BASE HEADER

I am responding to the current Draft Plan consultation on behalf of clients in whose interest it is for the plan to be found sound. I therefore do not wish to raise any formal objection to the Plan. However, I do have a number of concerns with the development management policies which I thought it might be helpful to point out at this stage, to enable you to address the issues prior to submission, if you consider it appropriate.

In essence, we consider many of the development management policies to be non-NPPF compliant and consequently at risk of being found unsound. This is on the basis that they are predominantly negatively worded; they set out a restrictive set of circumstances where development will be permitted, thereby implying that development will not be permitted in any other circumstances. This appears to be contrary to the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development which requires plans to "positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area" and a positive approach to policy making which should permit development unless "any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits."

The Colman High Court decision (Colman v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 1138 (Admin.)), has determined that any restrictive development management policy (except in the Green Belt) is likely to conflict with the NPPF "cost benefit approach".

I have picked out a few specific policies below which I am particularly concerned about:

EC1 Directing New Employment Development

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and is in conflict with the previous Draft Local Plan policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities.

Policy PC0 promotes sustainable economic development to support a vibrant and thriving economy to deliver the jobs the District needs which is in accordance with the NPPF. However, policy EC1 which sets out how this economic development will be delivered is overly restrictive and not positively worded. For example, this lists only certain circumstances where new employment development will be permitted in both urban and rural areas. This is in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

Specifically in relation to rural areas, this policy places additional burdens on applicants, such as the requirement to demonstrate that traffic movements will not be significantly increased and impact on the landscape. The supporting text states that "It is important that this Plan allows appropriate rural enterprise to grow and expand whilst protecting the countryside from development and uses which should be directed to urban areas." Whereas the NPPF supports growth and expansion of "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas" (paragraph 28).

It is also poorly drafted and unclear as it refers to criteria A-C but lists criteria 1-3.

EC2 Farm Diversification

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF and in conflict with the previous policy, PC0 Prosperous Communities, in the draft Local Plan.

NPPF paragraph 28 supports both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings and promotes "the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses". Conversely, policy EC2 introduces additional burdens which will restrict development, for example that existing buildings are used in preference to new buildings. Being inconsistent with national policy, this policy is unsound virtue of NPPF paragraph 182.

TC1-18; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres.

CT1-CT7; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy, Chapter 2, Ensuring the vitality of town centres and Chapter 3, Supporting a prosperous rural economy.

BE4 Converting Rural Buildings.

This policy is not in accordance with the NPPF which supports development which would "re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting". This policy places a raft of additional burdens on applicants which appear to have been lifted from the cancelled PPS7 and would restrict development.

TR1-5; these policies all add additional burdens and requirements which are not contained in the NPPF. These are in conflict with the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 and Chapter 1, Building a strong, competitive economy and Chapter 4 promoting sustainable transport.

In particular, TR1 Access and Choice, is negatively worded. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that "development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". In direct conflict, this policy specifies that development will only be permitted if it satisfies a list of requirements.

NE4 Landscape

This policy proposes that development will only be permitted where it positively contributes to landscape character; the NPPF contains no such requirement. The NPPF is clear that great weight should be placed on conserving landscape and scenic beauty is designated areas (such as National Parks and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and that development should be located in areas of lesser environmental value. Blanket protection on all landscape via the Local Plan would frustrate the delivery of sustainable development to meet the District's needs.