EH.1

CORNWALL SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT

EXAMINATION HEARINGS

Opening Remarks by the Lead Inspector

  • Relating to Opening Item b on the Agenda for Day 1 but applicable in principle to all hearing sessions.
  • Participants should also bear in mind the Guidance Note and Schedule of Issues from the Inspector [INSP.S3-4] as well as the Notes at the head of the individual Agendas.
  • This is not a formal Examination Document and its oral delivery may vary.

General

I commit my opening remarks to writing to save time during the programmed sessions – especially on Day 1.

The Examination of course runs from submission to Report and, although efficiency demands that we keep to the Programme as far as possible, there is scope to vary it and add sessions at any time up to Report delivery if circumstances require it.

As the full case of each Representor at the time of the pre-submission consultation should have been expressed in the original representations, I continue to rely upon these.

Post-Submission Documents and Procedure

The Examination Libraryhas been updated on the CC website to include additional documents issued after the Plan was submitted forexamination, in particular the Council has provided responses to our initial questions and these are open for reference in the Hearings as appropriate as part of the evidence, together with travelling draft Schedule of Proposed Modifications and Statements of Common Ground with Natural England, Highways England and Historic England [CC.S3, CC.S3.1-6, CC.S4, CC.S4.1-5, CC.S5].

Duty to Co-operate

Prior to the questions of soundness, I must be satisfied that CC, in preparing the Plan,complied with the Duty to Co-operate (DTC) on relevant cross-boundarystrategic priorities set down in the Localism Act andthat the Plan is otherwise legally compliant with the Act of 2004. More important than the correspondence that took place, the key question is whether the outcomes of co-operation with prescribed bodies are demonstrably taken into account in the submitted Plan. We consider the DtC large with reference to the CC DtC Statement [B.5] but there are specific questions on DtC included on the Agenda in response to representations.

Scope

I have made clear in my guidance note and the schedule of matters and issues [INSP.S3-4]that we are not here to make a sound plan better. For us to impose a personal opinion on the Council that one site or policy wording would be better than another when the Plan is already sound as submitted would be contrary to the Localism Act.

For this reason it is current practice not to discuss alternative or omission sites as such. Any Main Modifications (MMs - soundness changes) must be based on substantive evidence that the Plan is unsound without them. However, the several aspects of soundness set out in paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) will be fully addressed.

It is important to bear in mind the purpose of this Site Allocations DPD. It is a non-strategic plan prepared in the context of the already adopted Local Plan Strategic Policies (LPSP) and required to be consistent with it. It is established in law that it is not for this examination to revisit housing requirement and supply matters that informed the adopted LPSP.

However, in response to some concern expressed in Position Statements, we would clarify that nothing we have indicated in our guidance,or in correspondence via the Programme Officer, was intended to limit discussion on whether and how the Site Allocations DPD implements the overarching adopted local plan strategy set down by the LPSPfor the towns concerned. That means that all the potential planning effects of the development of the specific sites allocated are open for consideration during the Hearings set down for each town under Matters 2 to 11, with broad, plan-wide issues of soundness or legal submissions being heard at the first Hearing.

The Site Allocations DPD itself makes clear that its purpose is limited to providing the necessary site allocations to meet the requirements set down by the adopted LPSP but only for certain specific settlements. Table 1 of the Plan document indicates those other settlements where reliance is placed upon Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) or, in the case of Bude, a separate Bude SADPD. There is nothing in legislation of policy to prohibit this approach as taken by Cornwall Council, nor to require every plan to to give effect every element of the NPPF.

The purpose of this Examination is therefore to determine whether the Plan achieves consistency with the LPSP and is robustly and soundly justified, effective and consistent also with national policy, in terms of the numerical development targets for the towns concerned.

As background to the Examination, the Council has provided clarification [CC.S1 Q.3] that the residual development requirements set for each CNA by the adopted LPSP will be delivered by NPs agreed by local communities and supported by a dedicated Cornwall Council team, as well as by rounding off, infill and exception sites. In support of this assertion, the Council refers to Policy 3 of the adopted LPSP on the Role and Function of Places and to the annual housing monitoring trajectories of its Housing Implementation Strategy.

The Council also cites paragraph 1.59 of the adopted LPSP as providing for monitoring the progress of NPs to determine whether intervention is required in the form of additional allocations. The Council also provides background on co-operation with neighbourhood planning groups on town frameworks.

In its Regulation 22(1)(c) statement of issues the Council, in effect, sets aside housing requirement and five year supply issues and focuses upon planning issues facing the individual settlements. We take the same approach.

Accordingly, representations that the overall County housing or other development land requirements or supplies are inadequate will not be heard. Such matters are now for the consideration of individual planning applications. Equally, if it is argued that the housing requirement of the Site Allocations Plan is excessive overall, or for any particular town, these would also be matters for individual planning applications. Such applications would always have to be considered with reference to any changed material planning circumstances since the Plan was adopted.

Programme, Issuesand Agendas

I believe that, with the PO, we have allocated speakers to the most appropriate hearing sessions, in particular distinguishing general, plan-wide matters and legal compliance from the site allocations within the individual towns.. If, as sometimes occurs, matters discussed under general items render further discussion on individual sites superfluous, those items can be deleted if objectors indicate to the PO that they no longer wish to take part. In this instance, we have provided for discussion on these general matters to resume after hearing the evidence on each town and we will hold a further session for that purpose if it becomes necessary.

Matters, Issues and Agendas

Every Matter and Issue identified for discussion is listed on the individual Agendas and all oral comments will be taken into account along with every original representation, whether or not the Representor chooses to appear.

The concerns of Representors are set out in their original representations and latterly in their Position Statements, whether by professional submissions of the developers seeking to provide planned development or the heartfelt misgivings of often unrepresented local organisations and residents who would be called upon to accept and live with it. All have equal status in this process.

Supporting Representations

Where certain Representors are included in Hearings in support of the Plan, they have no right of appearance but take part at the discretion of the Inspectors to assist in discussion.

Site Visits

Finally, we have already toured much of the County to gain a general impression of the allocated sites. We will consider in due course whether we need to undertake any accompanied site visits but generally these are not necessaryat this plan preparation stage as compared with a planning application or appeal.

BJS/TB

27 February 2018