Policy writing – lets have a go!

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 Community engagement Research and fact finding Identify issues and options Create vision Objective Objective Objective Policies and proposals Policies and proposals Policies and proposals Reasoned justification Reasoned justification Reasoned justification

The Basic Conditions-keep your eyes on them! • Must have appropriate regard to national policy • Must be in general conformity with strategic elements of the Local Plan • Contributes toward sustainable development • Has special regard to desirability of preserving character and setting of listed buildings (NDO only) • Has special regard to desirability of preserving character and appearance of conservation areas (NDO only) • Compatible with EU obligations

Some examples….What the Examiners’ have to say!

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

Independent Examination – Exeter St James 8 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

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

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

Independent Examination –Lynton and Lynmouth • 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 - Norland Examined 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

Independent Examination - Broughton Astley • Written in Plain English • Evidence published on website • Selection 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

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 - Cringleforddoes not have exceptional pressure on space.

Independent Examination: Rolleston on Dove • 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

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

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

And now for the ‘Policies’!

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

Key rules for policy writing Neighbourhood Plan policies should be: • Appropriate for a neighbourhood planning document • Consistent with the NPPF and the Local Plan • Positively written e.g. “proposals will be supported where…” • Clear and unambiguous • Capable of having the desired impact within the timescale covered by the neighbourhood plan • Based on robust evidence base

Try to avoid… • Covering every eventuality • Duplicating other planning documents • Unsupported statements • Double negatives • Technical jargon (unless completely necessary)

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…

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: • do not involve the loss of dwellings; • contribute to the character and vitality of the local area; • are well integrated into, and complement, existing clusters of business activity; • Protect residential amenity.

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)

The actual Exeter St James Tree policy:- Not necessary to qualify policies in this way EN5: Trees Development 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 shouldmust? 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.

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

Remember the 3 audiences for your neighbourhood plan Independent examiner Decision makers Voters in the referendum

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”

Policy Drafting Workshop - Have a go! Try drafting a policy • not forgetting why you are doing it and the evidence there to support it!

Next steps: • Draft of NDP prepared • Regulation 14 Consultation • Submission for Examination • Examination • Referendum

How to get in touch with me! Joanna Widdecombe Tel: 07813 029 113 E-mail:Joanna.widdecombe@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk National Advice Line: 0330 123 9244 E-mail: advice@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk Web: www.rtpi.org.uk/planningaid 33

Some useful bits…. • 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 ebulletin@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk

Policy writing – lets have a go!