WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP
WEST OF ENGLAND
JOINT WASTE CORE STRATEGY
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
ON BEHALF OF
PERSIMMON HOMES
Persimmon Homes Special Projects Western
Verona House
Tetbury Hill
Malmesbury
Wiltshire
SN16 9JR
Telephone: (01666) 824721
Facsimile: (01666) 826152
Date: 5th November 2010
West of England Joint Waste Core Strategy
Response on behalf of Persimmon Homes
Development Management
Key Issue: Whether there are clear and appropriate Development Management Policies that, amongst other things, accord with and do not repeat or reformulate National Policy.
Q4
In Policy 12, is there appropriate reference to mitigation and compensation?
1. Persimmon Homes’ original comments on the submitted Policy 12 were that it was too flexible in seeking mitigation “where necessary” and that where an impact, or a need had been identified, this should always require mitigation. The basis for this was partly related to the subject matter of the plan where most effects would have an environmental impact which would require some mitigation. The problem is that Policy 12 is wide ranging and applies to all waste related developments and includes an extensive list of matters, some of which are specifically waste related and some are more general development management issues which would apply to all planning applications.
2. Secondly, the first part of the Policy is badly worded, with a conflict between the first and second sentences which make it unclear. The first sentence says planning permission will be granted “provided it can be demonstrated… that any impacts of the development would be controlled so as not to materially adversely affect people, land, infrastructure, resources and the environment”. That requirement is quite clear and the use of the words “would be controlled” as distinct for example, “could be controlled” means that it provides a clear direction and is quite onerous. Given the Policy is dealing with all waste related developments, where potential impacts can be very damaging, we think that it is the correct approach.
3.However, this is contradicted by the second sentence which says “where necessary, appropriate mitigation should be identified so as to minimise or avoid any material adverse impact …” So, whereas in the previous sentence impacts would be controlled, in the second sentence mitigation is only required “where necessary”. It is because of that conflict that we have suggested “where necessary” should be deleted in order to retain the overall intention of the first sentence of the Policy, which we think is the right approach. However, in deleting “where necessary”, it does not remove all the flexibility from the Policy, because the second sentence recognises impact should be minimised and does not require absolute elimination.
4.Other comments on Policy 12: -
-We agree enhancement should be subject to an appropriateness test.
-We do not consider specific reference in the Policy to matters to be dealt with by planning obligations and the general reference in the text to Paragraph 6.14.4 is sufficient.
-There needs to be a clearer explanation in the supporting text of what is meant by “to compensate for any loss”. Does this apply to financial compensation, or, for example, compensation through replacement of any habitats lost?
5.The overall question posed is whether there are clear and appropriate Development Management Policies that, amongst other things, accord with and do not repeat or reformulate National Policy. There is no doubt that Policy 12 contains a list of criteria, some of which reflect National Policy requirements and others that are repeated in existing Local Plans, or emerging Core Strategy and DPD Documents. However, this Examination is taking place against a changing National planning background, details of which are still emerging, which will need to be monitored to ensure the JWCS reflects the latest guidance when it is adopted.
5th November 20101