Polic P28, Q8 F) What Is Great Yarmouth Borough Council S Current Position with Respect To

HD3/BA

Broads Authority Site Specific Policies Local Plan

Hearing Session Thursday 13 February 2014

1. This hearing session into the Site Specific Policies Local Plan (SSPLP) will cover Matters 7, 8 and 11, and will take the form of an informal discussion. For these matters, responses to the Inspector’s Matters and Issues Paper of October 2013 from the Broads Authority (BA) and from other respondents will be discussed.

1. Set out below are clarification questions arising from the BA’s responses, which will be included in the discussion. If time permits, it would be useful if the BA could provide written responses to as many of these questions as possible as well as providing any documents requested. The text in italics refers to the BA’s responses to certain identified questions.

Matter 7 – Residential Moorings

1. P39, Q1 a) Where are the development boundaries within/adjacent to which residential moorings will be permitted (subject to DP25 criteria being met).

 The areas with development boundaries within which residential moorings will be permitted, subject to DP25 criteria being met are listed in XNS9. These are: Horning, Wroxham and Hoveton, Oulton Broad and Thorpe St Andrew.

 Areas to be treated as if there were a development boundary or the site were adjacent to the development boundary for the purposes of DP25 in the SSDPD and within which residential moorings will be permitted, subject to DP25 criteria being met, are Brundall (BRU4), Horning (HOR7) and Stalham (STA1).

 See also Statement of Common Ground with Brundall Parish Council.

1. What development boundaries within the 1997 Broads Local Plan are set to be removed by the SSPLP and adjacent to which there is scope for residential moorings?

 Areas which had development boundaries in the 1997 BLP which are proposed to be removed by the SSDPD are set out in the Topic Paper TP1 on XNS9. These are listed in the table below.

 In order for residential moorings to be acceptable, the site would need to comply with the criteria set out in DMDPD Policy DM25. A summary desk-based assessment of the development boundary areas against the criteria in DM25 has been carried out as follows:

Key:

Y = potential that site(s) within 1997 Development boundary could meet DM25 criteria

N= potential that site(s) within 1997 Development boundary could not meet DM25 criteria

? = potential that site(s) within 1997 Development boundary might be able to meet DM25 criteria

 The assessment in the table shows that none of the areas are likely to be able to meet all of the criteria in policy DP25, although it should be noted that only an ‘in principle’ desk top analysis has been undertaken. On an individual basis a site might be able to overcome the specific constraints by working with adjacent landowners to share facilities and services – for example to provide off-site parking or pump-out.

1. Are there known to be any existing residential moorings along these boundaries?

 The LPA is not aware of any existing residential moorings along these boundaries. Further details of these locations are as follows:

1. If so, do these moorings have the benefit of planning permission?

 There are no known residential moorings. See answer to question 5.

1. Are boat dwellers likely to be displaced by the removal of these development boundaries?

 There are no known residential moorings. See answer to question 5.

1. If so, on what scale?

 There are no known residential moorings. See answer to question 5.

Matter 8 – Development Boundaries (general)

1. P42, Q2 a) For a detailed explanation, please see Appendix 3. Please provide a short section of text stating generally how flood risk has been taken into consideration when determining development boundaries. (It is noted that the DIT 1 which is to be used for housing development is largely within flood zone 3 by EA 2012 mapping).

 Flood risk is not one of the main criteria identified in CS18 for assessing suitability of an area for a Development Boundary designation, but it is a consideration when looking at specific settlements and sites. Clearly, were a site to meet the CS18 criteria, but was known to be within an area of high flood risk it would not usually be appropriate to designate a development boundary because this would not provide certainty or clarity to landowners or potential developers. It may be appropriate to designate a Development boundary in such locations in certain cases where there is reason to expect applications to come forward for water compatible development, or where there is a high level of boatyard related activity.

 The assessment of flood risk on a site, in the form of a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment, is one of the preliminary studies that the BA would expect a developer to undertake before putting a site forward for inclusion in a Development Boundary, in order to demonstrate that the site is capable of development, either intrinsically or with mitigation to address flood risk.

 DIT1 is not within a Development Boundary. It is also a site where there was an historic extant permission for a large sheltered housing scheme which was permitted in 2005.

1. Policies of particular relevance to Policy XNS 9: Development Boundaries include Core Strategy Policies CS18 and CS19.

1. The BA has confirmed (response g to Matter 2, Q7 p8) that: The general thrust of [CS18] has influenced the approach taken with regards to Development Boundaries, particularly the first two criteria. Why has the third criterion – previously developed land – not carried the same influence?

 According to the definition of previously developed land in the NPPF, everywhere occupied with a permanent structure is classified as previously developed land. Any site needs to be capable of being classed as ‘previously developed land’ in order to be considered as suitable for designation as a Development Boundary, so this is the first test that needs to be passed. If the site can be considered to be previously developed land, it will then be assessed under the second two criteria.

1. Document AD5 (NPPF Assessment of Core Strategy and Development Management DPD) gives

• Policy CS18 an amber rating and states under NPPF Consistency Assessment: Generally consistent, but potential for a degree of inconsistency only if this is used to exclude all development elsewhere (see eg NPPF para 29).
• Policy CS19 a red rating and states under NPPF Consistency Assessment: Inconsistent. It goes on to cite NPPF paragraphs 30 and 29.

1. Have the inconsistencies with the NPPF been taken into account when using CS18 and CS19 as justification for Policy XNS 9?

 CS18 has been the main policy used to determine development boundaries; CS19 has not been used in this regard due to rating ‘red’ in AD5.

 As mentioned previously, the general thrust of CS18 has been used to assess Development Boundaries and rationale for the approach to each settlement is set out in TP1. There are other site-specific issues that have also influenced the approach, such as landscape and flood risk.

1. Thurne – Hedra House – see supplemental paper.

1. Thorpe St Andrew – Girlings Lane – see supplemental paper.

Matter 11 – Policy WES1

1. With reference to Matter 5 – Housing p28, Q8 f) Has there been any change to Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s position as set out in Appendix 10?

 No. GYBC identify this as a tertiary settlement and have not identified a Development Boundary. They do not consider that this is a suitable location for new development, but accept that at the low level which WES1 proposes, the policy would not compromise the objectives of their Core Strategy.

1. P52, Q6 a) Page 11 of the plain English guide to the Localism Act sets out the general thrust of the Act …….

1. State exactly the provisions in the Localism Act that justify the inclusion of Policy WES1 in the SSPLP.

 The purposes of the Localism Act 2011 are multiple, but one of the key objectives - and one which has been widely and explicitly stated - is to increase public participation in the planning process by introducing a mechanism by which local communities can identify the development which they consider to be right for their communities. The means to achieve this is through the Neighbourhood Plans process and the Localism Act sets out the regulations under which this is done.

 There is no doubt that the Neighbourhood Plans process is an important step forward for communities wishing to have a greater and more direct input into the development of their area; there is, however, also no doubt that it is a complex process and the level of complexity is likely to be a significant disincentive if the proposals that the community wish to bring forward are minor. This is the case here.

 There are no specific provisions within the Localism Act that specifically justify the inclusion of WES1 in the SSDPD. There is, however, a clear and consistently expressed community wish for it to be included, and its inclusion is therefore in accordance with the principle if not the practice of the legislation. In putting it forward, the LPA is responding to the consultation and the clear wishes of the community. Further details on this are set out in the WES1 Topic Paper.

1. Could development on the site be covered by a neighbourhood development order under the Localism Act?

 The policy content of WES1 could be covered in a neighbourhood development order under the Localism Act. But, the same questions that are being asked about the site as part of this EIP will be asked at the EIP of the Neighbourhood Development Order. Furthermore, if the NDO is agreed, the outcome would be the same as if it were part of the Sites Specifics DPD – up to three dwellings would be developed on the garden of the Firs.

1. Are there any other legal or policy provisions or any land use planning considerations that justify WES1?

 There are no legal or policy provisions which support the inclusion of WES1, other than the clear community support for this approach, as identified at 18 above. In terms of land use considerations, these are set out in the WES1 Topic Paper.

1. Q6 b) …..the Inspector’s recommendations. It is not clear from document EPS5 (extract from Inspector’s report on Broads Local Plan 1997) what reasons the Inspector gave for recommending the extension of the development boundary to include the “The Firs”. Also it is not clear where the line of the development boundary was recommended to extend to; was it to include the dwelling only or all or part of the garden as well? Please clarify.

 Unfortunately the BA has no information on this matter other than the Inspector's report into the 1997 Local Plan so the BA is unable to add clarity.

1. Why did the BA not take up the Inspector’s recommendation at the time?

 Unfortunately the documents setting out the BAs response to the Inspector's report into the 1997 Local Plan have been lost, so it is not possible to explain why the decision was taken not to accept the Inspector's recommendation. It is likely that it related to the remote nature of the site and the limited facilities.

1. What, if anything has changed since then in land use planning terms?

 There have been many changes in the land use planning system since 1997, many of which would mitigate strongly against the proposals in WES1. The BA is mindful that planning permission for housing development has not only been refused here on the grounds of conflict with development plan policy, but that that refusal has been supported on appeal.

 However, whilst this proposal is not one which should be recommended in purely land use planning terms, the proposal is not of a scale which would, of itself, undermine the overall strategy for the Broads as expressed by the Broads Core Strategy. The latter is a test an inspector would have to apply before approving any neighbourhood plan or order. National Planning Policy now places a high value on the responsiveness of planning to community wishes for additional development and the BA has given this latter objective a high level of weight as a material consideration.

1. P52, Q9 In the opinion of the BA, does the allocation accord with Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Core Strategy?

 The Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Core Strategy identifies Somerton as a Tertiary settlement. The Core Strategy identifies that 5% of development in the Borough will take place in Secondary or Tertiary settlements, although paragraph 3.1.17 explains that this will be in order to meet local needs, for example such as affordable housing. It further explains that any growth “… should be proportionately limited in scale and well related to the existing built environment and infrastructure …” (para 4.2.8). The BA accepts that the proposed allocation does not accord with the provisions of the Great Yarmouth Borough Council’s emerging Core Strategy, however given the scale of the development proposed in the allocation it does not consider that it would undermine the overall objectives of the plan.

1. P54, Q11 The justification text (4.2.9) to Policy CS2 of the emerging Great Yarmouth Local Plan encourages neighbourhood development plans in tertiary locations such as Somerton. Does this emerging provision have any relevance to WES 1?

 As stated at question 19 above, the proposal here could be covered by a Neighbourhood Plan, but as would be the case of the NDO, a NDP would result in the same questions and if adopted, would result in the development proposed in the Sites Specifics DPD.

1. P56, Q16 Sustainability Appraisal (SD4a, p103) objective SA6: To facilitate opportunities for affordable housing…. has been marked positively (+). However, the BA has now confirmed that no affordable housing will be forthcoming. Therefore, should this score be altered and, if so, to what?

 Yes. The assessment should be neutral as it has no effect on Objective SA6.

1. HRA – clarification sought as set out for hearing session on 12.2.14.

1. P56, Q17 WES 1 allocates land for up to three houses. Therefore, the impact of up to three houses should be explored. What impact/works might be required for up to three houses?

 The Anglian Water advice identified in the Draft SSDPD is that the water supply is adequate, but that the distribution network would require upgrading. This is likely to involve the extension of the supply pipes. Given that the proposed site is adjacent to existing built development (which is connected to the distribution network) and is within the village the impacts are unlikely to have a more the local significance. The works would involve the excavation of trenches to accommodate the pipework.

1. WES 1 criterion b) requires the demonstration of adequate sewerage arrangements (see also Sustainability Appraisal objective SA3 (SD4a) at p.102). Is this deliverable for three houses?

 Yes. The details of this would need to be provided as part of the detailed planning application process.

Page 1 of 7