REPORT OF:
/ head of policy and community initiativesAUTHOR: /
tony walker
TELEPHONE: /01737 276202
E-MAIL: / TO: /EXECUTIVE
DATE: /15 th july, 2004
EXECUTIVE MEMBER: /councillor mrs. j.m.a. spiers
AGENDA ITEM NO: /KEY DECISION REQUIRED:
/ YesWARD(S) AFFECTED: / All
SUBJECT: / proposed modifications to the borough council local plan (proposed first alteration revised deposit draft july 2000).
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: / To consider the Inspector’s report and recommendations, agree the action on each, the proposed modifications and the reasons for making them, together with the next steps in the process towards adoption.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Proposed Modifications to the Borough Local Plan (Proposed First Alteration Revised Deposit Draft July 2000) be approved for public consultation purposes.2. The Director of Policy and Environment, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to agree the necessary documentation for public consultation purposes, including any necessary minor changes.
Executive has authority to determine the above recommendations.
Background
1. The Proposed Modifications are the Council’s response to the report of the Inspector into objections to the Borough Local Plan (Proposed First Alteration Revised Deposit Draft July 2000 (RDD)), which was published in November 2001. It is part of a long process, set out in legislation and including well-defined arrangements for public consultation. A summary of the Key milestones is at Appendix 1.
2. At a meeting of the then Executive Committee on 29th November, 2001 it was resolved that:
(i) the “Main Headlines” of the Inspector’s report be noted;
(ii) the process for the preparation of draft Modifications be confirmed; and
(iii) the nature and process of Member involvement in the preparation of the draft Modifications be considered further.
A note of the “Main Headlines” is at Appendix 2 to this report. At a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 16th January 2002 it was resolved that a seminar for all Members, followed by a meeting of that Committee, be arranged to consider the draft Modifications.
3. The Council is required to consider the Inspector’s report and to decide what action to take on each of his recommendations. It is normal to accept the Inspector’s recommendations. The Council has to prepare a statement of its decision on each recommendation and must give full reasons for not accepting any recommendation. This statement is made available for inspection at the same time as the proposed modifications are published. The list of modifications must include the reasons for making them. In most cases, this will be accepting the Inspector’s recommendations but also includes consequential changes, updating and the correction of drafting errors. It also includes some modifications, which result from suggestions by the Inspector to improve the Plan.
4. This report concentrates on the main issues in the Inspector’s Report relating to the Horley Master Plan and the next steps. Some Borough wide Policies were also considered, mainly concerned with updating to take account of national policy guidance published since the Local Plan was adopted in 1994. The Inspector’s recommendations, the Council’s response and the Proposed Modifications are contained in a separate document.
Factors for Consideration – Horley
The Surrey Structure Plan context
5. In 1999 the Council wrote to the then Secretary of State and to the Surrey County Council opposing the allocation of 2600 houses to Horley. The response was that the time to debate this would be when the next version of the Surrey Structure Plan was published. Objections were duly made to the size of the allocation in the December 2002 Deposit Draft version, in view of the uncertainty about the extent of the floodplain.
6. Following an Examination in Public, the Panel’s Report was published in March 2004. The Horley allocation was endorsed but not reduced, as the Panel was satisfied that the 2600 figure was still likely to be achieved through a combination of increased densities and adjustments of the precise areas to be used for built development. The Panel also commented that once the development is completed and the outcome of the SEERA sub-regional study is known, the opportunity should remain open for the remaining land to be returned to the Green Belt. The County Council has made no change to the allocation in the recently published Proposed Modifications to the Structure Plan.
Horley Flood Study
7. The Horley Flood Study (July 2003), carried out by the Environment Agency, has been the subject of independent scrutiny. Our consultant has confirmed that following the carrying out of minor revisions to the hydraulic model, the latest flood maps (January 2004) are sufficiently robust for making the housing allocations in Horley. He concluded that the hydrology was thorough and that the study is a good basis for further detailed site-specific Flood Risk Assessments, needed to support future planning applications. The consultant also concludes that the planning of future developments in Horley should reflect a robust approach to flood management, to take account of the inherent inaccuracies to flood modelling, especially in areas that are sensitive to small changes in flood levels.
8. New information about the extent of the 1968 flood event has recently been received from local residents. The Environment Agency have considered this information and have advised the Council that it can continue to have confidence in the Flood Study.
Horley Transportation Study
9. The purpose of the study is to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding road network. The Inspector recommended that the model be extended to the north, be updated and all the junctions re-examined. The study has been carried out for Surrey County Council (as the highway authority) and has been independently scrutinised. The scrutineer states that the network model has been extended and enhanced in line with the Inspector’s recommendations. However, he reports that some minor issues remain but that these can be dealt with at the Planning Application stage. In particular, he commented that the junction models need to be fully validated prior to their use in determining the traffic impact of the proposed development. To this end a final meeting was held with the scrutineer on 2 July 2004 to further clarify a small number of outstanding points on junction validation. The scrutineer’s final recommendations will be the subject of verbal report at the Executive meeting. The County Council will be considering the results of the study on 13 July 2004 with the intention of confirming that the traffic impacts of the development will be mitigated by the proposed transportation package.
Horley Housing Allocations and Numbers
10. The Inspector’s report contains recommendations to increase the densities proposed on some sites, to delete some and to reconsider others. Subject to the results of the further investigations of the extent of the floodplain and of the impact on highway junctions, particularly those to the north of Horley, he recommended that the two main allocations should stand (the North West Sector at 1,570 units and the North East Sector at 710 units).
11. The two main allocations have been reduced slightly as a result of the latest flood maps. However, the numbers recommended by the Inspector in each case can still be achieved without difficulty, being at the lower end of the density range (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) encouraged in PPG 3 (Housing) to make more efficient use of land. Updating to take account of development completed or committed since the RDD and the consideration of the Inspector’s other recommendations shows that the remaining allocations could produce 2,634 units. This is almost the outstanding requirement of 2,653 from the 1994 Structure Plan from 1991 to post 2006. This means it is not necessary to make any further allocations or to reconsider the relative merits of allocating land at Bonehurst Road and Fisher/Bayhorne Farm. Further details are at Appendix3 to this report and in Appendix 3 to the separate Schedule of Proposed Modifications.
Horley North West Sector Allocation
12. The Inspector recommended that the proposed housing allocation be reduced by the exclusion of the northern part of Meath Green Lane, in order to retain its character. The latest flood line also marginally reduces it. He also recommended the relocation of the allotments and the developers are now suggesting a relocation of the Neighbourhood Centre to the north of the Landen’s Farm buildings and a reduction in the allocated area, rather than being focussed on those buildings. The exclusion of land comprising existing properties and a wildlife area further reduces the land available for housing development. As the housing numbers remain the same, the overall density increases to about 36 dpha.
Horley North East Sector Allocation
13. The proposed housing allocation area is reduced by about 20% by the latest flood line. The Inspector recommended the relocation of the Neighbourhood Centre avoiding direct access to Lake Lane or Langshott. The developers are also suggesting a smaller area for this allocation and the relocation of the Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) from the southern side of the development to the northern side in the Riverside Green Chain. Together with the reduced area required for the school allocation (see below) these changes help restore the land available for housing development. As the housing numbers remain the same, the overall density is about 37 dpha, again within the range advocated by PPG3.
Precautionary Approach to Flood Risk
14. The Inspector was asked to clarify which flood line should be adopted for the purposes of making housing allocations in Horley. His response, which forms part of his report, was that in the 1 in 100 year event flood plain should define the extent of the allocations. He went on to say that further detailed work to take into account such matters as climate change can be a matter for the planning applications. The Inspector also recommended the deletion of the words “Any development allowed within the floodplain will need to incorporate flood compensation” from Amplification (7) to Policies Hr 14 and 16. He did not think that this should be encouraged and that efforts should be made to avoid building in the floodplain by increasing densities or reducing the allocation.
15. Members have also expressed the view that there should be no development in the floodplain and also wish to take a precautionary approach to the extent of the area subject to flood risk. By adopting a different line for the allocations to that in the Inspector’s recommendation, could lead to objections and also impact on the North East Sector. It would not be possible to achieve the full allocation of 710 units without some inroads into the flood plain if the 1 in 100 + 20% or 1 in 200 year event lines are used for the allocations. It is important for the comprehensive scheme not to reduce the critical mass of this Sector, which would impact on the viability of Fastway, the provision of the new school and other facilities.
16. It is therefore proposed that the 1 in 100 year event line is adopted for making the allocations but with precautionary measures (to be defined in a revised Flood Risk Development Brief SPG) to be provided by the developers for any housing built between the 1 in 100 and 1 in 100 + 20% year event lines. This will be achieved through modifications to existing Flooding Policy Ut 4 and Local Flooding and Transportation Models Policy Hr 2A. The SPG, deals with the local modelling requirements and flood risk management, and builds on the advice in PPG 25 (Development and Flood Risk). It will be made available at the same time as the Proposed Modifications.
Horley Town Park
17. The Inspector concluded that there were clear advantages in providing combined facilities with access to a wide catchment at Smallfield Road and, in the context of the comprehensive development of Horley, the provision of playing fields there has overriding benefits. However, he also recommended that the housing site at Wilgers Farm (Hr 13), included to help facilitate the purchase of the Town Park site, be deleted. As a result the housing site is now proposed for inclusion in the Town Park allocation, which will allow more flexibility for the laying out of facilities, in view of the extent of flooding from the adjacent Burstow Stream. The implementation of the proposal itself will require further consideration.
Horley Primary School Sites
18. Sites large enough for a two-form entry primary school were proposed in the RDD in both new neighbourhoods. Falling birth rates and forecasts of spare capacity in existing schools have reduced the current need for a school in the North West neighbourhood. There is still a need for a one-form entry school in the North East neighbourhood, as all the spare capacity is west of the railway line. However, it is proposed to retain a site for a one-form entry school in the North West neighbourhood as a safeguard against changed circumstances over the 10-year development period. The changes in site areas, together with minor location changes proposed by the developers, will necessitate modifications.