Whiteshill & Ruscombe Neighbourhood Development Plan

Decision Statement - Proceeding to Referendum

  1. INTRODUCTION

Following the examination of a neighbourhood plan, the Council is required to consider each of the examiner’s recommendations and decide what action to take in response to them.

The Council must also come to a formal view of whether the draft plan meets legal requirements including the Basic Conditions set out in legislation.

  1. BACKGROUND

The Whiteshill & RuscombeNeighbourhood Area was designated by resolution of the Council’s Environment Committee on 12thSeptember 2013.

A submission version of the Whiteshill & Ruscombe Neighbourhood development Plan (W&RNDP)was accepted by the Council on 08thJanuary 2016, under regulation 15 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

Following submission of the W&RNDPto the local authority, Stroud District Council publicised the Plan and supporting documents and invited representations during the consultation period from 20thJanuary to 02nd March 2016.

The Council appointed Mr Andrew AshcroftBA (Hons) MA, DMS, MRTPI as independent examiner of the W&RNDP. The examination concluded on 18thApril 2016 with the submission of the Examiner’s Report recommending that the W&RNDP, once modified, should proceed to a referendum. The examiner also recommended that the area for the referendum should not extend beyond the Neighbourhood Area to which the plan relates.

In accordance with legislation, the local authority must consider each of therecommendations made in the Examiner’s Report, decide what action to take in response to each recommendation and what modifications should be made to the draft Plan in order to be satisfied that it meets the Basic Conditions and is compatible with Convention Rights. Consideration also needs to be given as to whether to extend the area to which the referendum is to takeplace.

  1. DECISION AND REASONS

Having considered the examiner’s recommendations and reasons for them, Stroud District Council’s Environment Committeedecided on 16th June 2016:

1. to accept all recommended modifications of the Examiner’s Report (Appendix A)

2. that ‘the plan’, as modified, meets the basic conditions, is compatible with the Convention rights, complies with the definition of a neighbourhood development plan (NDP) and the provisions that can be made by a NDP; and

3. to take all appropriate actions to progress the plan to referendum on the 18 of August 2016;

Stroud District Council agrees with the examiner that that there is no reason to extend the referendum area beyond the boundaries of the plan area as they are currently defined.

Appendix B sets out the modifications to be made in response to the examiner’s recommendations, Stroud District Council’s response, together with the reasons for them.

  1. SEA/ HRA SCREENING

The modifications set in Appendix A, both separately and combined, produce no likely significant environmental affects and are unlikely to have any significant effects on European Designated Sites

Therefore an update of the Strategic Environmental Assessment / Habitat Regulation Assessment screening opinions are not considered required.

Barry Wyatt

Strategic Head (Development Services)

Duly Authorised in that behalf

Date:08/07/2016

Appendix A - Examiner’s Report

1 | Page

Appendix B - The modifications to be made in response to the examiner’s recommendations, Stroud District Council’s response, together with the reasons for them.

Examiner’s recommendations / Stroud District Council’s Decision / Reason
Policy BE1: Built Environment: Open Spaces
  • Modify part 2 of the policy to delete ‘…. subject to conditions set out in this Plan’
  • Remove identification of parcels of land B/C/E/F from the Diagram on p.20
/ Agreed / For clarity.
Policy BE2: Built Environment: Building Standards and Design
  • Modify part 2 to read: Developments of more than one property should be individually designed and in a fashion that respects the character of the surrounding area and the scaleand nature of other properties in the immediate locality.
  • Modify part 5 through substitution of ‘where physically possible’ with ‘where appropriate’
/ Agreed / Modification to part 2:
To make the policy applicable to development management purposes.
Modification to part 5: to ensure the policy is applied solely where appropriate.
Policy LF1 Local Facilities Policy
Modify policy components to read:
  • Part 2 Development will be expected to safeguard local facilities, amenities or services. In addition, new development should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the use of local facilities or restrict access to them.
  • Part 3: Development that would maintain or enhance existing local facilities will be supported.
  • Part 4: Replace ‘encouraged. (Demographic Evidence)’ with ‘supported’
/ Agreed / For clarity.
Policy LE1 Local Economy
  • Delete ‘and’ in the second line of the policy
  • Replace ‘villages’ with ‘plan area’
  • Replace ‘encouraged’ with ‘supported’.
/ Agreed / For clarity.
Policy TC1 Transport and Communications
Modify policy components to read:
  • Part 1 New developments will be required to mitigate any significant adverse impacts on the transport network.
  • Part 2 New developments will be expected:
  • not to have a significant adverse impact on existing roadinfrastructure; and
  • to contribute towards the provision of turning points and passingplaces as necessary where their scale and location wouldsignificantly increase traffic movements; and
  • to provide access to public transport facilities and services where itis practical and appropriate to do so; and
  • to provide adequate provision for off-road parking where displacedparking demand is likely to result in highway safety problems; and
  • to provide ready access to localfacilities by foot and bicyclewhere itwould be appropriate and safe to do so.
  • Delete Part 3 and relocate its contents into Section 6.5.5
/ Agreed / For clarity and to conform with basic conditions.
Policy LC1: Landscape Policy
Modify policy components to read:
  • Part 1 Insert ‘expected to be’ between ‘be’ and ‘in keeping’ in the first line of the policy
  • Part 2 Insert ‘; and’ after a) and b)
  • Part 2 Insert ‘and enhances’ between ‘conserves’ and ‘the’.
  • Part 3 Replace ‘needs to retain’ with ‘should respect’
  • Part 4 Replace ‘should seek’ with ‘will be expected’
/ Agreed / To ensure that the policy has the appropriate clarity to meet the basic conditions.
Policy NE1 Natural Environment
Replace ‘Development should’ with ‘New developments will be expected to’ Replace the full stops at the end of criteria 1 to 5 and replace each time with ‘;
and’ / Agreed / For clarity.

1 | Page

1 | Page