Local and Neighbourhood Plans

1. Local and Neighbourhood Plans

2. Informal discussion / exploring ideas • 4 Plans – moving forward together, as quickly and effectively as possible. • The issue • The ask • A way forward

3. Producing Development Plan for the Bay Comprises Local and Neighbourhood Plans Groundbreaking, tricky – but do-able Biggest issue New homes Approach LP identifies 5 year supply and broad areas for growth. NPs allocate 6 -15 year sites Parallel tracking

4. PINS want to approve Local Plans, but have little experience of Neighbourhood Plans – especially on Torbay’s scale. For Local Plans to be approved they must be deliverable. In other words, a Local Plan proposing 6,000 new jobs and 9000 new homes must indentify / allocate the land to do that and show how they will be delivered. In Torbay, the allocation of land for jobs and homes has – largely – been ‘delegated’ to neighbourhood plans (in line with Localism). But there is no guarantee Neighbourhood Plans will succeed or that they will include the scale /locations of growth set out in the Local Plan. So PINS advise us that we can’t show the Local Plan is deliverable, unless….. All allocations etc are set out in the Local Plan (as is traditional). But….. Those allocations would be new to the Local Plan and would be a ‘surprise’ introduction to the Plan. Without extra consultation on those sites / a revised Plan it is likely PINS would find the Plan unsound (lack of consultation) and there is a big risk of challenge (from 3rd parties; natural justice). But……. This would tread on the toes of Neighbourhood Plans and almost negate the need for them, and Would delay the Local Plan considerably, to submission around Oct 2014 (not March / April 2014) at the earliest (very close to Local Elections = further delay) So……We don’t want to follow the ‘traditional’ route suggested by PINS. Instead: Continue with the parallel tracking approach, with LP and NPS providing the Development Plan for the Bay; Set out clear, agreed roles for Local and Neighbourhood Plans Produce an agreed and detailed mandate (legally binding?) for Neighbourhood Plans, building on work already done Convince PINS this is the right way forward The issue – as PINS see it:

5. Work even closer together (parallel track), to an agreed mandate and “get on with it” or Delay Local Plan submission until end 2014 (at least!) and take key responsibility / power away from Neighbourhood Plans (NB - we have looked at other options) The issue – put starkly:

6. Clear, informal advice. More certainly re delivery - if delegate to another plan, how can Council be certain of delivery? - Show sites on policies map for 9000 homes and 6000 jobs Relationship between Local and Neighbourhood Plans - What happens if Neighbourhood Plans don’t deliver? - time for clear roles / mandates Lock system – regulatory, constraining - perception? Yep, so keep it but explain it better Market - Can’t use slow market as a reason for less new homes - Dacorum BC Inspectors report says otherwise NPPF promotes growth - Can’t fudge objectively assessed needs - Can’t constrain growth - “perpetuating recession based projections would not be promoting growth” - Can’t cap housing in relation to local employment. PINS

7. Para 47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: 1. use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; 2. identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; 3. identify a supply of specific, developable sitesorbroad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and Set out their own approach to housing density to reflect localcircumstances. We think PINS may be going beyond NPPF; We think our hybrid approach (LP and NPs) is NPPF compliant. NPPF: The starting point / end point

8. Based on evidence: Up for it Economy is priority Environment is key to economic success Up for growth, but environment and infrastructure limit growth Bandwidth: Flexible, responsive approach. 5,000 – 6,000 jobs 8,000 – 10,000 homes Capacity SHLAA – in theory, capacity for 11,300 homes – but recognition that some sites in very sensitive areas (e.g. AONB) and therefore not considered developable with significant policy change. Plan 20+ year vision; 15+ years delivery Need to provide for 15 years (NPPF) 5 – 6000 jobs – town centres, 12 employment sites 9,000 homes in 15+ years – tallies with SHLAA developable sites 2,300 homes in S Devon ‘pool’, where least sensitive sites come forward first (after 15 years) Headlines of Local Plan:

9. 5 basic conditions for all Neighbourhood Plans : They must be appropriate in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly para. 16) They must help achieve sustainable development (as defined by the NPPF to include a balance of economic, social and environmental aspects (para. 7) They must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. They must comply with appropriate EU obligations and Human Rights requirements Neighbourhood Plans should not promote less development than that set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies. DCLG

10. Continue with the hybrid approach – parallel tracking and getting on with it; - Local Plan 5 year supply and broad areas of growth; - Local Plan setting ‘targets’ for towns / areas, with strategic infrastructure requirements - Neighbourhood Plans allocate and identify 6 – 15 years, meeting ‘targets’ - Delivery: when needed, not according to a specific year. Agree general responsibilities of Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans Produce and agree mandate for Neighbourhood Plans to follow. That mandate will provide a guarantee of delivery of 6000 jobs and 9000 homes. What does that mean in practice……………………. The Ask:

11. Who does what: Local Plan Neighbourhood Plan Allocations – mainly urban Other sites to be explored Urban Extensions – identify sites (as part of ‘bottom up’ masterplanning), as per Winsford Use SHLAA as basis for site identification Local infrastructure requirements for sites • Scale of growth for Torbay and towns • Broad timeframes and locations • Lock system and monitoring mechanisms • Committed sites (with PP) for most of 5 year supply • Urban Extensions – areas of search for sites / masterplanning • Strategic infrastructure requirements

12. Jobs: Local Plan: • 5 – 6000 jobs • Town based ‘targets’ • Sectors • Broad area (Ha’s) • Key sites in text • Delivery mechanisms Neighbourhood Plans: • Allocate sites • Identify other projects / opportunities • Specific local requirements Sites? Town centres; Woodlands; Northfields; Yalberton; White Rock; Edginswell Business Park; Torbay Hosp; Bookhams; Oxen Cove & Freshwater; Claylands; Browns Bridge; Yalberton (Jackson).

13. Types of housing / mixed use sites: • Committed – with planning permission (Local Plan) • Allocated (Neighbourhood Plans) • Urban (Neighbourhood Plans) • Edge of urban – areas of search; mixed use; GI etc (Local and Neighbourhood Plans) • Led by SHLAA

14. Committed sites:

15. Allocations (based on NPs and SHLAA):

16. Urban (allocations / identification based on NPs and SHLAA):

17. Urban Extensions – what the LP would show

18. Masterplanning / Search for sites

19. Urban Extensions (potential sites):

20. Sites with significant constraints: Not included in Local Plan Not included in SA / HRA Added to South Devon ‘pool’, from which least sensitive / most deliverable sites – from within S Devon – come forward first, only if needed.

23. Timetable etc • Evidence and Masterplans (x4) • Reference Group – mid Sept • PPDG – early Oct • PINS – early Oct • Local Plan consultation – Dec / Jan 2014 • NP consultation – Dec – March 2014? • LP submission – April 2014 • LP Examination – July 2014 • NP Examination – Sept / Oct 2014 • NP Referendum – Dec 2014 • £s – what would help NPS (£10K each?)

24. Mandate • How specific? Fairly, to comfort PINS • Legally binding? Ideally, then guarantee to PINS

25. Questions? • Delay / loss of power or get on with hybrid / parallel tracking? • Are principles of proposal ok? • Could this be worked up into a mandate? • Legally binding mandate? • Builds on existing work, but will it get Forum support (pre-determining)? • Impacts on NP timeframes? • What happens if Forum’s don’t accept? • What happens if consultation / referendum says ‘no’?