard to national policy2. Must be in general conformity with strategic
elements of the Local Plan3. Contributes toward sustainable development4. Has special regard to desirability of preserving
character and setting of listed buildings (NDO only)5. Has special regard to desirability of preserving
character and appearance of conservation areas (NDO only)
6. Compatible with EU obligations
4
Some examples….What the Examiners’ have to say!
5
Independent Examination – Upper Eden• Written representations• ‘General conformity’ allows a degree of
flexibility in drawing up NP • 2 recommended changes:
– Evidence to support NP policy on affordable rural exception housing in open countryside to meet local needs. Clarification added that policy applies in all rural area, with no site size restriction
– Recommended change to policy on housing for older people
6
Independent Examination – Exeter St James8 recommended changes:
– Need to state the plan timeframe– Loosen restriction on development in
Hoopern Valley Park to allow for proposals which do not harm the landscape or biodiversity
– Remove word ‘contemporary’ from design policies - ambiguous
– Redefine large scale as ‘10 or more’, rather than ‘over 10’
– Remove requirement to engage local businesses in development proposals
7
Independent Examination - Thame• Held 1 hearing• Exemplary approach to consultation• Clear link between vision, objectives and
policies• 20 recommended changes:
– Clearer policy wording– Remove conflict with NPPF on out of
town shopping centres– Added Listed Building/Conservation
consideration– Formatting changes
8
Independent Examination – Tattenhall & District
• Held 1 hearing• “community driven document with
excellent approach to public consultation”
• NP prepared in parallel with emerging Local Plan
• ‘30-limit’ on individual developments within or adjacent to Tattenhall Village
• NP designates Local Green Spaces• Use of Building for Life criteria
commended
9
Independent Examination –Lynton and Lynmouth
10
The main points to note about the Examiner's report are: •The report is 18 pages long •Suggests only minor amendments,e.g. clarifying the wording on policies. •The examiner staged a clarification meeting with members of the Town Council and National Park Authority but not a public hearing. • Policy aimed at restricting development of second homes
Independent Examination - NorlandExamined in Aug 2013, written reps – recommended several modifications:•Non-planning matters into separate document or annex•Article 4 beyond powers of NP•Time period of NP should be stated•Needs clear distinction between policy, explanatory text, guidance & background info•Remove ‘unreasonable’ conditions •Policy wording should provide certainty to decision maker•Restriction on extensions needs evidence-base justification•Remove reference to commercial product in policy•Consultation Statement as appendix not necessary
11
Independent Examination - Broughton Astley Written in Plain English
Evidence published on websiteSelection of sites considered public
opinion & other factors Independent review of pre-submission
consultation results Insufficient evidence for 1st preference to
expand local healthcare facility Remove green space with limited
support for LGS protection Refer to national policy on Listed
Buildings Include design brief requirements for
sites in policy
12
Independent Examination Cringleford• Max. of 1,200 homes not in conformity with
Local Plan and not showing regard for national policy.
• Max density requirements of 25 dwellings per hectare found not to deliver required number of homes.
• S106/CIL policy and other policies (broadband, sports provision, library) to be subject to development viability
• Policies modified due to insufficient justification: 250m Landscape Protection Zone changed to 145m, 30 – 50 m tree belt zone modified to 35m; requirement on site allocation for 2 hectares of land modified to 1.6 hectares and 50m zone either side of power lines modified to 15m.
• Supported use of RIBA space standards - Cringleford does not have exceptional pressure on space.
13
Independent Examination: Rolleston on Dove
14
Site identification and selection approach commended Reduced housing requirement and removal of
strategic village status upheld with a 5 year review mechanism despite emerging Local Plan
Two storey height restriction for new residential development and extensions retained
Examiner stated the NP should not be held up by the ‘slowest tier’, the emerging local plan
Tight village settlement boundary was deleted for non conformity with NPPF
Local green space designations must be mapped precisely and public recreational use must be evident if it is the reason for designation
Community infrastructure polices were deleted and included as projects due to lack of secure funding and on the grounds of deliverability
Independent Examination: Slaugham Recommended not to proceed to Referendum SEA not satisfactory: Failed to comply with the
need to consult statutory bodies on the scope and level of detail of the SEA, assess reasonable alternatives or apply relevant criteria in assessing alternative sites, provide Non Technical Summaries and a clear audit trail.
Lack of robust evidence for 130 dwelling target Site allocation methodology was not justified, and
did not prove exceptional circumstances required for development in the AONB
Pre-submission consultation on the plan and preferred approach was inadequate (3 weeks) and clearer consultation statement needed
CRtBOs recommended for refusal due to lack of EIA , regard to AONB, flood risk and deliverability
Clear vision and approach to monitoring & review
15
Independent Examination: Woodcote Significant and robust consultation SEA and SA on 3 strategic options 24 dwelling maximum on any one site Approach to site allocation and contingency
sites via memoranda of understanding praised and site selection upheld
One off street parking space per bedroom for new homes retained
Transport statement required for new industrial, distribution and storage uses
Maximum housing figures removed Local connection and viability issues raised Separate policies and link goals to objectives
16
Independent Examination: Kirdford Clear vision and extensive consultation Community Land Trust praised Site specific flood risk assessment retained Non statutory community aspirations and action
plan retained in plan but separated from policies Maximum housing numbers removed CSH Level 5 and Internet policies modified on the
grounds of viability and deliverability Assets of community value and local green space
policies removed Need to prioritise affordable housing over housing
for older persons Issues and objectives to be revised and published
separately
17
And now for the ‘Policies’!
18
Planning policies
“Plans should…provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency.”
NPPF paragraph 17
19
Key rules for policy writingNeighbourhood Plan policies should be:1.Appropriate for a neighbourhood planning document2.Consistent with the NPPF and the Local Plan3.Positively written e.g. “proposals will be supported where…”4.Clear and unambiguous 5.Capable of having the desired impact within the timescale covered by the neighbourhood plan6.Based on robust evidence base
20
Try to avoid…• Covering every
eventuality• Duplicating other
planning documents• Unsupported
statements• Double negatives• Technical jargon (unless
completely necessary)
21
Suggested Policy Format
• Intention – what you want to achieve
• Justification – why this is right for this area– Evidence: engagement and facts, other higher level
policies
• Policy– Planning Permission will be granted provided that…
22
Example policy is it good or bad?
Planning permission will not be granted for major development in the vicinity of A particular major road junction
Example policy – is it good or bad?
Proposals that support the development of small scale social enterprises and other businesses will be permitted provided that the proposals:a)do not involve the loss of dwellings;b)contribute to the character and vitality of the local area;c)are well integrated into, and complement, existing clusters of business activity;d)Protect residential amenity.
24
Example policy – improvements needed?
T5 Loss of Other Tourist Facilities
The loss of other tourist facilities to other uses will not be supported unless:
•It can be demonstrated that the tourist facility is no longer viable;
•The proposed alternative use would provide better benefits for the local economy and community than the current use.
Exeter St James – Tree Policy Justification
Trees and hedgerows perform a number of important roles in supporting biodiversity, providing attractive shade/shelter and generally improving health and amenity. Trees will also help St James adapt to the effects of Climate Change.
Planting more street trees in strategic spaces is a key priority of the community. Sites specifically identified by the community include York Road, Well Street and Thornton Hill, West Avenue, Culverland Road and Union Road.
New development should include the provision of suitable tree planting where appropriate. (although this not included in the policy)
26
The actual Exeter St James Tree policy:-
EN5: TreesDevelopment that damages or results in the loss of ancient trees or trees of good arboricultural and amenity value will not normally be permitted.(Development) Proposals should must? be designed to retain ancient trees or trees of arboricultural and amenity value. Proposals should be accompanied by a tree survey that establishes the health and longevity of any affected trees.
27
Not necessary to qualify policies in this way
Good policies:
• Set out clear criteria to indicate how a policy is applied to various circumstances
• Have clearly defined supporting text - justification• Supported by robust evidence, not just local opinion• Avoid technical planning terms and jargon unless
necessary
28
Remember the 3 audiences for your neighbourhood plan
29
Independent examiner Voters in the referendum Decision makers
and…what it’s all about?
“ Do you want Cornwall Council to use the neighbourhood plan for St Ives neighbourhood area
to help it decide planning applications in the
neighbourhood area”
30
Try drafting a policy • not forgetting why you are doing it and the evidence
there to support it!
31
Policy Drafting Workshop - Have a go!
Next steps:
• Draft of NDP prepared
• Regulation 14 Consultation
• Submission for Examination
• Examination
• Referendum
32
33
How to get in touch with me!
Joanna WiddecombeTel: 07813 029 113
E-mail:[email protected]
NationalAdvice Line: 0330 123 9244
E-mail: [email protected]: www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid
• Our Neighbourhood Plans Frontrunner website – www.ourneighbourhoodplanning.org.uk – for all the latest postings on good/bad practice around the country
• Our ‘Up Front’ e-bulletin for up-to-date news on neighbourhood planning – subscribe at [email protected]
Some useful bits….
35
36