KINETON NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO … NDP.pdf · Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan 3 Policy IN3 – Protecting and Enhancing Green Open Spaces p41 Policy IN4 – Highway

Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan

1

KINETON NEIGHBOURHOOD

DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO 2031

Referendum Version


2

Contents

Foreword p 4

Acknowledgements p 5 1. Introduction p 6 2. The Neighbourhood Development Plan p 9 3. Kineton - History and Future p11 4. Kineton - Vision Statement p15 5. Policies for Kineton: p19 Policy H1 – Housing Development and Supply p19 Policy H2 – Use of Brownfield Land p20 Policy H3 – Affordable Housing p20 Policy H4 – Use of Garden Land p21 Policy H5 – Housing Mix p21 Policy H6 – Safeguarded Land p22 Policy J1 – Employment Sites p24 Policy J2 – Home Working p25 Policy D1 – Design and Character p26 Policy D2 – Responding to Local Character p26 Policy D3 – Use of Design Codes and Master Planning p27 Policy D4 – Replacement Dwellings p28 Policy D5 – Designing Out Crime p28 Policy D6 – Reuse of Buildings p29 Policy D7 – Environmental Sustainability p30 Policy D8 – Provision for Parking, Pedestrians and Cyclists p30 Policy D9 – Use of Land and Buildings p31 Policy D10 – Designated Heritage Assets p31 Policy E1 – Agricultural Land p33 Policy E2 – Landscapes, Vistas and Skylines p34 Policy E3 – Minimising Pollution p35 Policy E4 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation p35 Policy E5 – Flooding and Surface Water Drainage Systems p36 Policy E6 – Trees and Hedgerows p37 Policy E7 – Foul Drainage and Water Supply p38 Policy E8 – Biodiversity p38 Policy IN1 – Community Facilities p40 Policy IN2 – Encouraging Safe Use of Public Routes p40


3

Policy IN3 – Protecting and Enhancing Green Open Spaces p41 Policy IN4 – Highway Safety and Transport p41 Policy SSB1 – Housing Allocation, Land to the north of Warwick Road p43 Policy SSB2 – Housing Allocation, Land to the south of Banbury Road p44 Policy SSB3 - Housing Allocation, Land to the north east of Little Kineton p45 Policy SSB4 – Housing Allocation, Land adjacent to Walnut House, Little Kineton p46

Appendices

App 1 – Community Aspirations p47

App 2 - Kineton Housing Needs Survey p49

App 3 – Equality and Diversity Assessment p53

App 4 – Sustainable Urban Drainage p54

Maps

Kineton Parish Boundary p 8

Settlement Boundaries for Kineton and Little Kineton p55

Site Allocations and Safeguarded Land p56

Valued Landscapes p57

Development Constraints p58


4

Foreword

In 2003 the first Village Plan for Kineton was developed. It detailed the needs and aspirations of the Community and covered all areas of development; social, economic, environmental and structural. It created objectives for the Parish Council and, to some extent, had a limited influence over planning matters.

In 2011 the Parish Council identified the need to commence an update of that Plan. Shortly after that decision the Localism Act was enacted, bringing with it the opportunity to develop Neighbourhood Plans to run alongside the Core Strategy for the District. The associated legislation to support Neighbourhood Planning came into force in April 2012.

Resulting from this, Kineton Parish Council concluded that greater effort should be dedicated to the development of a Neighbourhood Plan, with work on an updated and relevant Village Plan to run in parallel.

This document is the culmination of hundreds of hours of research, consultation and refinement by a small team of dedicated and concerned residents of Kineton and Little Kineton. That team also successfully applied for grant funding to meet a significant proportion of the costs of producing this Plan.

As a result of their efforts the community will have established firm guidelines into the development of the village over the next 15 years. It is testament to those efforts that this is the first Neighbourhood Plan for a Main Rural Centre in the district of Stratford upon Avon.

Considerable thought has been applied to enable new development, whilst minimising harm to the character and structure of our community. The Plan demonstrates that we welcome new development and new people to our community. However the size, nature and location of new development needs to be carefully managed and controlled not only to protect those who already live in this wonderful village but also those who wish to share in the experience of living in a well-balanced, sustainable community.


5

Acknowledgements The following members of the community worked tirelessly and without reward during part, or all, of the Plan’s development process:

Ken Priddis* Rodney Melville OBE Julian Hartless Graeme Bassett Sally Rogers Beverley Wright

They were supported directly, or indirectly, by Gina Lowe Clerk to Kineton Parish Council Neil Pearce Avon Planning Services Stratford District Council Planning Officers

The Parish Council is indebted to all those people for their efforts and this Neighbourhood Plan, and also thanks everyone who responded and commented upon its various drafts. David Gosling Chair, Kineton Parish Council June 2016 *Ken Priddis acted as Chair of the Plan’s development group and also served as a Parish Councillor throughout the whole period, from inception to referendum


6

1. Introduction

1.1 The Neighbourhood Development Plan aims to make Kineton (including Little Kineton) and the parish of Kineton an even better place to be, now and for future generations. The Plan will cover a 20 year time period and may be subject to review during the lifetime of it. It covers the period 2011 to 2031, the same as Stratford on Avon District Council’s Core Strategy

1.

1.2 The Neighbourhood Development Plan process enables communities to better shape the place they work and live, to inform how development takes place and help influence the type, quality and location of that development, ensuring that change brings with it local benefit.

1.3 The community of Kineton has a strong history of taking local decision making into its own hands. In 2003 the Kineton Village Plan2 was ratified by the Parish Council and was one of the first in the country to be written. It set out a vision and action plan for how the parish wished to see itself develop.

1.4 Neighbourhood planning now provides an opportunity for the community to have a real say over local decision making, to achieve its long-standing goals through the planning system and address the challenges and opportunities facing the future vitality of the parish.

1.5 The Neighbourhood Development Plan is based on extensive research and influenced by robust engagement with the local community3. In the lead up to the referendum, decision makers should consider this to be an important reference point and give it weight as a material consideration in any development planning decisions. Once the Plan is made it will become part of the development plan for the area and will be an important consideration in the determination of planning applications as these must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Neighbourhood Development Plan Vision for Kineton

1.6 As detailed in the Kineton Village Plan (2003) the community wants Kineton Parish to continue to thrive as a vibrant and distinctive village, to continue to respect and reflect the views of its community, to evolve and expand whilst retaining its unique and distinctive character and to provide an outstanding quality of life for current and future generations of residents.

1.7 The Parish Council will do this by:

Encouraging a thriving and prosperous community that delivers a high quality of life for all its residents

Promoting a distinctive and flourishing local economy that exhibits vitality and dynamism

Supporting measured, proportionate, timely and sustainable development to meet local and strategic requirement

1 Submitted to the Secretary of State on the 30th September 2014 2 Currently being reviewed in parallel with the Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan

3 Please refer to submitted Consultation Document


7

Endorsing policies that have a positive effect on the environment, including those that remove or minimise flood risk, mitigate climate change and reduce our carbon footprint

Maintaining the high quality natural environment with its protected wildlife interests

1.8 Objectives are:

Delivery of a housing growth strategy that reflects both the needs of the Parish and wider area and is tailored to the context of Kineton Parish

Sensitive development which protects and enriches the landscape and built setting

Sustaining and improving excellent local facilities particularly those in the village centre for existing and new residents

Strengthening and supporting economic activity

Seek on-going improvements to transport and parking, to utility infrastructure and to digital connectivity

Prioritise local distinctiveness in every element of change and growth

Protect greenspace, the landscape and support nature conservation

Involve local people on an ongoing basis in the process of plan-making, monitoring and delivery of development


8

Kineton Parish Boundary, defining the area covered by the Plan


9

2. The Neighbourhood Development Plan

2.1 A Neighbourhood Development Plan is a new element in the planning process,

established under the Government’s Localism Act. This became law in April

2012, and aims to give local people more say in the future of where they live.

Once approved under the local referendum, this Neighbourhood Plan will be

adopted by Stratford-on-Avon District Council (SDC) as the Plan will then

become part of the development plan for the area and the determination of

planning applications must then be made in accordance with the development

plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The

Neighbourhood Plan will become part of the Development Plan alongside SDC’s

Core Strategy. For Kineton, this is a great opportunity for people living in the

village to decide how the village should evolve in the years to 2031. The Plan

contains the vision for Kineton that was developed through consultation with the

village, and sets out clear planning policies to support this vision.

2.2 This Neighbourhood Development Plan is in general conformity with the existing

strategic local plan4, and takes account of Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s

Emerging Core Strategy (the Proposed Submission Version Core Strategy

published in June 20145). It looks for the village to develop through steady but

moderate growth, meeting the housing needs of the community while at the same

time preserving the landscape and heritage and considering the infrastructure

needed to support development.

2.3 A Neighbourhood Plan must have appropriate regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) and related advice. The Stratford-on-Avon District Design Guide and the Landscape Sensitivity Study 2011 also provide essential guidance.

2.4 The area covered by the Neighbourhood Plan is the Parish of Kineton. On the 20th May 2013, Stratford-on-Avon District Council approved Kineton Parish Council as an appropriate qualifying body to submit a Neighbourhood Plan, and also approved the area to be covered by the Plan as the Parish of Kineton. A map of the parish with the boundary marked is shown on page 8.

4 Including associated saved policies 5 Subject to review following the Inspector’s Interim Report published on the 19th of March 2015


10

Photographs courtesy of David Beaumont and Graeme Bassett


11

3 Kineton – History and Future

History

3.1 The first recorded mention of Kineton, spelt Cynton, is in a Saxon Charter of

AD969. In 1227 it was granted a Market Charter and two years later, a Charter

for Fairs. Kineton’s role as an important administrative centre can be traced back

to 1160 where, following the reorganisation of local government by Henry II, it

gained an important role by being the centre of the Kineton Hundred.

3.2 Kineton’s relationship with the English Civil War Battle of Edgehill in 1642 is well

documented. Today the battlefield lies mostly within the restricted area of

Defence Munitions (DM) Kineton (owned by the Ministry of Defence) although a

monument commemorating the battle and those who died can be found on the

Banbury Road, about a mile outside the village.

3.3 The village is located approximately 5 miles south east of Wellesbourne and 10

miles north east of Shipston-on-Stour. Located to the east and south east is the

restricted area of DM Kineton. About 2 miles to the north is former RAF Gaydon,

which is now a vehicle testing ground and motor vehicle research and

development centre for Jaguar Landrover and Aston Martin.

3.4 By the time of the 2011 Census, the population of Kineton was about 2,300, an

increase of nearly 16% since 1981. The number of dwellings has increased by

39% during that time and the village now comprises of about 1,000 dwellings.

3.5 Kineton has a small area of influence due to the relatively limited range of shops

and services it provides. There are only a small number of villages close by which

look to Kineton as their local service centre because Shipston and Wellesbourne

exert a larger commercial and retail influence. The exception is in relation to

secondary education as it has a High School which draws pupils over a wide

area, from Wellesbourne to the west, Banbury to the south and Southam to the

east.

3.6 It is not possible to give an accurate picture of travel to work patterns for the

village of Kineton because the major employment source at the Gaydon Site is in

Kineton Ward and skews the available data. However, the 2001 Census showed

that 31% of its employed residents also work in the Ward, while 18% work in

Warwick/Leamington and only 8% in Stratford upon Avon. The influence of the

Gaydon Site is even more dominant in terms of where people live who work in

Kineton Ward, with only 35% being resident in Stratford District.

3.7 The household survey6 carried out in 2008 for the Retail Study showed that

Stratford upon Avon is used by 34% of residents in the Wellesbourne and

Kineton area for their main food shopping compared to 25% who go to

6 Prepared by Colliers CRE June 2008 for Stratford-on-Avon District Council


12

Leamington/Warwick and 8% to Wellesbourne. For non-food shopping the main

destinations are Stratford upon Avon (45%), Leamington (18%) and Banbury

(17%).

Future Development Issues

3.8 The River Dene is the main water course in the area although there are other un-

named tributaries. There is a significant risk of pluvial and fluvial flooding7 in the

Dene Valley, putting property at risk in the village. Measures to improve the

capacity of the river channel and reduce flooding commenced in 20148. The

ecological quality of the River Dene within the Kineton area has been categorised

as poor9 primarily due to sewer overflows and road drainage. Plans to stop

sewer discharges into the river are being taken by Severn Trent. There are

significant capacity constraints at Kineton Wastewater Treatment Works10 and in

the network at Kineton, the impact of any future growth upon the foul sewer

system is expected to be addressed by Severn Trent following a detailed survey

of their system.

3.9 Situated on the north bank of the River Dene is the site of the Scheduled

Monument of King John’s Castle11. The site features the earthwork remains of a

Motte and Bailey Castle which now is open to the public and forms important

amenity open space. Additional amenity and recreational green space can be

found within Little Kineton.

3.10 Kineton published a Village Plan in 2003. It encourages appropriate new

employment opportunities and emphasises that infill and redevelopment

proposals should be sensitive to the character of the area. The need for better

facilities for children is identified. The retention of village shops and other

services through the planning process is one of the key actions.

3.11 The capacity of transport infrastructure, including roads and public transport,

is a key concern for Kineton. Heavy goods traffic which passes through Kineton is

constrained at Gaydon, but the advisory signs appear to be ignored. Parking in

the village is considered by many to be a problem. A parking survey will be

undertaken to establish if this is fact or whether it is people saying they cannot

park near enough to shops. Public Transport between Kineton and various towns

is limited. It does not help people who need to get to work. Improvements in this

area are to be considered.

7 Please refer to Environment Agency Surface Water Flood Map 8 Relevant landowners were contacted and reminded of their riparian duty to keep the watercourse clear. The outcome of this, and appropriate escalation to Warwickshire County Council, is subject to ongoing monitoring by the PC 9 Please refer to the ‘Green Infrastructure Study’ prepared for SDC by UE Associates of Cheltenham, August 2011 Page 55 Paragraph 9.1.3 10 Paragraph 6.5.9 SDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy – June 2014 11 Classified as a ‘Local Wildlife Site’ on the 26th of September 2013


13

3.12 The scale of sustainable development in Kineton, whilst needing to comply

with final figures12 determined by the Emerging SDC Core Strategy, should reflect

the comparatively modest provision of shops and services. New development

should consider the provision of appropriate pedestrian and cycle links to facilities

and services. Appropriate opportunities should be taken to limit the impact of

vehicles in the village, through the use of traffic management measures and

improvements to pedestrian and cycle links, and to encourage accessibility to the

rural areas through public transport links.

3.13 The Conservation Areas and historic character of Kineton and Little Kineton

are important local features which offer distinctiveness. Infill and redevelopment

proposals should be sensitive to this. The established role of the existing centre

should be maintained. Particular attention needs to be given to enhancing the

role of the village centre so that it provides an attractive focus of services,

facilities and activities for the local community. The retention and provision of

small-scale shopping and other commercial uses will be encouraged, along with

projects to enhance its appearance.

3.14 There are significant constraints13 affecting large areas of land on the edge of

the village. The southern edge is bordered by the Dene Valley but due to the

steep valley is not adversely affected by flood risk in this immediate location. In

addition, the Battle of Edgehill Historic Battlefield lies to the south and south east

of the village.

3.15 The landscape surrounding Kineton is described as being highly sensitive to

commercial development14 with areas of High Landscape sensitivity bounding the

majority of the village to the north, south and east. There is no additional land for

employment proposed in Kineton15, it is important to try and retain the already

established industrial estates in the village and existing levels of employment in

the area. In addition, within the surrounding rural areas employment proposals

should seek to meet the needs of small businesses and support the continuing

employment use of successful local employment sites, supporting the

intensification of use within existing site boundaries where appropriate.

3.16 Development proposals and other initiatives and projects in and around

Kineton will be expected to contribute to the achievement of the principles set out

in the Plan where it is appropriate and reasonable to do so.

12 Following the adoption of the SDC Core Strategy, any change to projected numbers will be given careful consideration 13 Paragraph 4.4.5 SDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy June 2014 14

The Landscape Sensitivity Study 2011 (LSS) prepared by White Consultants for Stratford-on-Avon District Council included a LSS for Kineton. 15 Over and above that already in existence or secured through planning consents


14

3.17 When considering development proposals and other initiatives relating to

Kineton, significant weight will be given to the following core principles:

(a) Environmental

Protect the area to the south of the existing settlement boundary, in order to

preserve the River Dene and the open nature of the landscape in this area

and maintain the ‘green wedge’ between Kineton and Little Kineton.

Recognise and protect the importance of the King John’s Castle site as an

important multifunctional area for biodiversity, recreation and archaeological

significance.

Increase access to the River Dene Valley between Bridge Street and King

John’s Mound while also enhancing biodiversity in the area.

Preserve the historic character of the Conservation Areas particularly that of

the Market Square.

Ensure that all new housing is adequately serviced and water quality in the

Dean is not adversely affected16.

(b) Social

Support the replacement or major refurbishment of Kineton High School, the

improvement of access for transport and the improvement of onsite parking.

Ensure appropriate play spaces for children and young people are provided to

meet relevant guidelines.

Create circular walking routes to the north of Kineton leading from within the

settlement out into the wider countryside.

Create additional cycle links that connect to established routes, including

National Cycle, Network Route 48 and routes found to the north-west and

south-east of the village.

(c) Economic

Maintain the existing level of shops in the village centre and support the

provision of new retail outlets.

Promote the enhanced broadband speeds17 that are being installed in

Kineton, thereby improving ‘homeworking' and small business opportunities

within the parish.

(d) Infrastructure

Alleviate long term traffic issues.

Alleviate the congestion caused by parking in the centre of the village.

16 Refer to Consultation response from Natural England dated 19th February 2015 (142103 Kineton NP)

17 Policy CS.25 Paragraph F SDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy June 2014


15

4 Kineton Vision Statement

4.1 Kineton will be a desirable place to live, being a sustainable rural community

where people feel fully involved and supported in their work, life and play.

The environment, community services, economic growth, cultural development

and infrastructure of the neighbourhood will be valued, protected and enhanced

for future generations.

Vision Statement - EDUCATION

4.2 To create a good or better quality of education and cultural developments within

the schools, playgroups and other organisations, such as the library, clubs and

societies, so that all people within the Kineton neighbourhood area can make the

most of their work, life and play.

Vision Statement - HEALTH

4.3 Protect, sustain and improve the health facilities in the village to ensure that

standards of medical care are good or better with the establishment of a health

centre, a pharmacy and a rapid response team that can bring prompt emergency

care to all people living in the neighbourhood area.

Vision Statement - HOUSING

4.4 The expansion of housing within Kineton would be in keeping with the rural

character of the village. Any new housing would be in developments of an

appropriate size and with an appropriate density of houses. The mix of housing to

be built would be compatible with the economic and diverse social needs of

Kineton and surrounding area. Provision would be required for ‘green spaces’ in

and around the new properties and local stone/brick should be used in their

construction. Inappropriate in-filling (i.e. development which does not comply with

Policies D1-D10 of this Plan) within existing developments in the village should

be avoided. The sustainability of any new development will be of critical

importance and, given the recognised limitations of the current infrastructure, new

housing developments must ensure adequate measures are in place to address

additional pressures placed on village infrastructure.

Vision Statement - BUSINESS/SERVICES

4.5 The retention and consolidation of the existing businesses and services in the

village will be essential for the sustainable development of Kineton.

Encouragement of employment opportunities, including ‘Homeworking’, will be a

key consideration in building a sustainable and viable future. The maintenance of

a superfast broadband network will be essential. The current retail and service

outlets should be supported and encouraged to develop. This would include the

educational establishments and doctors’ surgeries. An over-riding factor in any


16

successful and sustainable development of businesses and services would be

the resolution of traffic and parking issues within the village.

Vision Statement - CONSERVATION

4.6 The historic centre of Kineton retains a significant number of historic buildings, a

high proportion of which are “listed”; the pattern and character define the village’s

origin as a medieval market town. The importance of safeguarding this heritage

was recognised in 1969 by the designation of the historic core as a Conservation

Area [refer to Development Constraints Map]. The historic core of Little Kineton

was designated as a Conservation Area in 1991 [refer to Development

Constraints Map].

4.7 The character of each Conservation Area is very different. The Kineton

Conservation Area is urban in character; its buildings fronting the principal streets

and market square creating a sense of enclosure with few gaps or open spaces,

apart from the centrally located churchyard. The character of Little Kineton, on

the other hand, is open textured with old buildings in groups around a large

Green.

4.8 The Neighbourhood Development Plan will continue to protect and, where

possible, enhance the character of both Conservation Areas. It will seek to

correct the deficiencies in the current designated areas by better protecting the

setting of buildings within each Area. Where possible non-conforming

treatments which would detract from the character of the Area [modern colour-

stained fencing, concrete panels etc.] will be addressed through the consideration

of planning applications.

4.9 The setting of the Conservation Areas should be protected by ensuring that

development utilises the most appropriate materials and is of a sensitive scale

and design which respects the existing character of the area. This will also assist

in the preservation of the wider setting of the village. Important green spaces and

areas of high landscape sensitivity will be protected.

Vision Statement - LEISURE

4.10 Leisure embraces a wide range of activities from sedentary hobbies to sport

and fitness regimes. Kineton is fortunate to have a variety of leisure opportunities

already in place. Soccer, cricket and bowls are played at Kineton Sports and

Social Club; Kineton High School is a Specialist Sports College with playing

fields, all weather floodlit pitch, gymnasium, tennis courts and outdoor swimming

pool and Pittern Hill Stables has a large indoor riding school and cross-country

course. Kineton is the home of the Warwickshire Hunt and has possibly the

earliest purpose-built stables [1839] within the Little Kineton Conservation Area.


17

4.11 Despite the existing provision of leisure facilities within the village, there is a

strong desire to have more playing fields for junior football and mini football, and

additional tennis courts. There is no safe defined area for skateboarding. The

school facilities are not available to the general public during school hours and

are not easily accessible out of hours. The Plan would seek to create easier

public access to the sports facilities on the school’s premises. Walking, with or

without a dog, is almost certainly the most popular fitness activity and yet existing

off road footpaths radiate from the village and are not joined up. The

Neighbourhood Development Plan would seek to create more circular routes for

pedestrians and create more cycle routes that connect with established routes.

Vision Statement - TOURISM

4.12 Kineton has an opportunity to improve its potential as a base for visitors to

explore the surrounding areas of historic and cultural interest. Transport links by

car are excellent [10 minutes from Junction 12 of the M40]. Stratford-upon-Avon

and Warwick, both sites of international importance, are accessible in less than

30 minutes.

4.13 Closer to Kineton is Compton Verney, a Grade I listed country house which is

the home of a nationally important art gallery. The English Heritage registered

Edgehill Civil War battlefield, the boundary of which adjoins the south-eastern

edge of the village lies to the east. The National Trust properties of Charlecote,

Upton House and Farnborough are all within a 20 minute drive and the National

Motor Museum at Gaydon is even closer.

4.14 Most tourists will continue to stay in Stratford upon Avon and Warwick and the

lack of hotel accommodation in Kineton means that overnight stays are unlikely in

any significant numbers. There is however a potential to encourage day visitors

and more B-&-Bs would encourage overnight stays. For day visitors, additional

cafés, tea-shops and/or restaurants need to be encouraged.

Vision Statement - TRANSPORT

4.15 Kineton should have an integrated and sustainable transport system serving

the needs of the community. This will be delivered through working with the

relevant authority to address public transport, parking, pedestrian and cyclist

safety.

Vision Statement - INFRASTRUCTURE

4.16 Kineton should have utility infrastructure capable of sustaining new

development and improving the condition for existing residents. The capacity of

sewers and sewer treatment works should be increased to ensure it has capacity for

the future including the separation of surface water and highway drainage from the

foul network. Kineton should have a high quality communication infrastructure to


18

enable more homeworking and reduce the need to travel. Kineton will work closely

and with determination with appropriate authorities to divert most traffic from the

village centre.


19

5 Neighbourhood Plan: Policies

5.1 Housing

Strategic Objective

5.1.1 To meet the economic, social and environmental needs of Kineton and its contribution to the overall housing requirements of the district through sustainable growth.

Policy H1 – Housing Development and Supply

The Plan designates settlement boundaries18 for Kineton and Little Kineton and these are shown on the map entitled “Settlement Boundaries for Kineton and Little Kineton”. Within these settlement boundaries the development and reuse of land and buildings for housing will generally be supported. In the Plan period the provision of a minimum of 200 dwellings is supported to meet the District’s overall housing supply up to 2031.

Explanation

5.1.2 This policy will allow a level of development to be permitted which contributes to the overall housing requirements of the district19.

5.1.3 The housing figure is informed by the District Council’s study of the capacity of villages to accommodate growth which takes account of national and district planning policies, physical, environmental and landscape constraints and location in relation to employment, public transport and key community facilities.

5.1.4 The Constraints Map illustrates a number of constraints to development in the Neighbourhood Area. This has been used to inform the location of four allocations for residential development. Large scale20 greenfield development which could harm the landscape and the special environment of Kineton will not normally be acceptable. However, in order to accommodate the level of housing need required in the Neighbourhood Area, three greenfield sites have been identified. The other site is currently unused.

5.1.5 This Plan supports the conclusion of the Draft Core Strategy21 that larger numbers of new dwellings cannot be accommodated within the village without substantial harm to the existing infrastructure and services. In addition, more than moderate growth would prejudice the achievement of sustainable development, including using resources wisely and moving to a low carbon

18 Settlement Boundary throughout this Plan has the same meaning as Built-up Area Boundary as used within SDC’s Core Strategy 19

Refer to Housing Trajectory Table - Core Strategy Proposed Submission Version (June 2014) 20 As defined in the 2010 Order 21 Paragraph 6.5.12 SDC Proposed Submission Core Strategy June 2014


20

economy, as specified by the National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 7.

5.1.6 In addition to the housing allocations outlined in this Plan, small windfall developments on land within the Settlement Boundaries will provide for its housing needs without significant damage to its character. This pattern of gradual and piecemeal development will ensure new dwellings contribute to the attractive appearance and character of Kineton and its sense of community.

Policy H2 – Use of Brownfield Land

Any proposals for the redevelopment of brownfield land to create new homes will be supported subject to the following criteria:

a) The new use would be compatible with the surrounding uses; b) Any remedial works to remove contaminants are satisfactorily dealt with; and c) The proposal would lead to an enhancement in the character and appearance

of the site and would not result in the loss of any land of high environmental value.

Explanation

5.1.7 It would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development to allow more homes on greenfield sites than would be necessary to meet identified housing need. The development of greenfield land is not supported by parish residents unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no available brownfield land, existing buildings suitable for conversion or infill plots within the existing village envelope. This policy supports the use of land which enhances the local environment by reusing sometimes unsightly and neglected land while protecting greenfield sites which are of value to the community and contribute to the appearance, and in some areas the character of the village. This policy does not promote a change of use of buildings and land in active business use.

5.1.8 It is recognised that in order to achieve affordable housing to meet the needs of people with a specific local connection, it may be necessary to accept development of land not available for open market housing which consequently attracts a lower land value, provided such land is in a sustainable location, not of high environmental value, and which will not have a harmful impact on the countryside.

5.1.9 Brownfield or previously developed lands are defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF. It specifically excludes garden land and agricultural land. There is no presumption that the whole of any such sites would be suitable for development. This would need to be proven through the planning application process.

Policy H3 – Affordable Housing

This Neighbourhood Development Plan supports the provision of affordable housing on qualifying sites in accordance with the provisions of the Core Strategy.


21

Affordable housing will be secured in perpetuity through planning obligations or other appropriate mechanisms. The criteria for local occupancy are set out in the Housing Needs Survey 2013.

Proposals which do not contribute appropriate levels and tenures of affordable housing will not generally be supported.

Explanation

5.1.10 Policy H3 recognises that as the parish is in an area where the price of open market housing is high, some households will be unable to buy open market homes if they wish to stay local to their parish, family or community links. The parish based Housing Needs Survey that was carried out in October 2013 identified 9 households with a specific housing need for accommodation rented from a housing association, and a need for 7 dwellings available for sale at affordable prices.

5.1.11 A Section 106 legal agreement will ensure that the dwellings are available in perpetuity for those in need of local affordable housing. The availability of affordable housing, whether as shared equity or rental, will be restricted to individuals with local connections firstly and then through a cascade approach.

Policy H4 – Use of Garden Land

No development of garden land will be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that proposals:

Preserve or enhance the character of the area;

Do not introduce an inappropriate form of development which is at odds with the existing settlement pattern;

Preserve the amenities of neighbouring properties;

Provide satisfactory arrangements for access and off road parking.

Explanation

5.1.12 Development within the garden of existing houses can lead to inappropriate development with regard to neighbouring properties and poor means of access. Unless an adequate land area is available or can be assembled and demonstrated to be accessible and sustainable, without causing detrimental harm to the amenity of neighbouring dwellings or to the character of the area, then development will be resisted.

Policy H5 – Housing Mix

Developments of 10 or more units should meet the housing mix, including size and type, and tenure requirements identified by up to date evidence informed by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, local Housing Needs Surveys or other sources of evidence. Consideration should be given to changing demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community.


22

Explanation

5.1.13 While the Coventry and Warwickshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) - November 2013 is the latest assessment, it covers the wider Housing Market Area within which Stratford-on-Avon district lies and does not deal with the market at the detailed level as required by this Neighbourhood Development Plan.

5.1.14 A poor mix of housing tenure (especially if replicated over a number of developments) can result in an imbalanced social mix across the Neighbourhood Area, with the potential for a concentration of social exclusion and deprivation in the long term.

5.1.15 It is important to ensure that different tenures are integrated throughout the layout and for that reason integration will be strongly encouraged and concentrations of tenure discouraged, particularly in areas of poorer environmental quality.

5.1.16 Figures from the 2001 Census and 2011 Census indicate that the proportion of the population of Kineton over the age of 60 has increased from 22% to 28.9%. Of this group those over the age of 80 has increased by 30.8%

5.1.17 Within the housing mix it is important that facilities appropriate to the needs of an aging population are provided, to support wherever possible independent living and quality of life.

5.1.18 Whilst smaller scale developments of less than 10 units are not covered by Policy H5, encouragement will be given to those schemes which contribute to meeting tenure needs.

Policy H6 – Safeguarded Land

This Plan supports the safeguarding of land at the following locations as shown on the Site Allocations and Safeguarded Land Map for potential future residential-led development:

H6a – Land west of Southam Road H6b – Land east of Lighthorne Road

The above sites will only be released during the plan period if it can be demonstrated through the submission of evidence that there is an identified housing need for their early release.

Development on these sites will be expected to comply with all the following requirements subject to a rigorous viability assessment:

a) A high quality design; b) A high quality landscape led layout which takes account of the sensitive

landscape in which the site is located; c) A sensitive external lighting scheme designed to minimise light pollution; d) Safe access and egress from the local highway network; e) Use of a high quality pallet of external materials which have regard to the

sensitive rural location; and f) Green travel measures are provided throughout the lifetime of the

development including enhanced links with existing public transport.


23

Explanation

5.1.19 Stratford-on-Avon District Council is currently preparing its Core Strategy which will govern the spatial vision for new housing in the district up to 2031.

5.1.20 The Inspector instructed the District Council to undertake more work on certain aspects of the Core Strategy thereby halting its progress towards adoption. The overall housing figure for the district is expected to rise but at the time of writing this Plan the increase is unknown. Equally, the proportion of any increase which will be allocated to Kineton as a Main Rural Centre is unknown.

5.1.21 It is for this reason that this Plan has identified 2 potential sites as ‘Safeguarded Land’ which will be protected from development until such times as a specific, evidence based need for housing arises.


24

5.2 Jobs Strategic Objective 5.2.1 One of the three roles in achieving sustainable development is the economic

role (NPPF, paragraph 7). Contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure is pivotal to achieving this role.

5.2.2 This Neighbourhood Development Plan seeks to provide the local policy framework to deliver this role by encouraging opportunities for the development of local employment and preserving what local employment opportunities there are.

Policy J1 –Employment Sites

In the interests of developing a sustainable community and in the light of a rapidly increasing population, proposals for new employment sites which support the growth of local employment will be encouraged.

Proposals for the change of use or redevelopment of land or premises identified for or currently in employment use will not be permitted unless:

a) There is a sufficient supply of sites for a range of employment uses to meet both immediate and longer term requirements over the Plan period; or

b) The applicant can demonstrate that the site/premises is no longer capable of meeting employment needs or where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment uses; or

c) Development of the site for other appropriate uses will facilitate the relocation of an existing business to a more suitable site; or

d) Unacceptable environmental problems are associated with the current use of the site and the proposal will remove them; or

e) The site is located in the village centre and the proposed use will contribute to the vitality and viability of the centre or forms part of a regeneration project

Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, planning applications for alternative uses will be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.

Explanation

5.2.3 Where local employment can be increased without adverse impact on infrastructure, landscape or amenity, this will benefit the environment by reducing car travel outside the village and offer employment opportunities across all age groups.


25

Policy J2 – Home Working

All new dwellings are encouraged to provide space to support home-working, with flexible space adaptable to a home office, and where appropriate incorporate cabling to support broadband.

Proposals for small scale mixed use development (new build or conversion), comprising of workspace and living space will be supported subject to the following criteria:

a) Suitable independent access to both uses; b) An appropriate level of off road parking to serve both uses; c) Independent service facilities (e.g. kitchen, toilet etc.) for the workspace which

do not rely on the living space; d) Be in locations which are reasonably accessible to local service facilities and

amenities without the use of private motorised transport ; e) In the case of conversions, the building should be of a permanent and

substantial construction, structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding or extension;

f) Layout and design ensures that residential and work uses can operate without conflict; and

g) Secure arrangements in place via a planning condition, to tie the two elements together to prevent future separation

Explanation

5.2.4 Already, a significant number of parish residents are self-employed or work from home. This Plan aims to encourage this. Self-employment helps the viability of the local economy and home working reduces outward commuting and unnecessary private car journeys. Mixed use schemes where an occupier can work and live within the same planning unit has the benefit of removing the necessity to travel to work and therefore such schemes are a relatively sustainable form of development that would otherwise not be supported in rural locations.


26

5.3 Design

Strategic Objective

5.3.1 Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that Neighbourhood Development Plans “…should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area”.

5.3.2 This Plan seeks to achieve this objective through the implementation of the following policies.

Policy D1 – Design and Character

All development in rural areas should be well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness.

Developments that do not demonstrate high standards of design will be resisted.

Explanation

5.3.3 Whilst individual design is often a subjective matter, how a development functions, the creation of an interesting and diverse development and making sure it is clear and logical provides a solid foundation for creating a strong sense of place.

Policy D2 – Responding to Local Character

All development proposals must demonstrate how local character has been taken into account during the conception and evolution of a design in accordance with the following principles:

a) Be compatible with the distinctive character of the area, respecting the local settlement pattern, building styles and materials whilst taking a positive approach to innovative, contemporary designs that are sensitive to their setting. Existing open green spaces within the settlement should be retained where they make an important contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the area;

b) Be of a density and scale that is in keeping with the character of the surrounding development and landscape;

c) Preserve or enhance heritage assets including listed buildings and the designated Conservation Areas;

d) Protect, or enhance landscape and biodiversity by incorporating landscaping consistent with Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines;

e) Key features of views to and from higher slopes, skylines and across the wider landscape can continue to be enjoyed;

f) Have regard to the impact on tranquillity, including dark skies; g) Not increase the likelihood of surface water flooding within the village or

exacerbate foul drainage capacity problems; and h) Be preceded by an appropriate archaeological survey to ascertain the

implications of development on below ground heritage assets.

Proposals that do not positively contribute to local character will be resisted.


27

Explanation

5.3.4 It is important to ensure that local character is preserved and where appropriate enhanced. New development that is at odds with a distinctive local character can be harmful so will be resisted.

5.3.5 The purpose of this policy is to manage development so that the most appropriate design is found for the site having regard to local character to ensure that all developments are of high quality and reflect the character of the areas around them in spatial layout, scale, materials, design and landscape terms.

5.3.6 New developments which protect the character of the historic built environment and improve the quality of life through good design which is in sympathy with the special character of the area will be looked upon favourably.

5.3.7 The preservation of local distinctiveness and character requires that the appropriate density for new housing should in every case result in a development that is in character with the local surrounding area. It is also important that future development should ensure that the mass of building relates proportionally to the plot size.

5.3.8 Noise and activity arising from developments in the countryside together with lighting can have an adverse effect on tranquillity and dark skies. CPRE has issued a Statement on Tranquillity and Dark Skies with the objective of maintaining or improving the existing level of tranquillity. The recommendations within this statement are endorsed by this Plan.

5.3.9 This policy is not intended to impose a particular architectural style or stifle innovation, originality or innovative design through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles.

Policy D3 - Use of Design Codes and Master Planning

All proposals for large-scale development (10 or more dwellings or 1,000 sqm or more of non-residential floor space) will be expected to demonstrate design rationale through the appropriate use of design codes (SDC District Design Guide April 2001) and master planning.

All large-scale housing developments should be accompanied by a master plan (for outline applications) or a contextual plan (for detailed applications) which demonstrates how the development integrates into the existing community by encouraging social cohesion and how it delivers the necessary infrastructure to support the development. The master plan/contextual plan should include consideration of existing or proposed developments in the area to enable a holistic approach to be developed wherever possible. The plan must include consideration of means to mitigate the additional demand that the development would place on the highway system, and on services such as schools and medical facilities, as well as the need to provide public open space and environmental improvements.

Development will not be supported if detrimental impacts on existing village/Neighbourhood Area infrastructure are found.


28

Explanation

5.3.10 It is important to the residents that all future development is of high quality and reflects the character of these areas in spatial layout, scale, materials, design and landscape.

5.3.11 A design code is a set of illustrated design rules and requirements, which instruct and advise on the physical development of a site or area. The graphic and written components of the code are detailed and precise, and build upon a design vision such as a master plan or other design and development framework for a site or area. It serves as a quality benchmark for the whole development, but need not be overly prescriptive.

5.3.12 Use of the Design Guide will also be encouraged for smaller scale developments particularly where there is a particular sensitivity affecting the site.

Policy D4 – Replacement Dwellings

Proposals for replacement dwellings must respect the character and appearance of the locality. Particular importance is placed on sensitive sites such as those within conservation areas or affecting the setting of listed buildings.

Replacement dwellings must be of an appropriate scale so as not to be too dominant (e.g. overbearing on neighbouring uses / properties or the street scene) or adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring uses.

Proposals will be expected to demonstrate that protected species will not be harmed as a result of the proposals.

This policy will only apply to lawful dwellings and does not apply to caravans or mobile homes.

Explanation

5.3.13 This policy is designed to facilitate the renewal of the existing housing stock with appropriate replacements. It is not intended to overly restrict people’s freedom and expression of interest in design and layout. In this respect, all new replacement dwellings will be expected to enhance design and create a more sustainable living environment in the longer term.

Policy D5 - Designing Out Crime

All development proposals will be expected, where necessary, to demonstrate how the design has been influenced by the need to plan positively to reduce crime and the fear of crime and how this will be achieved.

Proposals which fail to satisfactorily create a safe and secure environment will not be supported.

The advice of a Police Architectural Liaison representative should be sought for all developments of 10 or more dwellings.


29

Explanation

5.3.14 The Government places great importance on creating safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion (paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework). There are many recommendations on how to design out crime.

5.3.15 CABE's comprehensive ‘Safer Places’ paper identifies seven key characteristics that create a safe community. All development proposals will be expected, where necessary, to demonstrate how these characteristics have been incorporated into the proposed design.

1) Access and movement: places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security

2) Structure: places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict

3) Surveillance: places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked 4) Ownership: places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial

responsibility and community 5) Physical protection: places that include necessary, well-designed security

features 6) Activity: places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location

and creates a reduced risk of crime and a sense of safety at all times 7) Management and maintenance: places that are designed with management

and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime in the present and the future.

Policy D6 – Reuse of Buildings

The conversion of redundant buildings built of traditional materials and of architectural merit to housing, permanent business space or residential tourist accommodation will be accepted provided the development:

a) Does not have an unacceptable impact on the visual and landscape amenity of the area, particularly conservation areas and listed buildings;

b) Does not have an unacceptable impact on neighbours’ amenity; c) Does not cause harm to nature conservation interests; d) Benefits from a safe and convenient access to the site or a satisfactory

access can be created; e) The building is genuinely capable of being converted without significant

modification, rebuilding (including foundations and walls) or extension; and f) Ancillary and/or proposed outbuildings and boundary treatments are in

keeping with the character and setting of the original building.

Such applications will be expected to demonstrate compliance with the above criteria through the submission of supporting documentation such as ecological surveys and structural engineer’s surveys.


30

Explanation

5.3.16 If sensitively converted the reuse of redundant buildings can have a positive impact on the amenity of the area and create a sustainable form of development without any additional harm to the landscape.

5.3.17 The reuse of redundant agricultural buildings can also be of benefit to the sustainability of farms and other rural businesses particularly when creating ongoing revenue through holiday lettings.

Policy D7 – Environmental Sustainability

New developments of 10 or more dwellings and major commercial development will be expected to provide and incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless it is demonstrated that this would be inappropriate.

Explanation

5.3.18 Any features, including solar panels and heat pumps, must be designed to avoid harm to the appearance of the building and the street scene. If a building is listed or within the conservation area then equipment specifically designed and sited to meet the conservation / listed buildings criteria will be required.

5.3.19 It is important that in all cases steps are taken to minimise any noise from equipment in order to protect neighbours’ amenity.

5.3.20 All parking and driveway areas will be designed with permeable surfaces to reduce surface water run-off.

Policy D8 – Provision for Parking, Pedestrians and Cyclists

All new development must include adequate provision for off-road parking for residents and visitors. Additionally, dwellings must provide secure storage space for cycles.

Non-residential developments must provide adequate parking in accordance with the County Council’s adopted standards.

New developments, where appropriate, should take any available opportunities to provide new, or enhance existing, accessible and safe pedestrian and cycle routes from the development to the village centre and schools.

Explanation

5.3.21 The Census confirms a very high level of vehicle ownership in Kineton. This reflects the lack of public transport adequate to support routine travel to work outside the village. Parking outside schools at pick up and drop off times causes congestion, blocks roads and affects pedestrian movements. Measures to reduce this by providing improved pedestrian and cycle routes is essential. Furthermore, on-street parking hinders shop deliveries and the Post Office sorting office traffic. Measures to improve pedestrian access to the village shops are also essential.


31

Policy D9 – Use of Land and Buildings

All development proposals must demonstrate an effective and efficient use of land. The effective use of land can assist in delivering sustainable development through bringing empty properties back into use.

The built-up areas should appear to emerge gradually from the surrounding countryside, with higher density and building heights located towards the village centre, and lower density and building heights on the periphery of the built-up area boundaries to help integrate new development and to reflect the site’s setting and reinforce local distinctiveness, but a site by site approach would be encouraged.

Explanation

5.3.22 Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework encourages a local approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.

5.3.23 While there is no rigid design density set for the Neighbourhood Area, in all cases development will be expected to respond to local character. Higher densities close to the village centre where there is a high level of accessibility may be acceptable whereas lower densities will be more appropriate on the periphery of the village.

5.3.24 The heights of new buildings should have regard to the context of the individual site and the surrounding area. Building heights may increase nearer the village centre but in contrast, heights should be lower towards the edge of the village to assist in the assimilation of new development into the surrounding countryside/landscape.

5.3.25 High quality design will enhance amenity through housing density levels that also secure adequate external space, dwelling mix, privacy and sunlight and daylight to meet the requirements of future occupiers.

Policy D10 – Designated Heritage Assets

Proposals which cause harm to the special historic or architectural fabric and interest of listed buildings and scheduled monuments and their settings will be resisted.

Proposals, including changes of use, which enable the appropriate and sensitive repair and reuse of listed buildings, will be supported.

All proposals must preserve the important physical fabric, appearance, scale and settings of listed buildings and scheduled monuments.

Development which would harm or fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Neighbourhood Area’s two conservation areas will be resisted. This includes development outside the boundary of each Conservation Area which, by virtue of its design, scale or materials would nevertheless have an effect on the character and setting of each area.

Any development within or immediately adjacent to the registered battlefield site should be designed to have a satisfactory impact on the battlefield in terms of design, scale and materials and of views across the battlefield from Kineton and Little Kineton.


32

Explanation

5.3.26 The preservation of valuable heritage assets is of paramount importance to this Neighbourhood Development Plan.

5.3.27 The Kineton and Little Kineton Conservation Areas are specifically defined and protected because of their special architectural and historic character and interest. Great weight should be placed on the need to preserve or enhance the conservation areas, including the preservation of green spaces, boundary walls, trees, hedges and fences and other features which contribute positively to the character and setting of each area.

5.3.28 The Battle of Edgehill 1642 was the first significant battle of the Civil War. It is of national historic and landscape significance and is included on the Battlefields Register prepared by English Heritage. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to protect these significant heritage assets.


33

5.4 Environment

Strategic Objective

5.4.1 To seek opportunities for landscape, recreational and ecological gain whilst minimising the environmental impact of new development. This will be achieved through the following principles:

Protecting and enhancing the village’s green spaces;

Protecting, enhancing and conserving the landscape and views;

Protecting and enhancing the historic environment of the settlement of Kineton Village and the Parish;

Conserving and enhancing biodiversity;

Preserving high quality agricultural land;

Reducing harm to the environment by seeking to minimise pollution; and

Locating development in order to avoid increasing pollution from traffic congestion.

5.4.2 The natural beauty of the area around the settlement of Kineton is derived from the geology, vegetation and historic land use.

5.4.3 The policies in the Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan conform to the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that planning should contribute to, protect and enhance the natural environment. This includes protecting valued landscapes, geological conservation interests, minimising impacts on biodiversity, providing net gains in biodiversity where possible and establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Reference has been made to reports from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) concerning the countryside especially regarding tranquillity and dark skies policy.

5.4.4 The National Planning Policy Framework defines the environmental dimension of sustainability as “contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.”

5.4.5 These principles are adopted and form part of the evidence base of this Plan. Features of the natural environment are shown on both the Development Constraints and Valued Landscapes Maps.

Policy E1 – Agricultural Land

Development of the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) will normally be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that significant development of agricultural land is necessary and no other land of a poorer agricultural quality is available.


34

Explanation

5.4.6 Agricultural land is an essential part of the landscape of Kineton as well as providing local employment and food security for the nation. In addition the beauty of the landscape around Kineton consists of the combination of hills and agricultural land. In many fields adjoining the settlement, the ancient pattern of ridge and furrow is well preserved. This historic landscape feature is greatly valued and should be protected.

Policy E2 – Landscapes, Vistas and Skylines

Development proposals must ensure that key features of the views identified on the plan titled ‘Valued Landscapes’ can continue to be enjoyed including distinct buildings, heritage assets, areas of landscape and the juxtaposition of village edges and the open countryside. Large scale proposals should submit a landscape and visual assessment to help demonstrate this.

Explanation

5.4.7 Communication masts, pylons, wind turbines, or other structures such as solar panel farms which are highly visible will not be encouraged if they would have an adverse impact on the character of the landscape and the built environment of the settlement. Highly visible skyline building of houses will not be encouraged.

5.4.8 Preservation of the unbroken skylines of the surrounding hills to the northwest, north, east and south is an important objective in any new development. Skyline housing on original footprints (old farms etc.) will be required to comply with original sight lines, and other new skyline structures will not be encouraged.

5.4.9 Important aspects of the Kineton landscape can be seen in areas such as the land between Kineton and Little Kineton from Bridge Street to King John’s Mound; the battle field site to the south of Banbury Road; the land along the banks of the River Dene from Banbury Road to King John’s Mound; the land to the north of Glosters Green alongside the old railway line between the Southam Road and Lighthorne Road; the land to the north of the Banbury Road between the Kineton High School and Walton Fields.

5.4.10 The Landscape Sensitivity Study 2011 indicates that any development to the north of the new housing estate (Walton Fields) would affect the way in which the settlement edge is stepped and well below the minor ridge top. Any development in this area would be significantly challenged by this constraint.

5.4.11 The green areas of land deep within the settlement and on the edge of the settlement boundary, as shown on the Valued Landscapes Map, are important features of Kineton and characterise the village. These pieces of open land bring the countryside close, and afford views across fields to


35

the skyline formed by the surrounding hills to the northwest, north, east and south of the settlement. They should enable an excellent system of paths to give residents and visitors easy access to the countryside. They act as wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors.

Policy E3 – Minimising Pollution

Development proposals which would give, or potentially give, rise to pollution because of its type or its location will only be supported if they are accompanied by evidence that demonstrates any harmful impacts particularly arising from noise, light or traffic generation, including details of any measures to be taken to deal with the anticipated impacts of the proposal, are satisfactory.

Proposals which would give rise to unacceptable levels of air, light, noise or water pollution will be resisted.

Explanation

5.4.12 Paragraph 120 of the NPPF clearly sets out, in broad terms, that pollution is a material planning consideration. Pollution can and does have detrimental impacts on the environment and human health. In the absence of a robust plan policy, both the quality of life of local residents and the ecology of the area would be compromised.

5.4.13 This Neighbourhood Development Plan is particularly concerned with light pollution and the impact of development on the tranquillity of the Neighbourhood Area.

5.4.14 The Neighbourhood Development Plan will follow the recommendations of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) to minimise noise generation.

5.4.15 The CPRE has stated “The tranquillity of the English countryside is one of its most important qualities. Tranquillity is important for our mental and physical well-being. It improves our quality of life. It is also critical to rural economies because it’s one of the main reasons why people head out of towns and cities to ‘get away from it all’. But getting away from it all is becoming harder and harder to do. Aircraft, cars, roads and building developments are all eroding the tranquillity that means so much to all of us.”

5.4.16 The roads through the centre of Kineton produce significant noise and air pollution, and new developments should not generate significant additional traffic. The bowl shape of the Dene Valley makes the village particularly vulnerable to reverberating sound which is transferred to other residential areas.

Policy E4 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation

Development proposals relating to the production of renewable energy will be supported providing they can be satisfactorily integrated into the character and appearance of the village and its environs.


36

Proposals which fail to preserve or enhance the established character and appearance of the local area will be resisted.

Explanation

5.4.17 The benefits of renewable energy generation through processes such as biomass, ground source and air source heat pumps, hydroelectric, wind and thermal capture are all well-documented. This Neighbourhood Development Plan seeks to encourage rather than stifle opportunities to establish the generation of renewal energy in appropriate locations where the benefits of such projects clearly outweigh any harm.

Policy E5 – Flooding and Surface Water Drainage Systems

Development should not increase flood risk. Planning applications for development within the Plan area must be accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment in line with the requirements of national policy and advice, but may also be required on a site by site basis based on locally available evidence. All proposals must demonstrate that flood risk will not be increased elsewhere and that the proposed development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant. Information accompanying the application should demonstrate how any mitigation measures will be satisfactorily integrated into the design and layout of the development. The use of sustainable urban drainage systems and permeable surfaces will be encouraged where appropriate. Development within Flood Zones 1 and 2 must demonstrate that it will not reduce the capacity and capability of the functional flood plain. Water compatible uses within Flood Zone 3 may be acceptable in certain circumstances but other forms of development will be strictly resisted.

All development proposals must incorporate suitable and sustainable means of drainage. Where site conditions are proven to be unsuitable, an alternative drainage solution will need to be agreed by the council and the relevant water authority. The re-use and recycling of water within developments will be encouraged.

Proposals which do not satisfactorily demonstrate secure arrangements for the prevention of fluvial and pluvial flooding will not be supported.

Explanation

5.4.18 The Liassic clay bowl which underlies Kineton is likely to respond particularly badly to climate change. The clay bakes into an impermeable surface across which the increased rainfall will flow rapidly without percolating into the top soil. The rapid sheet wash will flow into the River Dene causing flash flooding in some areas, in addition to the identified flood risk areas next to the River Dene.

5.4.19 Unless carefully sited and constructed, new housing and related hard surfaces will inevitably tend to exacerbate the flooding problems.


37

Riverside vegetation should be protected as important natural habitat adding to the biodiversity of the village.

5.4.20 This policy aims to ensure that development does not make this unsatisfactory situation worse by requiring that appropriate mitigation measures are in place in a timely manner. Consideration should be given to the retention of land which can be used to slow down the flow of surface water and the creation of appropriate SUDS features.

5.4.21 Flood risk management is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority (Warwickshire County Council). In the future, developers will be required to meet the national and local guidelines for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). An explanation of Sustainable Drainage Systems is given in Appendix 4.

Policy E6 – Trees and Hedgerows

Development should retain and protect existing trees and hedgerows which are important for their historic, visual or biodiversity value unless the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh any loss. Where it is not possible or feasible to retain such trees or hedgerows in these circumstances replacement trees or hedgerows of an equivalent or better standard will be required in an appropriate location on the site.

All new developments should incorporate the planting of appropriate native trees and hedges in their plans.

Large-scale developments will need to demonstrate they have been landscape led in order to avoid retrofitting of poor quality or token landscaping

Explanation

5.4.22 New developments must not cramp the root run of established trees or require lopping to a degree that would materially hinder the future growth of the tree. Established hedgerows should be preserved unless there are exceptional reasons justifying their removal.

5.4.23 Trees in the conservation area are legally protected. Historically significant fragments of ancient hedgerow still exist within or close to the settlement which should be protected and enhanced to preserve biodiversity in the village. Hedgerows are important wildlife corridors connecting pastures around the settlement. They are significant features in the landscape, an important element in views largely unaltered for centuries.

5.4.24 Large-scale developments refer to 10 or more dwellings or 1,000 sqm or more of non-residential floor space.


38

Policy E7 – Foul Drainage and Water Supply

All development proposals must demonstrate that there are or will be adequate water supply and water treatment facilities in place to serve the whole development.

Proposals that would result in an unacceptable risk to the quality and / or quantity of a water body or water bodies will not be permitted.

Proposals to expedite the improvement and upgrade the existing foul drainage network and its separation from the surface water / highway drainage systems within the village will be supported. All developments will be expected to demonstrate that there are suitable and satisfactory arrangements in place to deal with foul water.

Explanation

5.4.25 Local planning authorities have a general responsibility not to compromise the achievement of United Kingdom compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD42) (Directive 2000/60/EC). All surface water bodies need to achieve “good ecological status” by 2015. The Localism Act 2011 enables the UK government to require local authorities to pay if their inaction resulted in a failure to meet WFD requirements. The Localism Act 2011 also requires local planning authorities to co-operate on cross-boundary planning issues including the provision of water supply infrastructure, water quality, water supply and enhancement of the natural environment.

5.4.26 The effective management of waste water is considered critical in the pursuit of sustainable development and communities. It reduces the impact flooding can have on the community, maintains water quality and quantity and helps to enhance local amenity and biodiversity through the provision of green infrastructure.

5.4.27 Effective water management also reduces the movement of water and sewage thereby reducing energy requirements. The Parish Council will continue to work with Warwickshire County Council as lead local flood authority, the District Council, the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water to achieve compliance with the WFD and aim to provide sufficient water to meet local needs.

5.4.28 All new developments should not exacerbate the already unsatisfactory foul water drainage system in Kineton which, for the majority of existing dwellings, is already at capacity and causes occasional unpleasant and unhygienic overspills.

Policy E8 – Biodiversity

Development should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity wherever possible. Existing ecological networks should be retained and new ecological habitats and networks are particularly encouraged. Measures to improve landscape quality, scenic beauty and tranquillity and to reduce light pollution are encouraged.


39

Explanation

5.4.29 A Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) could provide a neighbourhood level response to the Government’s National Action Plans for threatened habitats species and would sit alongside Warwickshire County Council’s LBAP, which is currently under review.

5.4.30 A LBAP would contribute to national targets wherever these are relevant to the neighbourhood area but also could set local targets.


40

5.5 Infrastructure

Strategic Objective

5.5.1 Infrastructure is needed to support development and to help ensure that development can be delivered in a sustainable way. In addition to ensuring that proper account is taken of existing resource limitations and the capacity of existing services it is necessary to ensure that any additional infrastructure needed to enable development is delivered in a sustainable and viable way is considered.

Policy IN1 - Community Facilities

Existing community facilities play an important role in maintaining a strong, healthy and vibrant community. The loss of existing community facilities will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer viable or that the facility is no longer in active use and has no prospect of being brought back into use.

Proposals which enhance and improve existing community facilities will be supported.

New community facilities will be encouraged providing they are compatible with existing neighbouring uses.

Explanation

5.5.2 There is a presumption in favour of retaining existing community facilities which support a strong, healthy, vibrant and cohesive community. Such facilities will be protected from inappropriate forms of development which may cause harm either directly or indirectly through new development, redevelopment or changes of use.

5.5.3 Community venues such as leisure facilities, libraries, meeting rooms and

civic buildings play a particularly important role in bringing together the community and preventing social isolation. This is especially important in vulnerable groups such as the elderly.

5.5.4 Examples of community facilities include shops and local businesses, community halls and churches, education, health centres and dispensaries, children’s play areas and playing fields.

Policy IN2 - Encouraging Safe Use of Public Routes

As appropriate, development must demonstrate how walking and cycling opportunities have been prioritised. The Neighbourhood Area has a wealth of public routes which should be protected, enhanced, expanded and positively utilised in all new development. Proposals which either adversely affect existing walking and cycling routes or fail to encourage appropriate new walking and cycling opportunities will be resisted.


41

Explanation

5.5.5 In order to encourage walking and cycling, new development must play its part in creating new recreational paths and safe cycle routes. Paths and routes should be direct, functional and link to the existing extensive network of rights of way within the Neighbourhood Area. This Plan is fully supportive of the work of Sustrans within the Neighbourhood Area.

5.5.6 Public routes include rivers, footpaths, bridleways and cycle ways. Public routes are an intrinsic component of what defines sustainable development.

5.5.7 Public routes should be protected and where possible enhanced and improved. New development should demonstrate how it utilises public routes to achieve sustainability. No new development should reduce the amenity currently enjoyed by the ‘public route users’ either physically or visually.

Policy IN3 - Protecting and Enhancing Green Open Spaces

Green open spaces will be protected and enhanced in order to ensure a suitable quantum and quality of recreational space is available for the residents of, and visitors to, the Neighbourhood Area.

Explanation

5.5.8 The minimum ratio of green space to population as set out in the Draft Core Strategy should be applied to all new developments in such a way as to correct any shortfall across the parish within the next 10 years, and to comply with Natural England’s Greenspace Standard recommendations.

5.5.9 Safeguarding green open spaces within the Settlement Area will ensure the delivery of a green corridor along both sides of these important arterial public routes.

5.5.10 In accordance with paragraph 76 of the National Planning Policy Framework local communities through their neighbourhood plans can identify for special protection green areas of particular importance. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances.

5.5.11 The green areas identified in the Development Constraints Map are considered important spaces within the Settlement Area worthy of such protection.

Policy IN4 – Highway Safety and Transport

All new development will be expected to demonstrate that:

a) The safety of all roads users will not be compromised; b) There will be no demonstrable adverse impact on the capacity and

operation of the local highway network; c) There is adequate off road parking to serve the development; d) There is safe access, egress and appropriate visibility to serve the

development; and


42

Explanation

5.5.12 Kineton has for many years been impacted by a confluence of vehicle routes that, in the opinion of the Parish Council, has caused serious visible vehicular congestion22 and safety issues23. There are five primary vehicle routes that lead into Kineton Parish. Two of these routes require passing over former old narrow railway bridges. The width restrictions caused by these bridges is a major safety concern to the Parish.

5.5.13 There also exists within the settlement a variety of narrow roads with one major route having an acute 90 degree angle turn.

5.5.14 Traffic problems are further exacerbated by substantial on-street parking by residents. There is little or no off street parking and there is limited opportunity to create new additional spaces away from the village streets. The width of the roads in the village centre with on-street parking already creates issues for vehicles both delivering and passing through.

5.5.15 One unique major problem faced by Kineton is the number of school coaches from Kineton High School which pass through the centre of the village twice a day throughout the school term with each bus undertaking four passages through the village daily. When this is multiplied by the average number of coaches (12) the impact of the coaches is substantial and creates major congestion.

5.5.16 Any new development should recognise the increase in vehicles attempting to negotiate the narrow restricted current road infrastructure. Routes to and from both secondary and primary schools require improved road infrastructure and provision should be required for adequate footpaths and cycle ways.

22 The interpretation of congestion is found in the DCLG ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments 2007’ 23 Four personal injury accidents recorded: WCC collision data November 2011 – October 2014

e) Existing on-street parking problems are not exacerbated by the development.

Proposals which fail to demonstrate the above will not be supported.

In recognition of existing on-street parking problems in the village centre, any proposals which seek to increase the opportunity for off-road parking in or adjacent to the village centre will be supported.


43

5.6 Site Specific Policies

Strategic Objective

Kineton is designated as a Main Rural Centre in the Draft Core Strategy. As a Main Rural Centre, Kineton will play its part in meeting housing needs for the local area and the district. In order to achieve this role, the Neighbourhood Development Plan will provide for approximately 20024 dwellings within the period of the Plan.

Policy SSB1 – Housing Allocation, Land to the north of Warwick Road shown as Site 1 on the Site Allocations and Safeguarded Land Map

Residential development for approximately 78 dwellings will only be permitted on this site subject to compliance of the following identified site specific criterion:

The existing railway cutting to the southern boundary of the allocated site will remain as a landscaped buffer zone in order to preserve the setting of this sensitive aspect of the site and assist in assimilating the development into the natural environment.

24

Safeguarded sites have been identified in the event that this number changes as a result of the Planning Inspector’s final report on the SDC Core Strategy. At February 2016 consented or completed developments in the Plan period represents 129 dwellings.


44

Policy SSB2 – Housing Allocation, Land to the south of Banbury Road shown as Site 2 on the Site Allocations and Safeguarded Land Map

Residential development for approximately 8 dwellings.


45

Policy SSB3 – Housing Allocation, Land to the north east of Little Kineton shown as Site 3 on the Site Allocations and Safeguarded Land Map

Residential development for approximately 10 dwellings will only be permitted on this site subject to compliance of the following identified site specific criteria:

a) A landscaped buffer zone along the eastern and southern boundaries of the allocated site in order to preserve the setting of this sensitive aspect of the site and assist in assimilating the development into the natural environment; and

b) Development will not be permitted to extend onto the registered battlefield

site.


46

Policy SSB4 – Housing Allocation, Land adjacent to Walnut House, Little Kineton shown as Site 4 on the Site Allocations and Safeguarded Land Map

Residential development for approximately 10 dwellings will only be permitted on this site subject to compliance of the following identified site specific criterion:

A landscaped buffer zone along the western and southern boundary of the allocated site in order to preserve the setting of this sensitive aspect of the site and assist in assimilating the development into the natural environment.

47

APPENDIX 1

Community Aspirations

During the course of preparing this Plan various elements associated with, but not specifically

attributable to, provision of new homes emerged and were supported by residents through the

consultation process. They are recorded here as objectives for the community to focus on

during the Plan period

Highway Safety and Transport

The construction of a link road joining Warwick Road to Southam Road, should be actively promoted to provide some relief to the centre of the village. The safety of all road users is paramount. Developers should demonstrate that safety is not compromised through their development proposals.

Any new development in areas between Warwick Road and Southam Road should be designed with an appropriate site layout which will facilitate a future roadway linking the sites, with an intention to form such a link road

Kineton will work closely and with determination with appropriate authorities to divert traffic

from the village centre including via a link road between Warwick Road and Southam Road.

Surveys for the potential of a one-way system in Manor Lane, Kineton and also in Tysoe

Road Little Kineton should be conducted to ease the traffic congestion.

Conservation Areas

The community may recommend adjustments to conservation area boundaries where

appropriate and, where possible through Article 4 directions, control alterations to non-listed

buildings which, nevertheless, make a significant contribution to the character of each Area.

It will also recommend controls to retain significant historic boundary treatments [walls,

hedges etc.] and paving.

An Area of Restraint proposed in the SDC Core Strategy will be actively supported to protect

the open space between Little Kineton and Kineton, including the River Dene corridor.

Environment Sustainability

Developments of new dwellings and commercial premises should demonstrate that account

has been taken of best practices to achieve high levels of sustainability and safety through

design and layout.

New dwellings should be designed to be environmentally sustainable in construction and in

use. This includes building in the ability to recycle water collection.

Any new buildings should contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;

consequently it is important to reduce the environmental impact of new development and the

energy costs to new occupiers. Works to improve the performance of traditional buildings

should be compatible with their building technology.

Flooding and Surface Water Drainage

This Neighbourhood Development Plan supports measures to increase the capacity of the

River Dene where it passes the village to the south to ensure houses at risk of flooding have

their risk reduced. Modelling of the downstream impact of any proposals will be necessary.

48

There are areas on the road network where pools of water are putting pedestrians at risk of

being soaked by vehicles causing spray. The County Council will be asked to rectify these

problems.

Neighbourhood Area Biodiversity Action Plan

A Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) should be developed which would contain action

plans for all local habitats (woodlands, wetlands, grasslands, etc.) and many of our

threatened and declining local species.

The plan could have clear measurable targets and assemble the local people and local

organisations that are ideally placed to deliver the necessary action.

The LBAP may provide a strategy for action in two parts. Firstly, it will set out the strategic

framework and main courses of action, and secondly, it will contain the detailed actions

required for priority habitats and species in the neighbourhood area.

Encouraging Safe Walking and Cycling

Research shows a direct correlation between vehicle speeds and the severity of accidents

involving pedestrian and cyclists. Walking and cycling could be made safer and prioritised by

reducing the speed limit in the village centre and residential areas to 20mph and 10mph past

schools at drop off and pick up times.

Proposals should be brought forward to ensure that current speed limits are reassessed

49

APPENDIX 2

50

51

52

53

APPENDIX 3

Equality and Diversity Assessment

Context

The Equality Act 2010 provides guidelines and offers protection for groups which may be subject to

disadvantage, either through gender, religion, race or ethnic background. (Source:

https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance).

Public Sector equality duty means that all Public bodies are required to provide evidence that they

have acted in a manner which does not show any discriminatory behaviour. This is achieved by the

consideration of all individuals when shaping policy which will affect those individuals and in the

delivery of services.

Public bodies must:

Have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination

Advance equality of opportunity

Foster good relations between all sectors of the community when seeking to carry out their

activities

Introduction

The Assessment identifies areas where the Equality Act 2010 has been implemented in order to

ensure equal access for all residents of Kineton and Little Kineton. Stratford District Council has

provided access to its consultation document on property development on the District Council’s

website www.stratford.gov.uk/csfurther2014, with hard copies provided at District Council offices,

public libraries and Parish and Town Councils.

Kineton has a population of approximately 2337 residents with the population as a whole which is

older than the national and Warwickshire average, with the median age of Kineton residents being 46.

It does not have a significant immigrant population, and the rate of those claiming benefit is 10%

lower than the national average. Kineton has 20% more Higher and Intermediate Managerial,

Administrative or Professional Households than the national average. (Source:

http://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-kineton-warwickshire-20448.html).

Kineton Neighbourhood Plan Working Group

The Kineton Neighbourhood Plan Working Group has sought to involve the community in

consultations by the following means: individual contact, planned meetings, questionnaires and

access to the Neighbourhood Development Plan both in hard copy format and via the internet. The

Kineton Neighbourhood Plan Working Group has created a Vision Statement, together with outlining

Strategic Objectives in addressing the proposals for new housing development in Kineton.

The Public Consultation Day took place in Kineton Village Hall on 22 February 2014. This building

has disabled access toilets and parking, and is in a central location within the village of Kineton.

Refreshments were provided during the meeting, and representatives from the Neighbourhood Plan

Working Group were on hand to provide explanations of the publicity material on display. All

attendees were able to fully participate in the consultation feedback process through a variety of

means: marking areas on a map, completing feedback forms and comments boxes. All stationery

required was provided.

https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance

http://www.stratford.gov.uk/csfurther2014

http://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-kineton-warwickshire-20448.html

54

APPENDIX 4

Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) The idea behind SUDS is to try to replicate natural systems that use cost effective solutions with low environmental impact to drain away dirty and surface water run-off through collection, storage, and cleaning before allowing it to be released slowly back into the environment, such as into water courses. This is to counter the effects of conventional drainage systems that often allow for flooding, pollution of the environment – with the resultant harm to wildlife – and contamination of groundwater sources used to provide drinking water. The paradigm of SUDS solutions should be that of a system that is easy to manage, requiring little or no energy input (except from environmental sources such as sunlight, etc.), resilient to use, and being environmentally as well as aesthetically attractive. Examples of this type of system are reed beds and other wetland habitats that collect, store, and filter dirty water along with providing a habitat for wildlife. Originally the term SUDS described the UK approach to sustainable urban drainage systems. These developments may not necessarily be in "urban" areas, and thus the "urban" part of SUDS is now usually dropped to reduce confusion. Other countries have similar approaches in place using a different terminology such as best management practice (BMP) and low-impact development in the United States, and water-sensitive urban design in Australia. SuDS use the following techniques:

source control

permeable paving such as pervious concrete

storm water detention

storm water infiltration

evapo-transpiration (e.g. from a green roof)

A common misconception of SUDS systems is that they reduce flooding on the development site. In fact the SUDS system is designed to reduce the impact that the surface water drainage system of one site has on other sites. For instance, sewer flooding is a problem in many places. Paving or building over land can result in flash flooding. This happens when flows entering a sewer exceed its capacity and it overflows. The SUDS system aims to minimise or eliminate discharges from the site, thus reducing the impact, the idea being that if all development sites incorporated SUDS then urban sewer flooding would be less of a problem. Unlike traditional urban storm water drainage systems, SUDS can also help to protect and enhance ground water quality. Foot Note Warwickshire County Council are now the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for this area and have produced a Surface Water Management Plan for the district. WCC are now responsible for flood risk management, consulting of works on watercourses such as new culverts or new structures.

KeySettlement Boundary

Kineton Neighbourhood Plan

Settlement Boundaries for Kineton & Little Kineton

Scale: Approx 1:4000@A3Date: January 2016

N



Settlement Boundary

Scale: Approx 1:4000@A3Date: November 2014

N


Site Allocations & Safeguarded Land


KeySite Allocations

Settlement Boundary

Safeguarded Land

This map shows the potential housing sites in Kineton asidentified in Section 5.6 of the Kineton NeighbourhoodDevelopment Plan to 2031.

1

2

4

B

A

3



Vadary

Scale: Approx 1:4000@A3Date: June 2015

N

KeyImmediate Views

Distant PeripheralViews

Settlement Boundary


Valued Landscapes (Policy E2)



Development Constraints

Scale: Approx 1:4000@A3Date: February 2016

KeyAreas of landscapesignificance

Areas of landscapesignificance (public open space)

Existing residentialdevelopment

Light industry/business units

Land prone to flood risk

Parish boundary

Educational use

Conservation areaboundary

Boundary of registered battlefield

N

New housing under development


Development Constraints

Scale: Approx 1:4000@A3Date: February 2016

N

Kineton Parish Council

Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan to 2031 Independent Examiner’s Report By Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) Dip Mgmt (Open) PGC (TLHE)(Open) MRTPI FHEA FRSA AoU

11 January 2016

2

Contents

Summary 31.0 Introduction

4

2.0 Appointmentoftheindependentexaminer

4

3.0 Theroleoftheindependentexaminer

4

4.0 CompliancewithmattersotherthanthebasicconditionsQualifyingbodyPlanareaPlanperiodExcludeddevelopmentDevelopmentanduseofland

666666

5.0 Theexaminationprocess

7

6.0 Consultation

8

7.0 ThebasicconditionsNationalpolicyandadviceSustainabledevelopmentThedevelopmentplanandemergingplanningpolicycontextEuropeanUnion(EU)obligationsStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentHabitatsRegulationsAssessmentEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)OtherDirectives

889

101111111212

8.0 DetailedcommentsonthePlananditspolicies

1Introduction2TheNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan3Kineton–HistoryandFuture4KinetonVisionStatement5Policies5.1Housing5.2Jobs5.3Design5.4Environment5.5Infrastructure5.6SiteSpecificBriefsAppendicesMaps

1212131417191926283543485253

9.0 ConclusionsandRecommendations 53

Appendices

54

3

SummaryIhavebeenappointedastheindependentexamineroftheKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan.Thepreparationofaneighbourhoodplanisamajorundertaking.ThisPlanhasbeenpreparedagainstabackdropofsomeuncertaintyastheDistrictCouncilpreparesitsCoreStrategywhichisnowatexamination.TheCoreStrategymakesprovisionforalargeamountofdevelopmentandKinetonisidentifiedasoneofeightMainRuralCentreswhereasignificantamountofdevelopmentislikelytotakeplace.AccordinglytheParishCouncilhassoughttomanagethisgrowthbyallocatingfoursiteswithintheParishandsafeguardingafurthertwo.ThisisproactiveanditisimportantforthePlantoacknowledgethestrategicneedsoftheDistrict.ThePlanrightlyseekstoprotectandenhancethekeyfeaturesofthearea.AswellastwoConservationAreasandahostoflistedbuildings,thehistoricEdgehillBattlefieldisanimportantnationalasset.EnsuringthatdevelopmentrespectstheseassetsandthetopographyandlandscapeoftheParishisakeythemerunningthroughoutthePlan.Inplacesthoughthereisalimitedamountofevidenceforthepoliciesandthereareanumberofinstanceswhenthesupportingtextcouldbeconstruedasintroducingpolicy.ThereareelementsofthePlanthatcouldhavebeensharpeneduporincludedaspolicy,butregrettablytheopportunitytoincludetheseelementshasnotbeentaken.AsaresultithasbeennecessaryformetosuggestalargenumberofmodificationstoensurethatthePlansetsoutapositivevisionforthefutureofKinetonandprovidesasetofpoliciesthatplanpositivelytoensurethatthebasicconditionsaremetsatisfactorilyandthatthePlanisclearandconsistenttoenableittoprovideapracticalframeworkfordecision-making.Subjecttothosemodifications,IhaveconcludedthatthePlandoesmeetthebasicconditionsandalltheotherrequirementsIamobligedtoexamine.IamthereforepleasedtorecommendthattheKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlangoforwardtoareferendum.InconsideringwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheNeighbourhoodPlanareaIseenoreasontoalterorextendthisareaforthepurposeofholdingareferendum.AnnSkippersAnnSkippersPlanning11January2016AnnSkippersPlanningisanindependentplanningconsultancythatprovidesprofessionalsupportandtrainingforlocalauthorities,theprivatesectorandcommunitygroupsandspecialisesintroubleshooting,appealworkandneighbourhoodplanning.Wwww.annskippers.co.ukEann@annskippers.co.uk

4

1.0 IntroductionThisisthereportoftheindependentexaminerintotheKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan(thePlan).TheLocalismAct2011providesawelcomeopportunityforcommunitiestoshapethefutureoftheplaceswheretheyliveandworkandtodeliverthesustainabledevelopmenttheyneed.Onewayofachievingthisisthroughtheproductionofaneighbourhoodplan.KinetonParishhastwomainsettlements,KinetonandLittleKineton,andliesabout12kmfromStratford-upon-Avon.TheParishhasapopulationofabout2300.AswellasofferingarangeofamenitiesthetwovillageseachboastaConservationArea.TherearetwoscheduledmonumentswithintheParish;KingJohn’sCastleandthemedievalsettlementatBrookhampton.Aregisteredbattlefield,thelocationforthe1642BattleofEdgehill,fallswithintheParish.TheRiverDeneisthemainwatercourse.2.0 AppointmentoftheindependentexaminerIhavebeenappointedbyStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncil(SDC)withtheagreementofKinetonParishCouncil,toundertakethisindependentexamination.IhavebeenappointedthroughtheNeighbourhoodPlanningIndependentExaminerReferralService(NPIERS).Iamindependentofthequalifyingbodyandthelocalauthority.IhavenointerestinanylandthatmaybeaffectedbythePlan.Iamacharteredtownplannerwithovertwenty-fiveyearsexperienceinplanningandhaveworkedinthepublic,privateandacademicsectorsandamanexperiencedexaminerofneighbourhoodplans.Ithereforehavetheappropriatequalificationsandexperiencetocarryoutthisindependentexamination.3.0 TheroleoftheindependentexaminerTheexaminerisrequiredtocheck1whethertheneighbourhoodplan:

! Hasbeenpreparedandsubmittedforexaminationbyaqualifyingbody! Hasbeenpreparedforanareathathasbeenproperlydesignatedforsuchplan

preparation

1Setoutinparagraph8(1)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)

5

! Meetstherequirementstoi)specifytheperiodtowhichithaseffect;ii)notincludeprovisionaboutexcludeddevelopment;andiii)notrelatetomorethanoneneighbourhoodareaandthat

! Itspoliciesrelatetothedevelopmentanduseoflandforadesignatedneighbourhoodarea.

Theexaminermustassesswhetheraneighbourhoodplanmeetsthebasicconditionsandothermatterssetoutinparagraph8ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended).Thebasicconditions2are:

! HavingregardtonationalpoliciesandadvicecontainedinguidanceissuedbytheSecretaryofState,itisappropriatetomaketheneighbourhoodplan

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciescontainedinthedevelopmentplanforthearea

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplandoesnotbreach,andisotherwisecompatiblewith,EuropeanUnion(EU)obligations

! Prescribedconditionsaremetinrelationtotheneighbourhoodplanandprescribedmattershavebeencompliedwithinconnectionwiththeproposalfortheneighbourhoodplan.

Regulations32and33oftheNeighbourhoodPlanning(General)Regulations2012(asamended)setouttwobasicconditionsinadditiontothosesetoutinprimarylegislationandreferredtointheparagraphabove.Theseare:

! ThemakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisnotlikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansite3oraEuropeanoffshoremarinesite4eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,and

! Havingregardtoallmaterialconsiderations,itisappropriatethattheneighbourhooddevelopmentorderismadewherethedevelopmentdescribedinanorderproposalisEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentdevelopment(thisisnotapplicabletothisexaminationasitreferstoorders).

Theexaminermustthenmakeoneofthefollowingrecommendations:

! Theneighbourhoodplancanproceedtoareferendumonthebasisitmeetsallthenecessarylegalrequirements

! Theneighbourhoodplancanproceedtoareferendumsubjecttomodificationsor

! Theneighbourhoodplanshouldnotproceedtoareferendumonthebasisitdoesnotmeetthenecessarylegalrequirements.

2Setoutinparagraph8(2)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)3AsdefinedintheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations20124AsdefinedintheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations2007

6

Iftheplancanproceedtoareferendumwithorwithoutmodifications,theexaminermustalsoconsiderwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheneighbourhoodplanareatowhichitrelates.Iftheplangoesforwardtoreferendumandmorethan50%ofthosevotingvoteinfavouroftheplanthenitismadebytherelevantlocalauthority,inthiscaseStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncil.Theplanthenbecomespartofthe‘developmentplan’fortheareaandastatutoryconsiderationinguidingfuturedevelopmentandinthedeterminationofplanningapplicationswithintheplanarea.4.0 CompliancewithmattersotherthanthebasicconditionsInowcheckthevariousmatterssetoutaboveinsection3.0ofthisreportthatrelateprimarilytoprocess.QualifyingbodyKinetonParishCouncilisthequalifyingbodyabletoleadpreparationofaneighbourhoodplan.ThisisalsoconfirmedintheBasicConditionsStatement.PlanareaThePlanarea,shownonamaponpage5ofthePlan,iscoterminouswiththeKinetonParishCounciladministrativeboundary.StratfordonAvonDistrictCouncilapprovedthedesignationoftheareaon20May2013.TheBasicConditionsStatementhelpfullyconfirmsthatthePlanrelatestothisareaanddoesnotrelatetomorethanoneneighbourhoodarea.PlanperiodThePlanstatesintheintroductorypagesthatitcoversa17-yearperiodfrom2015to2031;thefrontcoverindicatesthatthePlanis“to2031”andtheBasicConditionsStatementconfirmsthatthePlanperiodis2015to2031.ThereisnocompulsionforthePlantocoverthesametimeperiodastheLocalPlanoranyemergingplanatDistrictlevel.Thisrequirementissatisfactorilymet.ExcludeddevelopmentThePlandoesnotincludepoliciesthatrelatetoanyofthecategoriesofexcludeddevelopmentandthereforemeetsthisrequirement.DevelopmentanduseoflandPoliciesinneighbourhoodplansmustrelatetothedevelopmentanduseofland.Sometimesneighbourhoodplanscontainaspirationalpoliciesorprojectsthatsignalthe

7

community’sprioritiesforthefutureoftheirlocalarea,butarenotrelatedtothedevelopmentanduseofland.WhereIconsiderapolicyorproposaltofallwithinthiscategory,IhaverecommendeditbemovedtoaclearlydifferentiatedandseparatesectionorannexofthePlanorcontainedinaseparatedocument.Thisisbecausewidercommunityaspirationsthanthoserelatingtodevelopmentanduseoflandcanbeincludedinaneighbourhoodplan,butnon-landusemattersshouldbeclearlyidentifiable.5Subjecttoanysuchrecommendations,thisrequirementcanbesatisfactorilymet.5.0TheexaminationprocessItisusefultobearinmindthattheexaminationofaneighbourhoodplanisverydifferenttotheexaminationofalocalplan.IamnotexaminingthePlanagainstthetestsofsoundnessusedforLocalPlans,6butratherthesubmittedPlanmeetsthebasicconditions,Conventionrightsandtheotherstatutoryrequirements.Thegeneralruleofthumbisthattheexaminationwilltaketheformofwrittenrepresentations.7However,therearetwocircumstanceswhenanexaminermayconsideritnecessarytoholdahearing.Thesearewheretheexaminerconsidersthatitisnecessarytoensureadequateexaminationofanissueortoensureapersonhasafairchancetoputacase.Iamsatisfiedfromthedocumentationthathasbeensubmittedtome,andwiththehelpoftheclarificationthatIhavereceivedfromtheParishandDistrictCouncilsinresponsetosomefactualqueries,thattheexaminationcanbecarriedoutsatisfactorilyonthebasisofwrittenrepresentationsandthatahearingisnotnecessary.IundertookanunaccompaniedsitevisittoKinetonanditsenvironson2December2015.Ihavealsospecificallyreferredtosomerepresentationsandsometimesidentifiedthepersonororganisationmakingthatrepresentation.However,Ihavenotnecessarilyreferredtoeachandeveryrepresentationinmyreport.NeverthelesseachonehasbeenconsideredcarefullyandIreassureeveryonethatIhavetakenalltherepresentationsreceivedintoaccountduringtheexamination.

5PPGpara0046NPPFpara1827Schedule4B(9)oftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990

8

6.0ConsultationTheParishCouncilhassubmittedaConsultationStatementwhichprovidesdetailsofwhowasconsultedandhow,togetherwiththeoutcomeofthatengagementprocess.ThePlanbuildsonanearlierVillagePlanof2003.AWorkingGroupwasformedinMay2012.ItisclearthatavarietyofactivitieshavebeenundertakenrangingfromaVillageSurveyearlyonintheprocesstoopendaysandstakeholdermeetingsthroughouttheprocess.Innovatively,aDevelopersForumwasheldwiththreedeveloperstakingupthemantleandover120peopleattended.CommunicationhasprimarilybeachievedthroughtheuseoftheParishmagazineandthelocalnewspaper,butawebsite,FacebookandTwitterhavealsobeenused.Pre-submission(Regulation14)consultationtookplacebetween7December2014and18January2015.ThedraftPlanwaspublicisedusingamixtureofonlineandpapermediums.Afterthisperiodhadended,itbecameapparentthatthehousingfiguresputforwardinSDC’semergingCoreStrategywouldincrease.Asaresultafurthertargetedconsultationwascarriedoutbetween3Apriland15May2015.TheConsultationStatementdescribesthisasbeingfor“additionalsites”.AttheveryleastthisdemonstratesthePlanmakershaverespondedtochangingcircumstances.TheConsultationStatementhighlightsthecontinuousdialoguewhichhasbeenheldwithSDCthroughouttheprocessandthisistobecommended.Submission(Regulation16)consultationwascarriedoutbetween23Julyand4September2015.Somerepresentationsquerythetransparencyandfairnessoftheprocess;otherssuggestthePlancouldhavegonefurtherinitscoverageorincludedotherpolicies.ThislatterpointislargelyamatterforthequalifyingbodyandshouldthePlanbereviewedIfeelsuretheParishCouncilwillbearthesepointsinmind.Whilstmorecanalwaysbedone,thePlanhasemergedasaresultofseeking,andtakingintoaccount,theviewsofthecommunityandotherbodies.7.0ThebasicconditionsNationalpolicyandadviceThemaindocumentthatsetsoutnationalplanningpolicyistheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(NPPF)publishedin2012.InparticularitexplainsthattheapplicationofthepresumptioninfavourofsustainabledevelopmentwillmeanthatneighbourhoodplansshouldsupportthestrategicdevelopmentneedssetoutinLocalPlans,planpositively

9

tosupportlocaldevelopment,shapinganddirectingdevelopmentthatisoutsidethestrategicelementsoftheLocalPlanandidentifyopportunitiestouseNeighbourhoodDevelopmentOrderstoenabledevelopmentsthatareconsistentwiththeneighbourhoodplantoproceed.8TheNPPFalsomakesitclearthatneighbourhoodplansshouldbealignedwiththestrategicneedsandprioritiesofthewiderlocalarea.InotherwordsneighbourhoodplansmustbeingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesoftheLocalPlan.TheycannotpromotelessdevelopmentthanthatsetoutintheLocalPlanorundermineitsstrategicpolicies.9On6March2014,theGovernmentpublishedasuiteofplanningguidance.Thisisanonlineresourceavailableatwww.planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk.TheplanningguidancecontainsawealthofinformationrelatingtoneighbourhoodplanningandIhavehadregardtothisinpreparingthisreport.ThisisreferredtointhisreportasPlanningPracticeGuidance(PPG).TheNPPFindicatesthatplansshouldprovideapracticalframeworkwithinwhichdecisionsonplanningapplicationscanbemadewithahighdegreeofpredictabilityandefficiency.10PPGindicatesthatapolicyshouldbeclearandunambiguous11toenableadecisionmakertoapplyitconsistentlyandwithconfidencewhendeterminingplanningapplications.Theguidanceadvisesthatpoliciesshouldbeconcise,preciseandsupportedbyappropriateevidence,reflectingandrespondingtoboththecontextandthecharacteristicsofthearea.PPGstatesthereisno‘tickbox’listofevidencerequired,butproportionate,robustevidenceshouldsupportthechoicesmadeandtheapproachtaken.12Itcontinuesthattheevidenceshouldbedrawnupontoexplainsuccinctlytheintentionandrationaleofthepolicies.13TheBasicConditionsStatementconsiderseachofthe12coreplanningprinciplesinturnandoffersausefulcommentaryonhowtheneighbourhoodplanpoliciesrelatetoeachoftherelevantsubsectionsoftheNPPF.SustainabledevelopmentAqualifyingbodymustdemonstratehowaneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.TheNPPFasawhole14constitutesthe

8NPPFparas14,169Ibidpara18410Ibidpara1711PPGpara041refid41-041-2014030612Ibidpara040refid41-040-2014030613Ibid14NPPFpara6whichindicatesparas18–219oftheFrameworkconstitutetheGovernment’sviewofwhatsustainabledevelopmentmeansinpractice

10

Government’sviewofwhatsustainabledevelopmentmeansinpracticeforplanning.TheFrameworkexplainsthattherearethreedimensionstosustainabledevelopment:economic,socialandenvironmental.15TheBasicConditionsStatementoffersahelpfulexplanationofhowthisparticularPlancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.ItfocusesonthespecificsofthePlanwhichistobewelcomedratherthantakingamoregeneralisedapproach.ThedevelopmentplanandemergingplanningpolicycontextTherelevantbasicconditiononlyreferstothedevelopmentplan.Inthiscase,thedevelopmentplanconsistsoftheStratfordonAvonDistrictLocalPlanReview1996-2011(LP)adoptedin2006.TheLPidentifiesasettlementhierarchy;Stratford-upon-Avonasthemaintown,MainRuralCentres(MRC),LocalCentreVillagesandallothersettlements.KinetonisidentifiedasoneofeightMRCsandwasnewlyidentifiedassuchinthatLP.Itisdescribedassupportingagoodrangeofservicesservingalocalcatchmentareaincludingasecondaryschoolandanestablishedindustrialestate.TheLPinmakingsuchadesignationsoughttopromoteandenhancetheroleofKinetonincludingsatisfyinghousingandemploymentneeds,supportingruraldiversification,tourismandleisure.Itseeksto“underpintheretailandcommercialsector...toensurepublicservicesareretained,tosupportexistingbusinessesandattractnewones,topromoteenvironmentalenhancementandtoimprovepublictransportlinkswithneighbouringvillages”.16TheBasicConditionsStatementalsoreferstotheemergingStratfordonAvonDistrictCoreStrategyProposedSubmissionJune2014(CS).ItdetailseachoftherelevantpoliciesinthedevelopmentplanandtheemergingCSandnotesthatsubsequentmodificationstotheemergingCSendorsedbySDCforformalconsiderationbytheCSInspectorandadoptedonaninterimbasisfordevelopmentmanagementpurposeswillnotimpactonthePlan.ThehearingsessionsintotheCSresumeinJanuary2016.WhilstthisexaminationdoesnotconsiderthisPlanagainsttheCS,thePlanhasusefullytakenaccountoftheemergingplanningcontext.IntheemergingCS,KinetoncontinuestobeidentifiedasaMRC.TheMRCsareregardedassuitablelocationsforgrowthandtheyalsoserveas‘hubs’forthewiderarea.LittleKinetonisaseparatesettlement.ItisnotdefinedasaLocalServiceVillageintheemergingCS.Ihavenotreferredtoeachandeverypolicyofrelevanceinthisreport,particularlyinthoseinstanceswherethemorerecentNPPFshouldhavemoreemphasis,butIconsiderthePlanasawholecanbesaidtobeingeneralconformitywiththestrategicdirectionandpoliciesoftheLP.

15NPPFpara716LPpage88

11

Somerepresentationscontendthatthe(neighbourhood)PlanshouldnotproceeduntilthereisanuptodateadopteddevelopmentplanonwhichthePlancanbebasedortestedagainst.BasedonadviceinPPG17andajudgmenthandeddowninajudicialreview,18itiswidelyacceptedthataneighbourhoodplancanbedevelopedbeforeoratthesametimeastheproductionofalocalplan.IacceptthoughthatboththeLPAandthequalifyingbodyshouldworkproactivelytogethertominimiseanyconflicts.19EuropeanUnionObligationsAneighbourhoodplanmustbecompatiblewithEuropeanUnion(EU)obligations,asincorporatedintoUnitedKingdomlaw,inordertobelegallycompliant.StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentDirective2001/42/EContheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainplansandprogrammesontheenvironmentisrelevant.Itspurposeistoprovideahighlevelofprotectionoftheenvironmentbyincorporatingenvironmentalconsiderationsintotheprocessofpreparingplansandprogrammes.ThisDirectiveiscommonlyreferredtoastheStrategicEnvironmentAssessment(SEA)Directive.TheDirectiveistransposedintoUKlawthroughtheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammesRegulations2004.AscreeningexercisehasbeencarriedoutbyLepusConsultingwhohavealsocarriedoutsustainabilityappraisalworkontheemergingCoreStrategy.Thisscreeningopinion,datedJune2015,concludesthatanenvironmentalassessmentisnotrequired.ThescreeningassessmenthasbeenconsideredbyNaturalEngland,HistoricEnglandandtheEnvironmentAgency.Noneofthethreestatutoryconsulteesdisagreewiththeconclusionofthescreeningreport.InadditionSDChasalsoconsideredwhetheraSEAisneeded(astheScreeningDocumentbyLepusConsultingwaspreparedonbehalfoftheNeighbourhoodPlanSteeringGroup)andconcurswiththeviewthataSEAisnotrequired.SDCconfirmsthattheRegulationshavebeencompliedwithandIamsatisfiedthatthePlandoesnotrequireaSEAtobecarriedout.HabitatsRegulationsAssessmentTherearenoEuropeansiteswithinthePlanarea.TheSEAScreeningDocumentconfirmsthattherearenointernationallydesignatednatureconservationsiteswithin10kmofthePlanarea.

17PPGpararefid41-009-2014030618GladmanDevelopmentsLtdvAylesburyValeDistrictCouncil[2014]EWHC4323(Admin)19PPGpararefid41-009-20140306

12

EuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)TheBasicConditionsStatementcontainsashortstatementthatthePlanhashadregardtofundamentalrightsandfreedomsguaranteedundertheECHRandcomplieswiththeHumanRightsAct1998.ThereisnothinginthePlanthatleadsmetoconcludethereisanybreachoftheConventionorthatthePlanisotherwiseincompatiblewithit.OtherDirectivesIamnotawareofanyotherEuropeanDirectiveswhichapplytothisparticularneighbourhoodplanandintheabsenceofanysubstantiveevidencetothecontrary,IamsatisfiedthatthePlaniscompatiblewithEUobligations.8.0DetailedcommentsonthePlananditspoliciesInthissectionIconsiderthePlananditspoliciesagainstthebasicconditions.WhereIrecommendmodificationsinthisreporttheyappearinboldtext.WhereIhavesuggestedspecificchangestothewordingofthepoliciestheyappearinbolditalics.ThePlanstartsoffwithaveryhelpfulcontentspage.1IntroductionTheintroductorypagesindicatethatthePlancoverstheperiodfrom2015to2031.SDCmakethepointthattheCScoverstheperiodfrom2011–2031andnot2015–2031asindicatedinparagraph1.1.ItissensiblethatthePlanextendstothesameperiodastheCoreStrategy.Aminorchangeisthereforerecommendedonthispoint.Paragraph1.5referstothe“verysignificantweight”thePlanwillhaveoncemadeinrelationtothedeterminationofplanningapplications.Whilstonafairreadingthisphraseologywouldnotgenerallybeofconcern,theamountofweighttobegiventoaplanningpolicyisamatterforthedecisionmaker.Thereforetoavoidanyconfusionamodificationisrecommendedtothisparagraph.ThissectioncontainsthevisionforKinetonbuildingonworkbroughtforwardfromtheVillagePlanproducedin2003.Thisstatesthat:

“…thecommunitywantsKinetonParishtocontinuetothriveasavibrantanddistinctivevillage,tocontinuetorespectandreflecttheviewsofitscommunity,toevolveandexpandwhilstretainingitsuniqueanddistinctivecharacterandtoprovideanoutstandingqualityoflifeforcurrentandfuturegenerationsofresidents.”

13

Thisvisionisarticulatedwellandisunderpinnedbyanumberofbulletpointsindicatinghowthismightbeachievedandbyanumberofobjectivesinparagraphs1.7and1.8respectivelywhichprovidetheframeworkforthepoliciesinthePlan.Theonlybulletpointswherethereissomeconcernisthethirdoneinparagraph1.7andthefirstoneinparagraph1.8;bothrefertothehousingneedsoftheParishwhichcouldbeinterpretedasbeingoverlyrestrictiveandthereforenothelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Amodificationisthereforesuggestedtodealwiththisconcern.TheParishboundaryisshownonpage5.Itisusefultoincludethismapearlyoninthedocument.ThisisthesameastheareacoveredbythePlan.ItisimportantthattheareathePlancoversisclearlyidentifiedandsotwominormodificationsarerecommendedtoensurethatitiscleartheParishboundaryissynomouswiththePlanareaandtoensurethattheboundarystandsoutmore;Ifoundthethinblacklinequitehardtodistinguishsoitmightbeusefultomakethisadifferentcolourorbolderperhaps.Theserecommendationsaremadeintheinterestsofclarity.

! Change“2015to2031”to“2011to2031”inparagraph1.1

! Rewordthelastsentenceinparagraph1.5toread:“OncethePlanismadeitwillbecomepartofthedevelopmentplanfortheareaandwillbeanimportantconsiderationinthedeterminationofplanningapplicationsasthesemustbedeterminedinaccordancewiththedevelopmentplanunlessmaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.”

! Add“andstrategic”after“…tomeetlocal…”andbefore“…requirement”inthe

thirdbulletpointinparagraph1.7

! Rewordthefirstbulletpointinparagraph1.8toread:“DeliveryofahousinggrowthstrategythatreflectsboththeneedsoftheParishandwiderareaandistailoredtothecontextofKInetonParish”orsimilar

! Changeoraddtothemaptitleonpage5tomakeitclearthatthemapshows

thePlanarea

! MakethePlanareaboundaryonthismapmoredistinctiveandeasiertoread2TheNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanThisisausefulsectionthatsetsouthowthePlanfitsintothewiderplanningframework.Paragraph2.1usesthephrase“…thePlanmustbeusedinlawtodetermineplanningapplicationsinKineton.”Iunderstandwhatthisphraseseekstodo,butitisoddlyphrasedandcouldbedeemedtobealittlemisleading.ThereforeIsuggestitisalteredtobetterreflectthelegalposition.

14

Thelastsentenceonpage6indicatesthatthemapreferredtointheprevioussectionappears“onpage5opposite”.Againthisjustneedsaminoramendmentwhichshouldbemadeintheinterestsofclarity.

! Changethesentenceinparagraph2.1whichreads“...thePlanmustbeusedinlawtodetermineplanningapplicationsinKineton.”to“…asthePlanwillthenbecomepartofthedevelopmentplanfortheareaandthedeterminationofplanningapplicationsmustthenbemadeinaccordancewiththedevelopmentplanunlessothermaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.”

! Ensureparagraph2.4onpage6tiesupwiththestructureandlayoutofthe

Plan3KIneton–HistoryandFutureWhilstthissectionisinterestingmuchoftheearlytextatleastbearsresemblancetothatintheemergingCS.20Paragraph3.8containsthephrase“puttingpropertyatriskinthevillage”.SDCcommentsthatitisnotclearwhichpropertiesareatriskandthatthisseemstobecontradictedlateroninthesection.IwouldurgetheParishCounciltoconsidertheuseandeffectofsuchphrases,toensuretheyareaccurateandclearandsubstantiatedbyevidence.Paragraph3.12hasasentenceabouttheinclusionofpedestrianandcyclelinkstoschoolsandshopsfromnewdevelopment.Whilstthisisaworthyaim,itisnotappropriatetointroducewhatareineffectstatementsofpolicyinthesupportingtextasthisdoesnotprovidethepracticalframeworknationalpolicyandguidanceseekandcouldbeconstruedasmisleading.Ifanissueisofparticularimportitshouldhavebeenincludedinthepolicy.ThisishowevernotamodificationIcanreasonablymakeasitwouldchangethestatusoftherequirementwhichhasnotbeenconsulteduponasapolicy.Theparagraphalsoreferstomeasurestolimittheimpactofvehiclesinthevillageandtrafficmanagementschemes.Thisprinciplecanofcoursebesupported,butwithoutsubstantiveevidenceitisdifficulttodetermineingeneraltermswhatsuchschemesmightlooklike.TohelpensurethePlanretainssufficientflexibilityandtoaddresstheconcernoutlinedabove,modificationsarerecommended.Paragraph3.14containsasentencethatcouldbeinterpretedaspreventinganydevelopmenttothesouthorsoutheastofthevillage.WhilstthisareaincludestheRiverDenevalleyandtheBattleofEdgehillHistoricBattlefieldandtheopennessofthislandcontributestotheseparationbetweenKinetonandLittleKineton,aspreviouslyindicateditisnotappropriatetointroducestatementsofpolicyinthesupportingtext.WhilstIhaverecommendeddeletionofthesentenceinquestion,arepresentation21suggestsanalternativeformofwordingwhichwouldalsobeacceptable.20CSpage149andfollowing21FramptonsonbehalfoftheRosconnGroup

15

Paragraph3.15referstoaLandscapeSensitivityStudy2011(LSS).TheLSShasbeencommissionedbySDCaspartoftheevidencebaseunderpinningthepreparationoftheemergingCS.TheLSSwasextendedin2012tocoverarangeofsmallersettlements.ThemainaimoftheLSSistoexaminethedegreetowhichlandscapewithinandontheedgeofsettlementsissensitivetochangethatwouldarisefromhousingorcommercialdevelopment.TheLSStookitsleadfromearlierworkonaCountyLandscapeAssessment.RepresentationshavealludedtothelackofevidenceforthePlanindicatingtheLSSisoneofthefewdocumentsreferredto.AsageneralcommentIagreethatifrelianceisplacedonanydocumentitisnecessarytoensurethatanyquotesorreferencesareaccuratelyportrayed.Againthetextintroducesapolicystatementthatretainstheindustrialestatesandexistinglevelofemploymentinthearea.Thissectionalsocontainsanumberof“coreprinciples”inparagraph3.17.IaskedforclarificationabouttheseandtheirrelationshiptothevisionandobjectivesfoundearlierinthePlanandthevisionstatementsthatfollowinthenextsectionofthePlan.TheParishCouncilhelpfullyexplainedthattheoverarchingvisioninparagraph1.6isbroughtforwardfromthe2003ParishPlan(incidentallyreferredtoastheVillagePlaninthatparagraphandsothisshouldbeconsistentwhicheveritisintheinterestsofaccuracy)andthattheobjectivesinparagraph1.7providetheframeworkforthePlan.Thecoreplanningprinciplestakethese“onestepfurther”Iamadvised,butarenotpolicy.ThevisionstatementsinthenextsectionofthePlanprovidesmoretopicbasedvisions.DespitetheadvicefromtheParishCouncil,Ihavefounditquiteconfusingnottomentionrepetitivetohaveaseriesofvisionsandobjectives;notleastbecausetheneachpolicytopicsectionisalsoprecededbyfurtherstrategicobjectives.IhavecommentedoneachoftheseasseparateentitiesasIgoalong,butitisessentialforthepresentationofthePlantobemuchcleareraroundthevisionandobjectives.Inadditionsomereadaspolicy,othersdonothaveapolicysittingalongsidethemandsomedonotrelatetodevelopmentanduseoflandmatters.ManyappeartoduplicateprinciplesintheemergingCS;22thisisnotinitselfanissueastheCSmightnotsurviveinitscurrentformat.Fortheavoidanceofanydoubt,noneofthecoreprincipleshavethestatusofplanningpolicy.Solookingfirstatparagraph3.17onwards,thefirstbulletpointreferstoanAreaofRestraint;IunderstandthatthisisaproposalatDistrictlevelintheemergingCS.Apartfromafurtherreferencetothisareainparagraph4.10,thePlancontainsnopoliciesaboutit.MyunderstandingisthattheLPdoesnotdesignateanAreaofRestraintforKineton.ThereforegivenitisaproposeddesignationandonethatwillbeputforwardbySDC,itmighthavebeenpreferableforthePlantoputforwarditsownAreaofRestraint.HoweverthePlandoesnotdothisandsogiventherearenopoliciesrelatingtosuchanarea,itwouldbeclearertodeleteanyreferencestoit.

22CSPolicyAS.5(page151)

16

Bulletpointtwounder(b)SocialreferstoanemergingCSpolicy.GiventhatthestagetheemergingCSisatandthatpolicynumbersandcontentsmaychangeitwouldbepreferabletoremovesuchreferencessothePlandoesnotbecomeoutofdatequickly.ReferencestospecificsitesatBrookhamptonLaneandLandEastofSouthamRoadineffectsetoutpolicyforthesesites.Itisinappropriateforanysitetobesingledoutincoreprinciplesgiventhatthesesitesarenotsubjecttosite-specificpoliciesinthePlanandinthelightofthemodificationsrecommendedtopoliciesthatmayaffectthesesites.Thepenultimatebulletpointonpage11ofthePlanreferstotheconstructionofalinkroad.IsoughtclarificationfromtheParishCouncilaboutthis.Iunderstandthatamainconcernofthecommunityconcernstrafficandwhilstacceptingsomedevelopmentthecommunityiskeentotaketheopportunitytoprovidesomeformofmitigation.Whilsttherehavebeensomedifficultiesinprovidingspecialistinput,anoutlineapplication23inthevillageallowsforthisconcepttobetakenforward.NeverthelessthisisabroadcoreprincipleandreferencestothelinkroadaretobefoundthroughoutthePlan.Thereissomesupportfromthedevelopmentindustryforthiswhilstothersdisputetheneed,buteitherwaythePlanitselfdoesnotputforwardrobustevidenceeitherforitsneedoritsdeliveryandthereforethiscanonlyberegardedasacommunityaspiration.Thisthenneedstobeinaseparateappendixordocument.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Considerthevisionandobjectives,coreplanningprinciples,visionstatementsandstrategicobjectivesagainwithaviewtoamalgamatingthemintoonesection(perhapssectionfour?)andensurethattheyareclear,relatetodevelopmentanduseoflandmatters,relatetothepoliciesinthePlanorareclearlyindicatedascommunityaspirations

! Amendthesentence“Anynewdevelopmentsshouldincludepedestrianand

cyclelinkstotheschoolsandshops.”inparagraph3.12to“Newdevelopmentshouldconsidertheprovisionofappropriatepedestrianandcyclelinkstofacilitiesandservices.”

! Addtheword“Appropriate”atthestartofthethirdsentenceinparagraph

3.12

! Deletethesentence“Theseconstraintsmakedevelopmenttothesouthandsoutheastunsuitableallowingagreenspacetoberetained.”fromparagraph3.14

(continuedonnextpage)

23Ref15/03101/OUT

17

! CheckthereferencetotheLSSinparagraph3.15isportrayedaccuratelyandinsertthewords“tryand”after“…itisimportant…”andbefore“…retainthealreadyestablishedindustrialestates…”

! Deletethefirstbulletpointunder(a)Environmentalonpage10oratleast

removethereferencetotheproposedAreaofRestraint

! RemovethereferencetoPolicyCS.24fromthesecondbulletpointunder(b)Socialonpage10

! Deletethefirstbulletpointunder(c)Economiconpage10oratleastremove

referencestotheretentionoftheindustrialestateatBrookhamptonLaneandsupportforaproposedschemeatLandEastofSouthamRoad

! Deletethereferencetoalinkroadfromthecoreprinciplesandincludeit,if

desired,inthePlanbutclearlylabeledasacommunityaspirationandinaseparatesectionofthePlanoranotherdocument

4KInetonVisionStatementIhavealreadymentionedtheneedforgreaterclaritybetweenthevision,objectives,coreprinciplesandvisionstatements.Ihadassumedthatthevisionarticulatedonpage3wasthevisionforthisPlan,buthereinparagraph4.1another(wellworded)visionisputforward.Thisisthenfollowedbyanumberof“visionstatements”foreducation,health,housing,business/services,conservation,leisure,tourism,transportandinfrastructure.Itisapparentfromthiscomprehensivelistthatthissectionoffersaverymuchmoredetailedvisionthanthepreviouslyarticulatedvisionandobjectivesfoundonpages3and4ofthePlanorthecoreprinciplesonpages10and11.Thevisionstatementsreadalmostasiftheyareplanningorotherpolicies(assomedealwithnondevelopmentandlandusematters);somedetailwhatwillorwillnotbepermittedandaspreviouslystateditisnotappropriatetointroducepolicy(intentionallyorunintentionally)inthisway.OthersprovideusefulbackgroundinformationforinstanceabouttheConservationAreas.Paragraph4.4referstohousing;SDCcommentthatthepreferenceexpressedherefor“smallerdevelopments”couldbeseentobeatoddswiththeproposedallocationsandIagreetherecouldbesomeconfusion.InanycasethereisnopolicyinthePlanthatfollowsthisthrough.Isuggestaphrasewhichhopefullydealswiththisissue.OnceagainthereisreferencetomeetinglocalneedsandwhilstIunderstandthisdoesnotnecessarilypreventwiderneedsbeingaddresseditreadsasarestrictionandshouldberemoved.Paragraph4.8referstothetwoConservationAreas(CA)ofKinetonandLittleKineton.ItreferstotheprotectionandwherepossibleenhancementofthecharacterofbothCAs.Thisphrasecouldbetterreflectthestatutoryprovisionswhichreferto

18

preservationorenhancementofthecharacterorappearanceofCAs.ThisparagraphalsoindicatesthatthePlanwillrecommendboundarychangestoeachCAandencourageArticle4directionsaswellasseekingtoimprovetheCAsthroughplanningapplications.Itisnotappropriatetoseektodothesethroughaneighbourhoodplan.Paragraph4.9againintroducesapolicybystatingthat“developmentwillnotbeallowedtoclimbPitternHill,inordertosafeguardthesettingofthevillage.”Ifthiswassought,thenthisshouldhavebeeninapolicywithappropriateevidencetosupportthis.Asitstandsitshouldberemoved.Paragraph4.10referstoaproposedAreaofRestraintwhichIhavealreadydiscussedintheprecedingsection.Thisreferenceshouldbedeletedintheinterestsofclarity.Paragraph4.12referstoan“identifiedneed”formoreplayingfields,butthereislittleevidenceforthisstatementandsothisshouldberemoved.Paragraphs4.13,4.14and4.15readparticularlywell,butitisregrettabletherearenopoliciesthatfollowthroughsomeoftheseideas.Paragraph4.17referstothelinkroad.Asdiscussedearlier,itshouldbemadeclearthatthisisacommunityaspiration.Arepresentation24suggestthatitwouldbehelpfultorefertotheseparationofsurfacewateraswellashighwaydrainagefromthefoulsystemandwhilstthisisnotamatterIneedtomodifyinrelationtomyroleandremit,IfeelsuretheParishCouncilwillwishtoincorporatethishelpfulsuggestion.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Deletethewords“smallerdevelopments”fromparagraph4.4andreplacethemwith“developmentsofanappropriatesizeandwithanappropriatedensityofhouses.”

! Deletethelastsentenceinparagraph4.4whichreads“Theprovisionof

housingshouldmeettheidentifiedneedsoftheneighbourhoodarea.”! Spellingofmedievalinparagraph4.6shouldbecorrected

! Reviseparagraph4.8toreflectCAstatutoryprovisions,removereferencesto

CAboundarychangesandArticle4DirectionsormakeitclearthatthisisanaspirationratherthananaimofthePlanandremovethereferenceto“controls”


24WarwickshireCountyCouncil

19

! Deletethesentence“…anddevelopmentwillnotbeallowedtoclimbPitternHill,inordertosafeguardthesettingofthevillage.”fromparagraph4.9

! Deleteparagraph4.10

! Deletethereferenceto“anidentifiedneed”fromparagraph4.12changingit

to“thereisadesiretohavemoreplayingfields…andadditionaltenniscourts.”5NeighbourhoodPlanPolicies5.1HousingThehousingsectionstartswithastrategicobjective.However,Iamnotclearwhatitmeans;inparticularthephrase“withoutbreakingdownexistingstructures”isnotcleartome.Inadditionthestrategicobjectiveseemstosuggestthatonly“localdemands”willbemet.GiventhatKinetonisaMRCandindeedasasubsequentparagraph,5.1.2,inthePlanacknowledges,paragraphs5.1.1and5.1.2requireamendmenttobringtheminlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance,togenerallyconformwithKineton’spositionintheDistrict’ssettlementhierarchyandtohelpachievesustainabledevelopment.

! Rewordparagraphs5.1.1and5.1.2toread“Tomeettheeconomic,socialandenvironmentalneedsofKinetonanditscontributiontotheoverallhousingrequirementsoftheDistrictthroughsustainablegrowth.”asthestrategicobjectiveforthissection

PolicyH1HousingSupplyThispolicyseekstodoanumberofthings;itsetsatargetof“around200newdwellings”inthePlanperiodwithinthesettlementboundary;itsuggeststhata100newdwellingsarethereforerequiredas100dwellingsalreadyhavepermission;itrequiresaffordablehousinginlinewiththeDistrict’semergingCSPolicyCS.17andreferstofoursitesallocatedinotherpoliciesofthePlan.Giventhatitiswidelyrecognisedthereisaneedtoboosthousingsupplyandthatplanningshouldbeplan-led,itiswelcomethatnewgrowthisaccepted.However,anumberofissuesandconcernsarisewiththispolicy.Firstofallthepolicyrefersto“continuousbutcontrolledgrowth”andIamnotsurewhatthismeans.Secondly,thepolicyrefersto“principles”.Itisappropriateforthepolicytoindicateanumberofdwellingsanditseemsthatthe200‘target’isbasedonhousingfigures,andastudyundertakenbytheDistrictCouncilofthecapacityofvillagestoaccommodategrowthandtheemergingCS,whichofcourseisyettobeadopted.YetthePlanseeks

20

toplanpositivelyforgrowthreflectingKineton’sdesignationasaMainRuralCentrealthoughofcoursesomerepresentationsindicatethisfigureistoolowandperhapsshouldtakeaccountoftheJaguarLandRoverandAstonMartinsiteswhilstothersconsiderittobetoohigh.SDCdonotofferanycommentonthefigureof“around200newdwellings”.Whilstreferenceismadetothe100orsounitsthatalreadyarecompletedorcommittedandsoasimplecalculationsuggestsa100orsomorenewdwellingsareneeded,inordertoplanpositivelyforgrowthitisimportantthattheoverallfigureisnotcapped.Criterionc)simplyreferstoaCSpolicyandgiventhestagetheCShasreachedthereissomeelementofriskincross-referencingandrelyinguponsuchpolicies.Inanycase,PolicyH3alsodealswithaffordablehousingandsothereseemslittlemeritinrepeatingtherequirementhere.AsotherpoliciesinthePlanproposetheallocationofthesitesreferredtoincriteriond)thereislittlevalueinrepeatingthatherealbeitthesesiteswillaccommodatemorethanthe100orsodwellingsthispolicyconsiderswillbeneeded.PolicyH2‘standsonitsowntwofeet’andsoagaincross-referencingseemssuperfluous.Finally,thepolicyrestrictshousingdevelopmentoutsidethesettlementboundaryunlessthatdevelopmentwouldbesupportedbyanotherpolicy.ThisisunnecessaryasthePlanwillbereadasawholeanddoesnotprovideforthenecessaryflexibilityinrespondingtochangingcircumstances.Turningnowtothesupportingtext,thereissomeconfusionbetweenreferencesto“thisPlan’whichonemightreasonablytaketomeantheneighbourhoodplanandreferencestotheCS.Thesupportingtextalsoseekstoprevent(additional)large-scalegreenfielddevelopment(otherthanontwooftheproposedallocations)oranyupliftinhousingnumbersinparagraphs5.1.4and5.1.5respectively.Inadditionitreferstotwooftheproposedallocationsasbeing“previouslyused(currentlywaste)sites”andagainitisnotcleartomewhatthisphrasemeans.Therearethereforeanumberofshortcomingswiththispolicy.Thepolicyreferstothesettlementboundary.Iaskedforclarificationaboutthisissue.TheParishCouncilconfirmthatthePlanseekstochangetheexistingsettlementboundaryforKinetonandintroduceanewoneforLittleKineton.EssentiallythenewboundaryforKinetonincludestheproposedallocationsandreflectsanewdevelopmentwhichiscurrentlyunderconstruction.Itisimportantforapolicytositalongsidethesenewdesignations.WhilstthereseemstobelittleopportunityformuchotherthanwindfallsitesinKineton,thiscannotalsobesaidofthenewsettlementboundaryforLittleKineton.

21

Inordertomeetthebasicconditions,includingtheneedtoavoidduplicationandtoprovideapracticalframework,anumberofmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! RewordPolicyH1asfollows:

“ThePlandesignatessettlementboundariesforKinetonandLittleKinetonandtheseareshownonthemapentitled“SettlementBoundaries”.Withinthesesettlementboundariesthedevelopmentandreuseoflandandbuildingsforhousingwillgenerallybesupported.InthePlanperiodtheprovisionofaminimumof200dwellingsissupportedtomeettheDistrict’soverallhousingsupplyupto2031.”

! Changethetitleofthepolicyto“HousingDevelopmentandSupply”

! Changethetitleofthemapto“SettlementBoundariesforKinetonandLittleKineton”andconsiderincludingitwithinthemainbodyofthePlan

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillberequired

PolicyH2PrioritisingtheUseofBrownfieldLandThispolicysupportstheredevelopmentofbrownfieldlandchimingwithacoreplanningprincipleintheNPPFtoencouragetheeffectivereuseofpreviouslydevelopedland.However,neitherthepolicynorthesupportingtextrecognisesthatpreviouslydevelopedlandcanbeofhighenvironmentalvalueandsometimesthatvaluemightexceedthatofagreenfieldsite.Theassumptionthatbrownfieldis‘better’todevelopthangreenfieldarticulatedinparagraph5.1.7isacommonmisconception.Thepolicysetsoutanumberofcriteria.Thefirstandsecondcriteriarelatetothecompatibilityoftheusewithsurroundingusesandtheneedforremedialworkstoremoveanycontaminationfromthesitesandintroducesuitablesafeguards.ThethirdcriterionseeksanenhancementtothecharacterandappearanceofthesiteandshouldbeexpandedtoincludetheNPPF’srecognition25thatsometimessuchlandwillhaveahighenvironmentalvalue.ThefinalcriterionreferstootherpoliciesinthePlanandisunnecessaryasthePlanwillbereadaswholeanyway.Thefinalparagraphofthepolicyintroducesapresumptionagainstthedevelopmentofgreenfieldlandrequiringexceptionalcircumstancestobeshowninorderfordevelopmenttoberegardedfavourably.ThisgoesagainstthegrainofthepresumptioninfavourofsustainabledevelopmentintheNPPFandasaresultdoesnothaveregardtonationalpolicyandwillnothelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.

25NPPFpara111

22

Thesupportingtextwillalsoneedsubstantialamendmenttorecognisethatbrownfieldlandcanbeofhighenvironmentalvalue,toremovetheprioritisationgiventopreviouslydevelopedlandandreferencetootherpoliciesinparagraph5.1.7andtoalterparagraph5.1.8tobringitinlinewiththemodificationsrecommended.Moregenerallyotherrevisionsmightalsobeneededincludingthereplacementof“previouslyundevelopedland”referredtoinparagraph5.1.7withamoresuitablyphrasesuchasgreenfieldandtheremovaloftheword“linear”assuggestedbySDC.Arepresentation26suggeststhatitshouldbeclearthispolicyrelatestohousingdevelopment.ThisisnotanunreasonablesuggestiongiventhepolicyappearsinthehousingsectionofthePlanandwouldhelpwithclarity.Thereforeinorderforthispolicytomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsneedtobeundertaken:

! Removetheword“Prioritising”fromthetitleofthepolicy! Insertthewords“tocreatenewhomes”after“…brownfieldland…”andbefore

“…willbesupported…”inthefirstsentenceofthepolicy! Addattheendofcriterionc)…”wouldnotresultinthelossofanylandofhigh

environmentalvalue.”

! Deletecriteriond)

! DeletethefinalparagraphofPolicyH2whichbegins“Unlessspecificallyallocated…”toend

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneeded

PolicyH3AffordableHousingThispolicyseekstosecureprovisionofaffordablehousinginlinewith(emerging)CoreStrategyPolicyCS.17andthroughS106legalagreements.ItintroducescriteriaforlocaloccupancysetoutinaHousingNeedsSurvey2013.Arepresentation27queriestheneedforthepolicyifitduplicatesSDCpoliciesandsuggeststhatreferencestoCSPolicyCS.17oftheemergingLocalPlanwouldbebetterasagenericreferencegiventheuncertaintywiththeemergingPlan.Thisisasensiblesuggestion.

! RemoveanyreferencestospecificpoliciesintheemergingCoreStrategy(continuedonnextpage)

26GladmanDevelopmentsLtd27GladmanDevelopmentsLtd

23

! Changethefirstsentenceinthesecondparagraphinthepolicytoread“Affordablehousingwillbesecuredinperpetuitythroughplanningobligationsorotherappropriatemechanisms.”

! Addtheword“generally”after“…willnot…”andbefore“…besupported.”in

thethirdparagraphofthepolicyPolicyH4UseofGardenLandTheonlybulletpointthatisnotappropriatetoretainisthelastonewhichreferstoPolicyH1.ThisisbecauseIhaverecommendedmodificationstoPolicyH1.Otherwisethepolicyaccordswiththebasicconditions.ThereforeinordertoensurethatPolicyH4isclearerthefollowingmodificationisrecommended:

! DeletelastbulletpointofPolicyH4thatreads“areinaccordancewithPolicy

H1ofthisPlan”PolicyH5HousingMixWhilstthispolicyistitledhousingmix,itisabouttenureaswellassizeofproperty.Itseekstoensurethatthetypeofhousingneededisprovided.Nationalpolicyseeksthedeliveryofawidechoiceofhighqualityhomesandencouragesamixtobeprovided.28Thiswillhelptowidenhousingopportunitiesandcreatesustainableandmixedcommunities.Thepolicysetsathresholdoftenormoreunitsbeforeitapplies,butitisnotcleartomewhythethresholdhasbeensetatthisfigureandtheimplicationfordoingso,butthisdoestakeitsleadfromLPPolicyCOM.14whichreferstoamixofdwellingtypesandhassomeconsistencywiththeNPPF.ThepolicyreferstoevidenceforitsrequirementsintheStrategicHousingMarketAssessmentortheHousingNeedsSurveyandrequirementssetoutinTable1inthePlanwhichseemtobetakenfromtheemergingCSPolicyCS.18,butdonottieupexactlygiventhatthesituationhaschangedatDistrictlevelintheinterveningmonths.GiventhattheCSisanemergingdocument,itisdifficulttorelyonthisandinanycasethetableofferslittleflexibilitygiventheexplanationandaimsofthePlan.ThesupportingtextexplainstheissuefortheParishandIfeelrightlytriestodrilldowntomeetingtheneedsoftheneighbourhoodaswellasthewiderneedsoftheDistrict.However,giventheintentofthepolicy,theneedforflexibilityandtheoft-changingcircumstancesacrossalongPlanperiodthatwillbebasedonlocalneedsbutalsothe

28NPPFpara50

24

needsatawiderDistrictlevel,someamendmentsarenecessaryforthepolicytoaccordwiththebasicconditions.Paragraphs5.1.15and5.1.18alsoexplainthattenuremixshouldbeintegratedthroughoutdevelopmentsandwhathappensondevelopmentsoflessthantenunits.Bothoftheseparagraphsascurrentlywordedcouldbeconfusedforpolicyandsorequiresomeamendment.

! RewordPolicyH5toread:

“Developmentsof10ormoreunitsshouldmeetthehousingmix,includingsizeandtype,andtenurerequirementsidentifiedbyuptodateevidenceinformedbytheStrategicHousingMarketAssessment,localHousingNeedsSurveysorothersourcesofevidence.Considerationshouldbegiventochangingdemographictrends,markettrendsandtheneedsofdifferentgroupsinthecommunity.”

! Rewordparagraph5.1.15toread:“Itisimportanttoensurethatdifferenttenuresareintegratedthroughoutthelayoutandforthatreasonintegrationwillbestronglyencouragedandconcentrationsoftenurediscouraged,particularlyinareasofpoorerenvironmentalquality.”

! Rewordparagraph5.1.18toread:“Whilstsmallerscaledevelopmentsofless

thantenunitsarenotcoveredbyPolicyH5,encouragementwillbegiventothoseschemeswhichcontributetomeetingtenureneeds.”

PolicyH6SafeguardedLandTwosites;a)LandwestofSouthamRoadandb)landeastofLighthorneRoadaresafeguardedbythispolicyforfuturedevelopmentifthereisanidentifiedlocalhousingneedfortheirrelease.Thesitesareidentifiedonamapentitled“PotentialHousingSites”.Thismapshouldberenamedtobetterreflectitscontents.Itisnotablethatthepolicydoesnotactuallymentionhousing,butitisclearfromthemapandsupportingtextthatthisisitsintention.WhilstsomerepresentationssuggestthesesitesareallocatedratherthansafeguardedorshouldbeallocatedinsteadofthesitesproposedforallocationinLittleKineton,asiteassessmenthasbeencarriedout.ThesupportingtextexplainstherationaleforthesafeguardedsitesandgiventhelevelofuncertaintywiththeemergingCoreStrategythisseemsasensiblewayforwardtoexpressthecommunity’spreferencesforthedevelopmentofcertainsites.Thereleaseofthesesitesisdependentonthefourproposedallocationsbeingbroughtforward(criterionh)ofthepolicy.WhilstIunderstandthatthisisdesignedtoensure

25

thatthefourallocationsareimplementedfirst,thereareamultitudeofreasonswhythismightnottakeplaceandthereforethiscriterionmayhindertheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.Giventhetenorofthepolicycentresuponanidentifiedneedforrelease,Iconsiderthisissufficient.However,theidentifiedneedrestrictsthistoa“localhousingneed”andthisshouldbealteredtoincludethestrategicdevelopmentneedsoftheDistrictinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance.Thereisalonglistofrequirementsinthepolicy.Whilstsomeoftherequirementsareinlinewithgoodplanningprinciplessuchashighqualitydesignandlandscape,Iamconcernedthatsomesetaveryhighbarthatmayaffecttheviabilityanddeliverabilityofthesesites.Theseincludetherequirementtousethemostuptodatetechnologiesinbuildingconstructionandalinkroad.WhilstIrecognisetheambitionforhighqualitydevelopmentshouldnotbethwartedanditisnotnecessaryforadetailedsite-by-siteassessmenttohavebeendoneatthisstage,itisnonethelessimportanttoensurethatsustainabledevelopmentcanbedelivered.Tothisendamodificationisrecommendedrecognisingtheissueofviability.Ihavealreadydiscussedthelinkroad.Thelastparagraphofthepolicyissuperfluous.Paragraph5.1.21indicatesthatthetwositeswillbereleasedinorderofappearance;presumablymeaningH6abeforeH6b.Thereappearstobenoreasonorjustificationforthisandsothisstatementshouldbedeleted.Arepresentation29statesthatthe‘safeguarded’siteH6adoesnotaccuratelyreflecttheownershipofthetwoparcelsoflandaspartofH6aisunderH6b’sownership.Therepresentationincludesaplanshowingtheboundaries.Itdoesdifferinextentfromthesitesshownontheaccompanyingmap.Aswellasensuringthatthetitleofthismapmoreaccuratelyreflectsitscontents,anydraftingerrorsshouldbecorrected.Thereforethispolicymeetsthebasicconditionssubjecttothefollowingmodifications:

! Addthewords“residential-led”before“development”inthefirstparagraph! Delete“local”fromthesecondparagraphwhichbegins“Theabovesites…”

! Change“Developmentonthesesiteswillonlybepermittedprovidingthe

followingrequirementsaremet:”to“Developmentonthesesiteswillbeexpectedtocomplywithallthefollowingrequirementssubjecttoarigorousviabilityassessment:”

! Delete“…utilisingthemostuptodatetechnologiesinbuildingconstruction

andrenewableenergytechnology…”fromcriteriona)

! Deletecriterionb)(continuedonnextpage)

29RichboroughEstates

26

! Deletecriterionh)

! DeletethelastparagraphofPolicyH6whichbegins“Alldevelopmentproposals…”

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededincluding

thedeletionofthesentence“Ifsuchaneedisestablishedthenthesiteswillbereleasedforhousingdevelopmentinorderofappearance,dependingonthelevelofneed.”fromparagraph5.1.21

! Renamethemap“SiteAllocationsandSafeguardedLand”addingtherelevant

policynumbers

! AmendtheextentofthetwoparcelsofsafeguardedlandH6aandH6btocorrectanyerrorsmadeinrelationtolandownershiponthetwosites

5.2JobsParagraphs5.2.1and5.2.2setthescenewellforthenexttwopolicies.PolicyJ1EmploymentSitesPolicyJ1supportsnewemploymentsitesandthegrowthoflocalemployment.Italsoresiststhelossofexistingemploymentlandfromchangeofuseorredevelopmentsubjecttoanumberofclearlywordedcriteria.TheNPPFindicatesthateconomicgrowthshouldbesupportedinruralareasandthatthesustainablegrowthandexpansionofalltypesofbusinessesandenterpriseshouldbesupported.30Italsoadvisesagainstthelong-termprotectionofemploymentsiteswherethereisnoreasonableprospectofasitebeingusedforthatpurpose.31ThispolicystrikesanappropriatebalancebetweenflexibilityandsupportforemploymentwithitsfivecriteriaprovidingapplicantswithanopportunitytodemonstratewhythereisnoreasonableprospectofasitebeingusedforemploymentpurposesinlinewiththeNPPF.However,thefirstandsecondcriteriaofthepolicyareinterdependentandthiswouldleadtothepotentialstagnationofsomesitesbasedonanoverallsupplyrequirement.Forthatreasonthe“and”attheendofthefirstcriterionshouldbecomean“or”andcriterionb)modifiedtobringitinlinewiththeNPPF.OnceagainthereferencetootherpoliciesofthePlanisnotneeded.Subjecttothesemodifications,thepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.

! Delete“…consistentwithotherpoliciesinthisPlanand…”fromparagraphoneofthepolicy(continuedonnextpage)

30NPPFpara2831Ibidpara22

27

! Replacetheword“and”attheendofcriteriona)withtheword“or”

! Addthewords“orwherethereisnoreasonableprospectofthesitebeingusedforemploymentuses”attheendofcriterionb)beforethe“or”

! Addattheendofthepolicyasanewparagraph“Wherethereisnoreasonable

prospectofasitebeingusedfortheallocatedemploymentuse,planningapplicationsforalternativeuseswillbetreatedontheirmeritshavingregardtomarketsignalsandtherelativeneedfordifferentlandusestosupportsustainablelocalcommunities.”

PolicyJ2HomeWorkingHomeworkingisanincreasingphenomenaandthispolicysupportstheprovisionofflexiblespacewithinnewdwellingstoaccommodatehomeworkingandcablingtosupportbroadband.Iconsiderthespacesuggestedcouldbetheabilitytoconvertaroomtoanoffice,aloftextensionorspacewithinagardenandsotogetherwithachangetogivingencouragementratherthanrequirement,thepolicyisflexibleratherthanbeingoverlyprescriptive.Asarepresentation32pointsoutsometimescablingisnotnecessaryandsoIsuggestamodificationtoensurethepolicyhassufficientflexibility.Thesecondelementofthepolicysupportsliveworkunitssubjecttoanumberofcriteria.Whilstsomeofthecriteriaaredetailed,thesupportingtextexplainsthatthisisaformofsustainabledevelopmentthatotherwisewouldnotbesupportedinrurallocations.IamalsomindfulthattheNPPFsupportsflexibleworkingpracticessuchastheintegrationofresidentialandcommercialuseswithinthesameunit33andthatthispolicytakesitsleadfromLPPolicyCOM.18whichhassomeconsistencywiththeNPPF.Thereforegiventhatthiselementofthepolicytakesaproactivestance,Iconsiderthat,onbalance,itmeetsthebasicconditions.IdohoweveragreewithSDCthatcriteriaf)isconfusedandasaresultitshouldbedeleted.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Replacethewords“mustinclude”inthefirstsentencewith“areencouragedtoprovide”

! Add“whereappropriate”after“and”andbefore“incorporatecabling…”in

thefirstparagraph

! Deletecriteriaf)

32GladmanDevelopmentsLtd33NPPFpara21

28

Ialsonotethatarepresentation34suggeststhatthepolicycouldusefullybedividedintotwoseparateones;whilstthisisnotamodificationneededinrelationtothebasicconditions,itisahelpfulsuggestionworthyofconsideration.5.3DesignThenextsectionofthePlanconsidersdesignthroughasuiteofpoliciesaimedatensuringdevelopmentinthePlanareaisofahighquality.PolicyD1DesignandCharacterThisisasimpleandwell-wordedpolicythatseekstoensurethatdevelopmentisofahighqualityandinclusive.ThisreflectsthestanceintheNPPFandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.AsaresultitcomplieswiththebasicconditionsandnomodificationsarerecommendedalthoughIamatalosstounderstandwhythispolicymightonlyapplytotheruralareas.PolicyD2RespondingtoLocalCharacterThispolicyseekstoensurethatnewdevelopmentrespectslocalcharacter.Thepolicyanditssupportingtextrecognisethereisaneedtoensurethatinnovativedesignisnotstifled,butthatlocaldistinctivenessandcharacterberespected.ThisisinlinewiththegeneralthrustoftheNPPFandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Inconsideringthedetailsofthepolicy,itrequiresademonstrationof“howlocalcharacterhasbeentakenintoaccount…inaccordancewiththefollowingprinciples…”.Theseprinciplesareexpressedascriteriaandarewiderangingcoveringdensity,heritageassetsandsurfacewateramongstotherthingsaswellasopengreenspacesandviews.Whilstsomeoftheprinciplessuchastranquilityanddarkskiesmaybelesstangiblefeaturestoassesstheyarerecognisedplanningmattersandimportantcharacteristics,particularlyofmoreruralareas.ThereforewhilstIrecognisethereissomeoverlapwithotherlegislationorpolicies,thepolicyaccordswiththebasicconditionsapartfromsomechangesnecessarytobringitinlinewithexistinglegislationinrelationtoConservationAreasandnationalpolicyandguidance.Criteriona)referstotheretentionofopengreenspacesinthesettlement.Whilstthisisareasonableaim,thereisnoflexibilityanditisnotrecognisedthatonoccasiondevelopmentofagreenspacecanthenresultinenhancedprovisionelsewhere.Given

34GladmanDevelopmentsLtd

29

thepolicyisaboutlocalcharacter,Isuggestamodificationthataddressesmyconcerninthisrespect.Criterione)referstotheconservationofviews,skylinesandsweepingviews.Thisneedssomemodificationtoensurethatitdoesnotstifledevelopment.Paragraph5.3.4indicatesthatdevelopmentatoddswithlocalcharacterwillbe“treatedcautiously”.Iamnotsurewhatthismeansassurelysuchdevelopmentshouldberesisted.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Addtotheendofthesentence“Existingopengreenspaceswithinthesettlementshouldberetained.”thewords“wheretheymakeanimportantcontributiontothecharacterandlocaldistinctivenessofthearea.”incriteriona)

! Changethephrase“preserveandenhanceheritageassets…”to“preserveor

enhanceheritageassets…”incriterionc)

! Changethephrase“protectandenhancelandscapeandbiodiversity…”to“protectorenhancelandscapeandbiodiversity…”incriteriond)

! Changecriterione)toread“Keyfeaturesofviewstoandfromhigherslopes,

skylinesandacrossthewiderlandscapecancontinuetobeenjoyed;”

! Replacethewords“treatedcautiously”attheendofparagraph5.3.4to“resisted.”

PolicyD3UseofDesignCodesandMasterPlanningReadingthepolicyandthesupportingtexttogether,PolicyD3firstofallrelatestolargescaledevelopmentsdefinedastenormoredwellingsor1000squaremetresormoreofnon-residentialfloorspace,requiringappropriateuseofdesigncodes.Asthepolicydoesnotincludethisthresholditisnotparticularlyclearwhenthispartofthepolicywouldapply.Ihavethereforerecommendedamodificationthatseekstoremedythisconcern.ThesecondelementofPolicyD3relates(only)todevelopmentsoftenormoredwellingsandrequiressuchschemestobeaccompaniedbyamasterplanoracontextualplanaswellasaTransportAssessment.Masterplanningcanhelptoraisethestandardsofurbandesignandcreatequalityplacesthroughtakingastructuredapproach.Whilstitmightbearguedthatthethresholdoftenormoredwellingsislowforamasterplan,theydonothavetobecome

30

anundueburdenandifdonewellandappropriatelycanpromotesustainabledevelopment.TheuseofdesigncodesissupportedbytheNPPF35wherethiswouldhelptodeliverhighqualityoutcomes,butunnecessaryprescriptionshouldbeavoided.PPGadvisesthatadesigncodeisatypeofdetaileddesignguidancethatisoftenusefulforcomplexscenarios,butthattheycanapplytoalltypesofdevelopmentsandoftenconnecttomasterplans.Theycanbehelpfulinbuildingconsensusaboutwhatkindofplaceeveryonewantstocreate.Itremindsusthatsomeofthebestandmosteffectivecodesareveryshort.36Thiselementofthepolicyisinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance.Itisclearthatthepolicyseekstotakeaholisticapproachtoensurethatnewdevelopmentisappropriateandofahighquality.Howeveritis,asanumberofrepresentationspointout,difficulttopredictwhatmighthappeninthefuture.Thereforeamodificationissuggestedthataimstoofferabalancebetweentheintentofthepolicyandtheconcernsexpressed.TheNPPFalsoveryclearlyindicatesalldevelopmentsthatgeneratesignificantamountsofmovementshouldbesupportedbyeitheratransportstatementoratransportassessment.37BothofthesetermsaredefinedintheNPPF’sglossary.Itthereforemaybethecasethatsomedevelopmentscaughtbythispolicywouldnotrequirethesubmissionofatransportassessment.Itwouldalsobeoneroustoexpectthatamasterplanwould“ameliorate”theadditionaldemand;Iconsidertheword“mitigate”38wouldbemoreprecise.ThereforeIrecommendthefollowingmodificationstoensurethatthepolicyprovidesapracticalframeworkandincludesmoreflexibilitytoensurethatitsrequirementsareappropriatebasedonthescaleofdevelopmentanditsparticulareffects:

! Makethedefinitionof“large-scaledevelopment”inthefirstelementofthepolicyclearerbyincludingthedefinitionfoundinparagraph5.3.12inthepolicyitself

! Changethephrase“Themasterplan/contextualplanmusttakeaccountof

recentandpotentialfuturedevelopmentintheareasoastoprovideadegreeoffuture-proofing.”inthesecondparagraphto“Themasterplan/contextualplanshouldincludeconsiderationofexistingorproposeddevelopmentsintheareatoenableaholisticapproachtobedevelopedwhereverpossible.”

! Replacetheword“ameliorate”with“mitigate”inthesecondparagraph

! Delete‘throughaTransportAssessment”inthethirdparagraph

35NPPFpara5936PPGpara036refid26-036-2014030637Ibidpara3238assuggestedbyarepresentationfromBarwood

31

PolicyD4ReplacementDwellingsPolicyD4supportsthereplacementoflawfuldwellingsaslongasissuessuchastheeffectoncharacterandappearanceandthelivingconditionsofneighboursareacceptable.IttakesitsleadfromLPPolicyCOM.12whichhassomeconsistencywiththeNPPF.TheonlyelementofthepolicywhichnowdoesnotcomplywithnationalpolicyandguidanceisthereferencetotheCodeforSustainableHomesandthedesiretoseestandardsofconstructionexceedtheoperativebuildingregulationsiftheCodeiswithdrawn.TheGovernmenthasnowwithdrawntheCodeaspartofitsnewapproachtosettingtechnicalstandardsfornewhousingdevelopment.AWrittenMinisterialStatement(WMS)39madeitclearthatneighbourhoodplanscannotsetoutanyadditionallocaltechnicalstandardsorrequirementsrelatingtotheconstruction,internallayoutorperformanceofnewdwellings.OptionalnewtechnicalstandardscannowonlyberequiredthroughLocalPlanpolicies.AsaresultthiselementofthepolicydoesnotaccordwithnationalpolicyandguidanceandIcanonlyrecommenddeletionofthispartofthepolicy.

! DeleteparagraphthreeofPolicyD4PolicyD5DesigningOutCrimeThisisaclearlyandflexiblywordedpolicyaimedatensuringthatcrimeandthefearofcrimeisaddressedinnewdevelopments.ItchimeswiththeNPPF’s40aimofcreatingsafeandaccessibleenvironmentsandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Thereishoweveramismatchbetweenthewordsofthepolicyandthesupportingtext;paragraph5.3.16referstoCABE’sSaferPlacesand“requires”alldevelopmentproposaltodemonstratehowthesevencharacteristicsinthepaperhavebeenincorporatedintothedesignwhereasthepolicy,rightlyIthink,takestheapproachof“expected,wherenecessary,todemonstrate”.ThismismatchshouldbeaddressedthroughrevisionstothesupportingtexttoensurethatitalignswiththepolicysothatthePlanisclear.

! Amendthewordinginparagraph5.3.16toread“CABE’scomprehensive…asafecommunity.Alldevelopmentproposalswillbeexpected,wherenecessary,todemonstratehowthesecharacteristics…proposeddesign.”

39WrittenMinisterialStatementof25March2015(andasidefromlegacycases)40NPPFparas58and69

32

PolicyD6ReuseofBuildingsThispolicysupportstheconversionofbuildingstoresidential,employmentortouristaccommodationsubjecttoanumberofcriteria.TheNPPFsupportsthesustainablegrowthandexpansionofbusinessandenterpriseinruralareasincludingthroughtheconversionofexistingbuildings.41TheNPPF42alsorecognisesthatresidentialdevelopmentisanappropriatereuseofredundantordisusedbuildingswheresuchreusewouldleadtotheenhancementtotheimmediatesetting.Thispolicyprovidesanappropriatebalancebetweensupportingconversionsandsafeguardingamenity.Itmeetsthebasicconditionsandnomodificationsarerecommended.PolicyD7EnvironmentalSustainabilityAsmentionedearlier,theGovernmenthascreatedanewapproachtosettingtechnicalstandardsfornewhousingdevelopment.TheWMS43madeitclearthatneighbourhoodplanscannotsetoutanyadditionallocaltechnicalstandardsorrequirementsrelatingtotheconstruction,internallayoutorperformanceofnewdwellings.OptionalnewtechnicalstandardscannowonlyberequiredthroughLocalPlanpolicies.Theinclusionofaplanningpolicythatseekshighlevelsofsustainabilityinconstructionandusethereforenolongeraccordswithnationalpolicyandguidance.Thiscouldperhapsberetainedasanaspirationofthecommunityinaclearlydifferentiatedandseparatenon-planningsectionofthePlanorinaseparatedocument.However,oneelementofthepolicy,sustainabledrainagesystems(SuDs)canberetained.SuDshelptocontrolsurfacewaterrunoffclosetowhereitfallsandtoreducethecausesandimpactsofflooding.However,theyarenotappropriateforalltypesofnewdevelopmentanditslocation.TheGovernmenthasissuedaWMS44thatindicatesthatsustainabledrainagesystemsforthemanagementofrun-offareputinplaceunlessitisdemonstratedtobeinappropriate.However,thisappliestodevelopmentsof10ormoredwellingsandtomajorcommercialdevelopment.Thereforetobringthepolicyinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance,itrequiresamendment.Thefollowingmodificationisthereforerecommended.

! RewordPolicyD7toreadasfollows:

“Newdevelopmentsoftenormoredwellingsandmajorcommercialdevelopmentwillbeexpectedtoprovideandincorporatesustainabledrainagesystemsunlessitisdemonstratedthatthiswouldbeinappropriate.”


41NPPFpara2842NPPFpara5543WrittenMinisterialStatementof25March201544WrittenMinisterialStatementof18December2014

33

! ConsequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededPolicyD8ParkingProvisionAlthoughthispolicyistitled“ParkingProvision”italsocoverstheprovisionofcycleparkingandpedestrianandcycleroutestoschoolsandthevillagecentre.Intheinterestsofclaritythetitletothepolicyshouldbeamendedtoreflectitswidercoverage.ThepolicyseeksaminimumoftwocarparkingspacesfordwellingsoftwoormorebedroomscitingthehighlevelsofcarownershipinKinetonandcongestion.Thereislittleotherevidenceprovidedforsettingtheparkingstandardatthislevelanditseemstomethatthefirstsentenceofthepolicydealswiththecommunity’sconcerns,butwouldallowflexibilityonsomesiteswhereperhapsnotsomuchparkingisrequiredgiventhetypeofpropertyorbearinginmindlocationorwhatadesign-ledsolutionmightrealise.Itexcludesgaragesfromthiscalculation,butnotcarportsanditisnotcleartomewhythismightbe.Thereforetheseoverlyprescriptiveelementsshouldbedeletedandthepolicygivenmoreflexibility.Thefinalparagraphofthepolicyrequiresnewdevelopmentsto“developeasypedestrianandcycleroutes”tothevillagecentreandschools.Thisisanappropriateobjective,butthewordingneedstobemoreflexiblesothatitdoesnotapplytoalldevelopmentwhichmightincludeaminorresidentialextensionandclearersothat“easy”doesnotinvokelongargumentsaboutwhetherapathmightmeetthatdefinition.Subjecttothesemodifications,thepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.

! ChangeoramendtitleofPolicyD8tofullyreflectthecontentsandcoverageofthepolicy

! Deletethesentencebeginning“Dwellingscomprisingtwoormore

bedrooms...(excludinggaragesbutincludingcarports).”fromPolicyD8

! RewordthefinalparagraphofPolicyD8toread“Newdevelopments,whereappropriate,shouldtakeanyavailableopportunitiestoprovidenew,orenhanceexisting,accessibleandsafepedestrianandcycleroutesfromthedevelopmenttothevillagecentreandschools.”

PolicyD9EffectiveandEfficientUseofLandThispolicyhassomeoverlapwithPolicyH2inthatthatpolicysoughttoprioritisetheuseofbrownfieldlandandtointroduceapresumptionagainstthedevelopmentof

34

greenfieldlandandPolicyD2insofaritreferstodensity.However,thethreepoliciesdonotappeartocontradicteachother.Inrelationtodensity,subjectofcriteriona)ofthepolicy,paragraph5.3.24againseemstointroduceadensityrangewhereasthepolicyitselfandPolicyD2focusonthecontextofthesite.Aswellasbeinginconsistent,aspreviouslyexplaineditisinappropriatetointroducewhatmightreasonablybeconstruedaspolicyinthesupportingtext.Inadditionitisuncleartomewhat“commensuratewithaviableschemeandinfrastructurecapacity”meansinrelationtodensity.GiventheoverlapwithPolicyD2andthelackofclaritywiththiscriterion,itshouldbedeletedasthepointiscoveredsatisfactorilyelsewhere.Criterionb)introducesprioritytoreusingpreviouslydevelopedlandovergreenfieldland.ThisissuehasalreadybeendiscussedunderPolicyH2.Thecriterionshouldbedeleted.Thelastparagraphofthepolicyseeksagradual‘transition’betweenbuilt-upareasandthesurroundingcountrysidewithhigherdensityandbuildingheightsdirectedtowardsthevillagecentrewithlowerheightsanddensitiesontheedgetoachievethis‘transition’.Thisapproachcouldhelptoensuredevelopmentreinforcesandpromoteslocaldistinctiveness,butmightinadvertedlyreducetheabilityofnewdevelopmenttointegratesatisfactorilywithexistingdevelopmentanddivergefromadesign-ledapproachtonewdevelopment.Thepolicyshouldbeflexibleenoughtoconsidereachsiteonitsmeritsandamodificationisrecommendedtohelpachievethis.Iamalsonotconvincedthatthissitscomfortablywithapolicytitled“EffectiveandEfficientUseofLand”anditmaybeworthconsideringadifferenttitlegiventheothermodificationstothepolicy.Paragraph5.3.26seekstosecureinternalspacestandardswhichisnotanappropriatetaskforneighbourhoodplansaspreviouslyexplained.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Deletecriteriona)

! Deletecriterionb)

! Consequentialamendmentstothepolicytotakeaccountofthedeletionofcriteriaa)andb)willbeneeded

! Addattheendofthepolicy“tohelpintegratenewdevelopmentandtoreflectthesite’ssettingandreinforcelocaldistinctiveness,butasite-by-siteapproachwillbeencouraged.”(continuedonnextpage)

35

! Deletethesentence“Densitieswouldnotnormallybeabove25–30dwellingsperhectare.”fromparagraph5.3.24

! Deletethewords“internaland”fromparagraph5.3.26

PolicyD10HeritageAssetsPolicyD10coversawiderangeofheritageassetsincludingthetwoConservationAreasthatfallwithinthePlanarea,listedbuildingsandtheregisteredbattlefield.Thegeneralthrustofthepolicyaccordswithnationalpolicyandguidanceandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopmentsubjecttosomewordingchanges.Asthepolicyreferstodesignatedheritageassets,arepresentationfromHistoricEnglandwhosupportthepolicy,suggesttitlingthepolicy“DesignatedHeritageAssets”andIagreethiswouldgiveadditionalclarity.

! Deletethewords“asaminimum”fromthethirdparagraphofthepolicy

! Changethephrase“anegativeimpact”inthefourthparagraphofthepolicyto“aneffect”

! Deletetheword“minimise”fromparagraphfiveofthepolicyandreplacewith

thewords“haveasatisfactory”! Changethetitleofthepolicyto“DesignatedHeritageAssets”

5.4EnvironmentThestrategicobjectiveforthissectionintroduceswhatmightberegardedaspolicyinparagraph5.4.2;“newdevelopmentmustconformtopastformsandpatterns,mass,scale,andbuildingmaterialsalthoughthefunctionofthebuildingcanbemodern.”ThisisatoddswithotherpoliciesinthePlanwhichdonotseektostifleinnovationandmightwellhaveunintendedconsequences.Italsoseemsbetterplacedinthedesignsection.

! Deletethesentence“Newdevelopmentmustconformtopastformsandpatterns,mass,scale,andbuildingmaterialsalthoughthefunctionofthebuildingcanbemodern.”fromparagraph5.4.2

36

PolicyE1AgriculturalLandTheNPPFsupportsaprosperousruraleconomyandpromotesthedevelopmentanddiversificationofagriculturalandotherlandbasedruralbusinesses.Italsoindicatesthatwhilsttheeconomicandotherbenefitsofthebestandmostversatileagriculturallandshouldbetakenintoaccount,ifsignificantdevelopmentofagriculturallandisnecessarythenareasofpoorerqualitylandshouldbesoughttobeusedinpreferencetolandofahigherquality.45ThewordingofthispolicydoesnotreflecttheNPPFsufficientlyasitaddsarequirementabouttheneedforexceptionalcircumstancestooutweighthelossofthebestandmostversatileagriculturalland.Neverthelessthesentimentsexpressedinthepolicyandthesupportingtextwouldhelptoachievesustainabledevelopmentandwithsuitablerewordingthepolicycanberetained.Paragraph5.4.6againintroducesaprotectionakintopolicyinthesupportingtextandasaresultrequiressomeamendment.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! RewordPolicyE1asfollows:

“Developmentofthebestandmostversatileagriculturalland(definedaslandingrades1,2and3aoftheAgriculturalLandClassification)willnormallyberesistedunlessitcanbedemonstratedthatsignificantdevelopmentofagriculturallandisnecessaryandnootherlandofapooreragriculturalqualityisavailable.”

! Replacetheword“must”inthelastsentenceofparagraph5.4.6withtheword“should”

PolicyE2Landscapes,VistasandSkylinesThispolicyseekstoprotectallprominentviews,vistasandskylinesaremaintainedandsafeguarded,particularlywheretheyrelatetoheritageassets,landmarkbuildings,gatewaysitesandsettlementboundaries.Thesecondparagraphsuggeststhatlarge-scaledevelopmentshouldshowthatsuchlandscape,vistasandskylineshavebeenpreserved.Thereisaninherentconfusioninthispolicytomymindasitseemstocoverviews,vistasandskylinesandlandscape.Irealisethatsomeoftheimportantviewswillbeofthelandscape,butthesecondparagraphseemstointroduceanotherrequirement

45NPPFparas28and112

37

aboutlandscapeandlandscape-leddesign.Theexplanatorytextseemstosupportmythinkingthatthepolicydoesincludelandscapeaswellasviewsofthelandscape.Inadditionthereiswordingthatmightcausesomeambiguity,forinstancethereferenceto“existinglandmarkbuildings”;thisphrasewillhaveadifferentmeaningoverthelifeofthePlan.Iamalsounclearonwhat“gatewaysites”mightbe.Amaptitled“TheNaturalEnvironment”showsimmediateviewsanddistantperipheralviewsaswellasgreenfingers.Themapisclear,butcouldberenamedtoalignbetterwiththispolicy.However,IcannotfindanyreferenceinthePlanto“greenfingers”.Asaresultthisnotationshouldbedeletedfromthemap.Thetwotypesofviewsidentifiedonthemaphavebeenidentifiedbythecommunityasbeingofimportance.Ialsosawonmysitevisitthattheseviewsandthesettingofthetwovillagesareimportanttotheuniquecharacterandtopographyofthesettlements.Theplanisnotreferredtointhepolicyanditwouldbehelpfulforacross-referencetobemadesothatitisclearthepolicyappliestotheseidentifiedviews.However,itisimportantthatsuchapolicydoesnotprecludeanynewdevelopment,butseeksinsteadtoensurethatanynewdevelopmentwouldrespectthoseviews.IthereforesuggestadifferentformofwordstotryandachieveanappropriatebalancebetweenthepresumptionofsustainabledevelopmentandtheprotectionoflocaldistinctivenesswhichalsotakesintoaccountcommentsfromSDC.Paragraphs5.4.7and5.4.8readaspolicyratherthanassupportingtext.Iftheyaretoberetainedassupportingtextthentheyshouldberewordedtoensurethattheydonotappearasstatementsofpolicy.Ihavesuggestedmodificationsinthisregardinordertobehelpful.Paragraph5.4.10indicatesthatlandtothenorthandeastofWaltonFieldsandanylandtothenorthofexistingBanburypropertieswillbeprotectedfromfuturebuilding.Thisisanotherexampleofthesupportingtextintroducingapolicyandisinappropriateandthereforeshouldbedeleted.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! RewordPolicyE2toread:

“Developmentproposalsmustensurethatkeyfeaturesoftheviewsidentifiedontheplantitled“ImportantViews”cancontinuetobeenjoyedincludingdistinctbuildings,heritageassets,areasoflandscapeandthejuxtapositionofvillageedgesandtheopencountryside.”Largescaleproposalsshouldsubmitalandscapeandvisualimpactassessmenttohelptodemonstratethis.”(continuedonnextpage)

38

! Changethenameofthemapcurrentlytitled“TheNaturalEnvironment”to“ImportantViews”andaddtherelevantpolicynumbertoit(PolicyE2)

! Deletegreenfingersfromthemap

! Replacethewords“willnotbepermitted”whichappearintwoinstancesinparagraph5.4.7andoneinparagraph5.4.8with“willnotbeencouraged”

! Deleteparagraph5.4.10initsentirety

! ConsequentialamendmentstothetextwillbeneededPolicyE3MinimisingPollutionItisclearfromthePlanthatpollutionandparticularlynoiseandlightpollutionisakeyissueforthecommunitygiventhetopographyofthearea.AsthesupportingtextrightlypointsoutpollutionisaplanningconsiderationandtheNPPF46isclearthatpoliciesanddecisionsshouldensurethatnewdevelopmentisappropriateforitslocation.ThepolicyalsochimeswithLPPolicyPR.8.However,thispolicytakesablanketapproachrequiringallnewdevelopmenttoprovideawrittenstatementaboutmeasurestoreducetheimpactofpollution.Therearetwoissueshere.Firstly,theblanket‘catchall’whichwouldmeanthatforminordevelopmentofsayahouseholdernaturethisbecomesanonerousandoftenunnecessaryrequirement.Secondly,thewordingofthepolicyitself.Allthatisrequiredisastatementtosaythatmeasureshavebeenconsidered;thismeansthereisnorequirementontheapplicanttoactuallyimplementanymeasures.InadditiontherequiredstatementwouldneedtobeassessedbythedeterminingauthorityinthiscaseSDC.Thepolicythereforeimposesanadditionalonusonthelocalplanningauthority.Thereforewhilsttheambitionandintentofthepolicycanbesupported,itneedssomereworkingtoensurethatitprovidesthepracticalframeworknationalpolicyandguidanceseeks.Inadditionparagraph5.4.14introducespolicyabouthelipadsandairstripsorsimilar.Giventhesuggestedmodifiedwordingtothispolicy,thepolicyshouldnowbesufficienttoresistunacceptableproposalsandsogiventhatitisnotappropriateforpolicytobeintroducedinthesupportingtext,thissentenceshouldbedeleted.Thereforeinordertomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsarerecommended:

46NPPFpara120

39

! RewordthefirstparagraphofPolicyE3asfollows(fortheavoidanceofdoubtthesecondparagraphcanberetainedasis):

“Developmentproposalswhichwouldgive,orpotentiallygive,risetopollutionbecauseofitstypeoritslocationwillonlybesupportediftheyareaccompaniedbyevidencethatdemonstratesanyharmfulimpactsparticularlyarisingfromnoise,lightortrafficgeneration,includingdetailsofanymeasurestobetakentodealwiththeanticipatedimpactsoftheproposal,aresatisfactory.”

! Deletethesecondsentenceinparagraph5.4.14whichbegins“Helipadsor

airstrips…”PolicyE4RenewableandLowCarbonEnergyGenerationThisisaclearlywordedpolicythatsupportsrenewableenergyschemesaslongasthereisanacceptableimpactoncharacterandappearance.Thiswillhelptosupportthedeliveryofsuchschemeswhichiscentraltotheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentandinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidancewhilstachievinganappropriatebalancebetweenprotectionoftheenvironmentandaddressingtheconcernsofthelocalcommunity.Nomodificationsarerecommended.PolicyE5StreamsideDevelopmentPolicyE5requiresalldevelopmentproposalswithinthefloodplaintobeaccompaniedbyahydrologicalsurvey.Thesupportingtextexplainsthatthereisaparticularconcernaboutsurfacewaterflooding.Thereislittledoubtthatconsiderationoffloodriskwillproactivelyhelptomeetoneofthechallengesofclimatechange.TheNPPFstatesthatinappropriatedevelopmentinareasatriskoffloodingshouldbeavoidedbydirectingdevelopmentawayfromareasathighestrisk.47Itadvocatesasequential,risk-basedapproachtothelocationofdevelopmenttoavoidwherepossiblefloodrisktopeopleandproperty.48TheNPPFsetsoutthecircumstancesinwhichasite-specificfloodriskassessmentwillberequired.49PPGadvisesthatthegeneralapproachandrequirementsforsite-specificfloodriskassessmentsshouldbeappliedtodevelopmentsinareasatriskfromflooding.Giventheprescriptiverequirementsofnationalpolicy,PolicyE5shouldalignwithnationalpolicyinorderforittomeetthebasicconditions.

47NPPFpara10048Ibid49Ibidpara103

40

SuDsarealsoencouragedinthepolicyandhavebeendiscussedearlierinthisreportinrelationtoPolicyD7.UnlessPolicyD7isnotretained,thereisnoneedtospecificallymentionthemagaininthispolicy.IdorecognisethatSuDsarementioned‘inpassing’hereasanexampleofanappropriatewayofmitigatinganyimpacts.Therecommendationdealswiththisissuetoensurethatthepolicyisclearandinternallyconsistent.PleasealsoseethediscussionthatfollowsonPolicyE7.Thefollowingmodificationisthereforerecommended:


“Developmentshouldnotincreasefloodrisk.PlanningapplicationsfordevelopmentwithinthePlanareamustbeaccompaniedbyasite-specificfloodriskassessmentinlinewiththerequirementsofnationalpolicyandadvice,butmayalsoberequiredonasite-by-sitebasisbasedonlocallyavailableevidence.Allproposalsmustdemonstratethatfloodriskwillnotbeincreasedelsewhereandthattheproposeddevelopmentisappropriatelyfloodresilientandresistant.Informationaccompanyingtheapplicationshoulddemonstratehowanymitigationmeasureswillbesatisfactorilyintegratedintothedesignandlayoutofthedevelopment.Theuseofsustainableurbandrainagesystemsandpermeablesurfaceswillbeencouragedwhereappropriate.”

PolicyE6TreesandHedgerowsPolicyE6seekstoprotecthealthyandmaturetreesandhedges,butallowsfortheirreplacementwhenthisisnotpossible.Large-scaledevelopmentsshouldalsobelandscape-ledintheirdesignandevolution.Althoughthepolicyisclearlywordedandanapproachofmitigationisfairlystandardpracticeacrosstheindustry,thispolicyisquitepermissiveandpotentiallywouldallowtheremovaloftreesandhedgerowsofvaluesimplybecauseitwasnot“possible”toretainthem.Thereforethepolicyshouldberewordedtoensurethateveryeffortismadetoretaintreesandhedgerowsofvaluebeforemitigationisconsidered.Inaddition,itwouldbeusefultodefine“large-scale”developmentinthesupportingtexttoavoidanyambiguity.

41

Paragraph5.4.20alsorefersto“exceptionalagriculturalreasons”andthisistoorestrictiveastheremaybeotherreasonswhyhedgerowscannotberetainedincertaincircumstances.ThereforeIrecommendthepolicyberewordedtoensureitsintentisclearandthatitprovidesthepracticalframeworkfordecision-makingtheNPPFseekstogetherwithsomerevisionstotheaccompanyingparagraphs.

! RewordthefirstparagraphofPolicyE6asfollows(fortheavoidanceofdoubtthesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicyareretained):

“Developmentshouldretainandprotectexistingtreesandhedgerowswhichareimportantfortheirhistoric,visualorbiodiversityvalueunlesstheneedfor,andthebenefitsof,thedevelopmentinthatlocationclearlyoutweighanyloss.Whereitisnotpossibleorfeasibletoretainsuchtreesorhedgerowsinthesecircumstancesreplacementtreesorhedgerowsofanequivalentorbetterstandardwillberequiredinanappropriatelocationonthesite.”

! Addadefinitionof“largescaledevelopment”tothesupportingtextwhich

wouldusuallybe10ormoredwellings,butcanalsocovernon-residentialdevelopmentensuringthatthresholdsareinlinewithaccepteddefinitions

! Removetheword“agricultural”fromparagraph5.4.20

PolicyE7FloodingandSurfaceWaterDrainageThispolicydealswithfloodinganddrainage.ThesuggestedmodificationtoPolicyE5discussesthisissueandsuggestsarewordingofthatpolicywhichwouldlargelyduplicatethispolicy.ThereforePolicyE5orE7shouldbedeletedandreplacedbythesuggestedrewordinggivenearlierinthisreportforPolicyE5.Considerationshouldalsobegiventothetitleofthepolicyasthetitleforthispolicyseemstometobetterdescribethecontentsofthepolicy.Thispolicyalsoreferstothereuseandrecyclingofwaterwithindevelopment.Thiselementofthepolicyhaslaudableaims,buttheencouragementofrainwaterandwaterrecyclingfallswithintheperformanceofnewdwellings.Thiselementofthepolicythendoesnothaveregardtonationalpolicyandguidanceanddoesnotmeetthebasicconditions.Theexplanationinparagraphs5.4.22and5.4.23donotseemtoreflectthewordingofthepolicyastheydealwithdifferentmatters.BoththemeasurestoincreasecapacityandthemanagementofthewaterpondscouldberetainedinthePlanascommunityaspirationsifsodesired,butconsiderationshouldbegiventotherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncilinthisrespectandifparagraph5.4.22isretainedasa

42

communityaspirationthenthemodelingreferredtointhisrepresentationcouldbeusefullyincluded.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! DeleteeitherPolicyE5orE7andreplacetheretainedpolicywiththesuggestedwordinggivenforPolicyE5earlierinthisreport

! Considerretainingthecontentsofparagraphs5.4.22and5.4.23ascommunity

aspirationsinaclearlydifferentiatedsectionorseparatedocumentandtaketherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncilintoaccount

! ConsequentialamendmentstothePlanwillofcoursebeneeded

PolicyE8FoulDrainageThispolicyaimstoensurethatnecessaryinfrastructureisinplacetoservenewdevelopment.ModificationsarerecommendedtoenhanceclarityandbasedonrepresentationsfromWarwickshireCountyCouncil.InotethatSDCwelcomesthispolicy.

! Ensurethatthepolicy’stitlereflectsitscontentssoconsiderchangingthetitleto“FoulDrainageandWaterSupply”orsimilar

! Replace“in”inthefirstsentenceofparagraphthreewith“anditsseparation

fromthesurfacewater/highwaydrainagesystemswithin...PolicyE9NeighbourhoodAreaBiodiversityActionPlanTwoissuesarecoveredinthispolicy;thefirstisthepreparationofaNeighbourhoodBiodiversityActionPlan(BAP)andthesecondisthatallproposalsshouldtakeaccountoftheLocalBiodiversityActionPlan.ItisnotpossibleforaplanningpolicytosetouttheaspirationtoprepareaNeighbourhoodBAPasthepolicymustrelatetothedevelopmentanduseofland.However,thiselementofthepolicycouldberetainedasacommunityaspirationandbeplacedinaseparateappendixoranotherdocument.InotethatNaturalEnglandsupportthedevelopmentofsuchaBAP.ThesecondelementofthepolicyreferstotheLocalBAPwhichseemstoalreadyexistorperhapsitisthefutureBAP.Sosomeconfusionhere;evenifaNeighbourhoodBAPisundertakenatsomepointinthefuture,thepolicyascurrentlywordedwouldnotrefertothatanyway.Itseemstomethatitwouldbebetterforthepolicytosimply

43

refertobiodiversityandreflectnationalpolicyandguidanceratherthananyspecificdocumentandthisisparticularlysowhenthereissomeconfusionaboutwhichdocumentsmightbeconsidered.Soinorderforthepolicytomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsaresuggested:


“Developmentshouldcontributetoandenhancethenaturalandlocalenvironmentbyminimisingimpactsonbiodiversityandprovidingnetgainsinbiodiversitywhereverpossible.Existingecologicalnetworksshouldberetainedandnewecologicalhabitatsandnetworksareparticularlyencouraged.Measurestoimprovelandscapequality,scenicbeautyandtranquilityandtoreducelightpollutionareencouraged.”

! Considerretitlingthepolicytosomethingalongthelinesof“Biodiversity”orsimilar

! Consequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededtogivemore

explanationaboutthemoregeneralisednatureofthepolicy,butthereferencestotheBAPscanberetainedalthoughmayneedsomeediting/reorderingetc.forclarity

! ThereferencetotheproposaltoprepareaBAPshouldbemovedasan

aspirationtoaseparateappendixordocumentandclearlylabeledassuch5.5InfrastructureThissectionofthePlanbeginswith,incommonwithothersections,astrategicobjective.Theobjectiveiswordedwell,butonlydealswithadesiretoensurethattheexistingsituationisnotexacerbatedbynewdevelopment.Thisinitselfisagoodobjectivebutitcouldgofurtherbypositivelyplanningtoensurethatnewdevelopmentandinfrastructurealign.ThiswouldbeinaccordancewithPPG50whichconfirmsthatinfrastructureisneededtosupportdevelopmentandtoensurethataneighbourhoodcangrowinasustainableway.Thereforetoreflectnationalpolicyandguidanceandtohelpachievesustainabledevelopmentthefollowingmodificationtothestrategicobjectiveisrecommended:

! Amend/replacethestrategicobjectiveinparagraph5.5.1asfollows:

“Infrastructureisneededtosupportdevelopmentandtohelpensurethatdevelopmentcanbedeliveredinasustainableway.Inadditiontoensuringthatproperaccountistakenofexistingresourcelimitationsandthecapacityof

50PPGpara045refid41-045-20140306

44

existingservices,itisnecessarytoensurethatanyadditionalinfrastructureneededtoenabledevelopmenttobedeliveredinasustainableandviablewayisconsidered.”

PolicyIN1InfrastructureCriteriaTheexistingstrategicobjectiveidentifiestheparticularconcernsofthecommunityassewage,foulwaterandlanddrainagerunoff,power,broadbandandtrafficcongestion.PolicyIN1focusesontheseissuesfordevelopmentsoverfivedwellings.Itisnotclearwhythisparticularthresholdhasbeenselected.Inadditiontherequirementsforahydrologicalsurvey,SuDs,energyefficiencymeasuresandparkinghavealreadybeenconsideredinthisreport.TherequirementforanagreementwithSevernTrentWaterhoweverdesirable,isnotsomethingaplanningpolicywouldusuallyseek.AsaresultthispolicylargelyoverlapswithothersinthePlanandthoserequirementsandpolicieshavebeensubjecttosuggestedmodifications.Othercriteriac)andf)areprescriptiveandinflexiblealthoughIrecognisetheNPPFsupportshighqualitycommunicationsstructureandseekstomeetthechallengeofclimatechangeandflooding.ThereforeIamleftwithlittleoptionbuttorecommendthedeletionofthepolicy’sthirdparagraphanditsassociatedcriteriaa)tof).Inowturntothetworemainingparagraphs(oneandtwo).Itseemstomethatthefirstparagraphisself-evidentasdevelopmentthatisnotacceptablewouldnotbepermitted.ThesecondparagraphisratherambiguouslywordedandopentointerpretationasIamnotsurewhat“wherepracticalself-sufficient”means.Thereforebothparagraphsdonotprovidethepracticalframeworkrequiredandshouldbedeleted.Theexplanationforthepolicyalsofocusesonwateranddrainage.Itwouldbepossibleforelementsofparagraphs5.5.2,5.5.3and5.5.4tobemovedtootherpartsofthePlanasappropriate.TherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncilshouldbetakenintoaccountinthisregard.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! DeletePolicyIN1initsentirety

! Insertparagraphs5.5.2,5.5.3and5.5.4elsewhereinthePlanasappropriatetakingaccountoftherepresentationfromWarwickshireCountyCouncil

! Consequentialamendmentswillbeneeded

45

PolicyIN2CommunityFacilitiesPolicyIN2supportstheretentionofcommunityfacilitieswhereappropriateandpromotesnewcommunityfacilities.Thesupportingtextpointsoutlocalservicesandcommunityfacilitiespromotesocialwellbeingandtheyprovideplacestomeetandforsocialinteraction.Thepolicyissuccinctandclearinwhatitseekstoachieveanditsaimsareinlinewithnationalpolicyandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Nomodificationsarethereforerecommendedasthepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.However,paragraphs5.5.7and5.5.8introducepolicyrequirementsandshouldbedeleted.

! Deleteparagraphs5.5.7and5.5.8intheirentiretyPolicyIN3EncouragingSafeWalkingandCyclingThispolicyaimstoensurethatdevelopmentiswellconnected.Itsaimsmeetthebasicconditionsasitpromoteswalkingandcycling,sustainableformsoftransport,promoteshealthylifestylesandrecreationopportunitiesandwillhelptoincreasetheconnectivityandintegrationofnewdevelopment,allofwhichwillcontributetoachievingsustainabledevelopment.However,ascurrentlywordeditappliestoalldevelopmentwhichcouldberegardedasundulyonerous.Paragraph5.5.11referstospeedlimitsinthevillagecentre.Thisisnotgenerallyregardedasaplanningmatterandsothesupportingexplanationshouldmakeitclearthatthisisacommunityaspirationratherthanpartoftheplanningpolicy.IfthisissomethingthecommunitywishestopursuethepursuitofparticularspeedlimitscanbeincludedinanyseparatecommunityaspirationsectionofthePlanorotherdocument.Althoughthepolicyistitled“walkingandcycling”,thesupportingtextinparagraph5.5.12makesitclear,rightlyinmyview,thatroutesincluderiversandbridlewaysaswell.Considerationshouldthenbegiventoamendingthepolicy’stitletoreflectitsremit.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Replacethewords“Allnewdevelopment…”atthestartofthepolicywith“Asappropriate,development…”

! Makeitclearthatspeedlimitsareacommunityaspirationandnotplanning

policyinparagraph5.5.11andplaceinaseparatelyidentifiedappendixordocument

! Consideralteringthetitleofthepolicytobetterreflectitsscopeasdescribed

inparagraph5.5.12

46

PolicyIN4ProtectingandEnhancingExistingGreenOpenSpacesThispolicy’stitlerefersto“existinggreenopenspaces”,butthereisnoneedtoincludetheword“existing”asthisisself-evidentandwillchangeovertimeanditmaywellbeinthefuturethatmoregreenopenspaceswillexistasaresultofnewdevelopmentperhaps.ThepolicyseekstoprotectandenhancegreenopenspacesrecognisingtheirimportanceforbothresidentsandvisitorsandreflectsthrustofLPPolicyCOM.6.ThesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicyrefertoLocalGreenSpace(LGS).ThisdesignationhasbeenintroducedviatheNPPF.51TheNPPFexplainsthatthesearegreenareasofparticularimportancetolocalcommunities.Theeffectofsuchadesignationisthatnewdevelopmentwillberuledoutotherthaninveryspecialcircumstances.Identifyingsuchareasshouldbeconsistentwithlocalplanningofsustainabledevelopmentandcomplementinvestment.TheNPPFmakesitclearthatthisdesignationwillnotbeappropriateformostgreenareasoropenspace.FurtherguidanceaboutLocalGreenSpacesisgiveninPPG.However,thePlandoesnotseemtoidentifytheareasthatthecommunitywishtodesignateasLGSsotherthanareferenceinthepolicyto“importantlocalpocketsofgreenspace”identifiedinthe“DevelopmentConstraints”mapwhichdoesnotthenrefertothisphraseoranyLGS.Theexplanatorytextatparagraphs5.5.16and5.5.17donothelpmeinthisregard.Ithereforesoughtclarificationonthismatter.TheParishCouncilinformmethatitwastheintentiontodesignateLGSsandthattheseareintendedtobeboththeAreasofLandscapeSignificanceandtheAreasofLandscapeSignificance(publicopenspace)identifiedonthe“DevelopmentConstraints”map.WhilstmanyoftheseAreasmaywellmeetthecriteriaintheNPPFfordesignationasLGSs,othersmaynot.Thereisnoevidencetosupportanysuchdesignations.Moreover,whilstsomeareasweresmallpatchesofgreenopenspaceonstreetcornersorverges,otherareasaremoresignificantinsize.FurthermoreifitwasnotcleartomewhetherthePlansoughttodesignateLGSs,andthisisaffirmedbysomerepresentationsaswell,itwouldnotbecleartothelandownerswhomayhavedecidedtocommenthadtheyrealisedthiswastheintention.ThereforeIhavelittleoptionbuttodeletethesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicyintheinterestsoffairnessandalackofevidence.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Removetheword“existing”fromthetitleofPolicyIN4andthefirstparagraphofPolicyIN4andparagraph5.5.15


51NPPFparas76and77

47

! Deletethesecondandthirdparagraphsofthepolicy

! ConsequentialamendmentstothesupportingtextwillbeneededPolicyIN5HighwaySafetyandTransportThispolicyseekstoensurethatnewdevelopmentdoesnotexacerbateanyexistinghighwayissuesandcontainsanumberofcriteriathatnewdevelopmentmustadhereto.IttakesitsleadfromLPPolicyDEV.4.ItshouldbenotedthatPolicyD8referredinthepolicyhasbeensubjecttomodificationandsothereferenceshouldbecheckedagainforsenseandcompatibility.Turningnowtothefinalparagraphofthepolicy,itisclearthatproposalswhichwouldincreaseoff-streetparkingnearthevillagecentrewillberegardedfavourably.Thisisahelpfulpositiontosetout.ThelastelementreferstoalinkroadbetweenWarwickRoadandSouthamRoadindicatingthatit“willbepursued”.Thishasalreadybeendiscussed.Paragraph5.5.18referstothe“seriousvehicularcongestionandsafetyissues”;thismaybethecase,butunlessthereisevidencetosupporttheseclaimstheyareprobablybestexpressedasaperceptionoropinion.Forinstancetheparagraphcouldberephrasedtoindicatethat“thecommunityfeels…”orsimilar.Paragraph5.5.23referstoapotentialone-waysystemandthedesirabilityofsurveysonthistobecarriedoutbeforeanynewdevelopmentispermitted.ThisisclearlyacommunityaspirationandshouldbemovedtoaseparatesectionofthePlanandidentifiedassuch.Therequirementforthistooccurbeforeanynewdevelopmentispermittedmustberemovedasthiselementisadevelopmentandlanduserelatedmatter.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Checkthecross-referencetoPolicyD8toensureitisstillrelevantasPolicyD8hasbeenrecommendedformodifications

! Deletethereferencesinthepolicyandthesupportingtexttothelinkroadandincludethisasacommunityaspirationinaclearlydifferentiatedsectionorseparatedocument

! Makeitclearinparagraph5.5.18thattheclaimsaboutcongestionandsafety

areopinionsoraddintheevidencewhichsupportstheseclaims(continuedonnextpage)

48

! Removeparagraph5.5.23fromthePlan,butincludethisasacommunityaspirationinaclearlydifferentiatedsectionorseparatedocumentifdesiredandprovidedtherestrictiononnewdevelopmentisremoved

! Consequentialamendmentswillberequired

5.6SiteSpecificBriefsThetitleofthissectioncouldpotentiallyleadtosomeconfusionasfourpoliciesthatallocatelandfollow;thereforeintheinterestsofclaritythetitleshouldbechangedtobetterreflectthescopeofthesection.ThestrategicobjectiverightlyexplainsthattheemergingCoreStrategyidentifiesKinetonasaMainRuralCentre(asdoestheLP).AspreviouslyindicatedgiventhereisalevelofuncertaintyabouttheCS,itwouldbepreferablenottorelyontheemergingdocument.Foursite-specificpoliciesthenfollowwhichallocatelandforhousing.Allfourpoliciesallocatessiteswhichareclearlyshownonamapthatisreferredtointhepolicy’stitleasthe“ProposalsMap”.Thereisnomapofthatname.However,thefoursitesareclearlyshownonamapentitled“PotentialHousingSites”.Ihavealreadysuggestedachangeinthetitleofthemapandthepoliciesshouldrefertothisamendedtitle.PPG52confirmsthataPlancanallocatesitesfordevelopment.Itsaysthatanappraisalofoptionsshouldbecarriedouttogetherwithanassessmentofindividualsitesagainstclearlydefinedcriteria.Theassessmentshouldbethorough,butproportionateandexistinginformationsourcescanbeusedtogoodeffect.AnumberofrepresentationsexpressconcernthatthePlanisnotpredicatedonrobustevidenceandthattheprocesses,forexampleofsiteselection,havenotbeentransparent.FurtherconcernsareexpressedabouttheuseoftheLandscapeSensitivityStudy(LSS)includingthatthesitesincludedinthePlanruncontrarytotheDistrictCouncil’sevidencebaseandthatnofurtherevidencehasbeendonetojustifyanydeparturefromthatevidencebase.Others,includingSDC,expressconcernthatLittleKinetonisnotasustainablelocationfordevelopment.Iacceptthatthesiteassessmentisarguablyrudimentary,butgiventhatitiswidelyrecognisedthereisaneedtoboosthousingsupplyandgivenKineton’sstatusasaMRC,itistobewelcomedthatthePlanacceptsnewgrowthandseekstoensurethecommunity’swishesareachievedoverwherethisnewgrowthmightoccur.Ninesiteswereassessedindividuallyandalsocomparedinamatrix;IamadvisedbytheParishCouncilthatallwereputforwardbylandownersduringSDC’s‘CallforSites’exercise.OthersitesappeartohavebecomeavailableatalaterstageinthePlan-makingprocess,

52PPGpara042refid41-042-20140306

49

butIacceptthatatsomepointthereneedstobeacutoffindraftingadocumentlikethePlan.WithregardtothesustainabilityofLittleKineton,oneofthesiteassessmentconsiderationswastheaccessibilityofthesitestoKineton’sservicesandfacilitiesandthesitesputforwardinLittleKinetonshowtheyareareasonablewalktothevillage’samenities.ItisimportantthatthePlanreflectsthethinkingandaspirationwithinthelocalcommunityandwhilstsomemightreachadifferentconclusiononthesitestobeallocatedinthisPlan,theassessmenthasappraisedthesitesagainstclearlyidentifiedcriteria.Inanycasetheallocationsdonotinthemselvesprecludedevelopmentonothersitescomingforward.Followingonfromaquery,astheseconsiderationsdidnotformpartofthesiteassessmentmatrix,theParishCouncilhaveconfirmedtomethatalltheproposedsitesareconsideredtobeavailableanddeliverableduringthePlanperiod.ThesuggestedmodificationstothissuiteofpoliciestogetherwiththemodificationstootherpoliciesrelatingtohousingsupplywilltogetherensurethatthePlanmeetsthebasicconditions.

! Changetitleofthissectionto“SiteSpecificPolicies”

! RemovereferencestotheemergingCoreStrategy

! EnsurethatallpoliciesrefertotheamendedtitledmapPolicySSB1HousingAllocationLandtothenorthofWarwickRoadshownasSite1ontheProposalsMapThepolicypermitsupto78dwellingsonthissite.ItthenimposesacapontheamountofdevelopmentwhichisnotappropriateforneighbourhoodplanstodoasthiswouldnotallowfortheflexibilitytheNPPFseeksinrespondingtochangingconditionsornecessarilyensurethebestuseofland.Arepresentation53indicatesthatthissiteissubjecttoacurrentplanningapplication.54TherepresentationalsopointsoutthatalargersiteareaislikelytoberequiredtogainaccessoffWarwickRoad.WhilstIappreciatethatthislandmightwellensurethesiteisdeliverablefromthedeveloper’spointofview,Iconsideritdifficulttorecommendamodificationinthisrespectgiventhatthelargersitehasnotbeensubjecttoconsultationthroughtheneighbourhoodplanprocess.Thiswouldalsocreateapotentialinternalconflictwiththe“immediateviews”indicatedon“TheNaturalEnvironment”mapandsubjecttoPolicyE2.Inotehoweverthattheapplicationsiteisnotcoterminouswiththesiteshownonthemap“PotentialHousingSites”.Thereforeit53GladmanDevelopmentsLtd54Applicationref15/03101/OUT

50

maybethecasethatifthissiteisnotdeliverablewithoutthisadditionalland,reconsiderationofeitherthesiteallocationorPolicyE2willbeneeded.InresponsetomyquerythedeliverabilityofthissitehasbeenconfirmedbytheParishCouncil.Partoftheproposedallocationfallswithinwhatisshownasan“AreaofLandscapeSignificance”onthe“DevelopmentConstraints”map.ArepresentationfromNaturalEnglandindicatesthattheproposeddevelopmentwilldirectlyandindirectlyimpactonalocallydesignatedsitewhichmayincludeanareaofpriorityhabitat.NaturalEnglandsuggesttheinclusionofacriteriontoretainandwhereverpossibleenhancethehabitat.TherecommendedmodificationstoPolicyE9satisfactorilycoverthispoint,butshouldthemodificationstothatpolicynotbeaccepteditwillbeimportanttoincorporateaspecificcriteriontothispolicytoaddressthepointNaturalEnglandmakes.Nowconsideringthepolicyindetail,criterionb)isunnecessarygiventheoverlapwithPolicyE6(asmodified).Criterionc)requiresthissitetodeliveralinkroadbetweenWarwickRoadandLighthorneRoad.AlinkroadhasbeenreferredtoinvariouspartsofthePlan.Eventhoughthedevelopersindicatetheirwillingnesstoundertakefurthertechnicalworkandhavehelpfullysuggestedarevisedformofwordsforcriterionc)thereislittleevidenceinthePlantoconsiderthisasanythingotherthanacommunityaspiration.However,thatdoesnotnegatethedesirabilityofthelinkroadbeingpursued.Thereisnoneedtocross-referenceotherpoliciesinthePlanasthePlanwillbereadasawhole.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! Replacethewords“upto”inthefirstparagraphofthepolicywiththeword“approximately”

! Deletecriterionb)

! Deletecriterionc)

! Deletethefinalsentenceofthepolicywhichreads“Proposalswhichfailto

demonstratecompliancewiththeabovecriteriaorconflictwithotherPolicieswithinthisPlanwillnotbepermitted.”

! Checkthedeliverabilityofthesiteasdefinedonthemapandtakeactionas

needed

51

PolicySSB2HousingAllocationLandtothesouthofBanburyRoadshownasSite2ontheProposalsMapThisallocationisforuptoeightdwellingsprovidedthatmaturetreesandhedgerowsareretainedandthataccessistakenfromBanburyRoad.ItseemstopartlycoincidewithaproposalintheRLP“KIN.C”.TheParishCouncilhaveconfirmedthattheproposedsiteisconsideredtobeavailableanddeliverableduringthePlanperiod.Onceagainthereshouldbenomaximumfigureimposedandthereisnoneedforcross-referencestootherpoliciesofthePlan.ThereisnoevidencetoestablishwhatimpacttheretentionofmaturetreesandhedgeswouldhaveonthedeliverabilityofthissiteandinanycasethispointissatisfactorilycoveredbyPolicyE6.ThereislittleevidencetosuggestwhyonlyaccessfromBanburyRoadwouldbeacceptable.Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforesuggested:


! Deletecriteriona)

! Deletecriterionb)



! Otherconsequentialamendmentstothepolicywillbeneeded

PolicySSB3HousingAllocationLandtothenortheastofLittleKinetonshownasSite3ontheProposalsMapThisallocationissupportedbythelandowners55forupto15dwellingsandassociatedworkswhoconfirmthatthesiteisavailable.However,therehasbeenconsiderablecorrespondenceaboutthissiteincludingrepresentationfrominterestedpartiesthatIhavebeencopiedinto.AsIunderstandthesituationthelongandshortofitisthatthesiteindicatedinthePlanandontheassociatedmapsisshownincorrectly.Therearealsolegalagreementsonpartofthelandthatattheveryleastcreatesomeuncertaintyaboutthedevelopablearea.Thesearemattersthat,inmyview,needresolutionbeforeaproposedallocationismadeinanycaseandparticularlyasthesiteadjoinsthehistoricbattlefieldandaConservationArea.BasedontheinformationbeforemeIhavelittleoptionbuttorecommenddeletionoftheproposedallocation.Thisisnottosaythat

55RepresentationonbehalfofLinfootCountryHomesLtd

52

thesiteisnotdevelopableinthefuture;itsimplymeansthatatthepresenttimeIcannotbeconfidentthatthepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.ThisofcoursedoeshavesomeimplicationsfortheoverallhousingfiguresthePlanputsforwardandhowtheymightbeachieved,butIamsatisfiedthatwiththemodificationsrecommendedtotheotherrelevantpoliciesforhousingsupply,overallthePlanretainsitsabilitytoplanpositivelyforthegrowthidentified.

! DeletePolicySSB3andallassociatedreferences

! OtherconsequentialamendmentstothePlanandmapswillbeneededPolicySSB4HousingAllocationLandadjacenttoWalnutHouse,LittleKinetonshownasSite4ontheProposalsMapThisallocationisuptotendwellingsprovidedthatalandscapebufferzoneisprovidedandmaturetreesandhedgerowsareretained.ThissiteisadjacenttotheLittleKinetonConservationArea.IaminformedbytheParishCouncilthereisacurrentplanningapplicationonpartofthissite.56Giventheproposedsettlementboundary,itiscleartheproposedallocationsitecouldaccommodatemorethantendwellings.Inlinewiththeothersiteallocationspoliciesinordertomeetthebasicconditions,thefollowingmodificationsarerecommended:


! Deletecriterionb)



AppendicesThreeappendicesareincludedwiththePlan.WarwickshireCountyCouncilmakeanumberofsuggestionsintheirrepresentationinrelationtoAppendix3whichreferstoSustainableUrbanDrainageandSustainableUrbanDrainageApprovalBody.Giventhenatureofthecommentsmadeitwouldbesensibleforthesesuggestedamendmentstobeundertaken.ItwouldbehelpfuliftheappendiceswerepartofthePlandocumentinmyviewtominimisethelikelihoodofsomeonenotrealisingtheyformpartofthedocument.

56Planningapplicationref15/03064/OUT

53

Thefollowingmodificationsarethereforerecommended:

! UndertaketheamendmentssuggestedbyWarwickshireCountyCouncilintheirrepresentation

! BindtheappendicesintothePlan

MapsFourmapsareincludedwiththePlan.Ihavemadeanumberofrecommendationsinthisreporttohelpwiththeirclarity.ItagainwouldbeusefulforthemapstositwithinthePlanratherthanbeseparateentities.

! BindthemapsintothePlan9.0ConclusionsandRecommendationsIampleasedtorecommendtoStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncilthat,subjecttothemodificationsproposedinthisreport,theKinetonNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlancanproceedtoareferendum.Followingonfromthat,IamrequiredtoconsiderwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanarea.IseenoreasontoalterorextendthePlanareaforthepurposeofholdingareferendumandnorepresentationshavebeenmadethatwouldleadmetoreachadifferentconclusion.IthereforeconsiderthatthereferendumareabebasedontheKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanareaapprovedbyStratfordonAvonDistrictCouncilon20May2013.AnnSkippersAnnSkippersPlanning11January2016

54

Appendix1ListofKeyDocumentsspecifictothisExaminationKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanto2031SubmissionDraftKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanAppendicesKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanMapsKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanBasicConditionsStatementKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanConsultationStatementandAppendicesSEAScreeningDocumentdatedJune2015(LepusConsulting)andassociatedresponsesfromtheEnvironmentAgency,HistoricEnglandandNaturalEnglandandletterfromSDCIndividualSiteAssessmentsandSiteAssessmentsMatrixMarch2015HousingNeedsSurveyOtherevidencebaseddocumentsonKinetonParishCouncilwebsiteincludingconsultationeventdocumentationStratfordonAvonDistrictLocalPlanReview1996-2011CoreStrategyProposedSubmissionVersionJune2014CoreStrategyassubmittedSeptember2014showingsubsequentproposedmodificationsdatedJune2015(InterimAdoptedCoreStrategy)CoreStrategyProposedModificationsinresponsetoInspector’sInterimConclusionsdatedAugust2015LandscapeSensitivityStudy2011andLandscapeSensitivityAssessmentforVillagesdatedJune2012AdditionalInformationfromSDCandKinetonParishCouncilinresponsetomyquestionsofclarification(seeAppendix2)Listends

55

Appendix2QuestionsofClarificationKinetonNeighbourhoodPlanExaminationQuestionsofclarificationfromtheExaminertoKinetonPCandSDCHavingcompletedaninitialreviewoftheNeighbourhoodPlan(thePlan)andtheevidencesubmittedinsupportofit,IwouldbegratefuliftheParishandDistrictCouncilscouldkindlyassistmeinansweringthefollowingquestionswhicheitherrelatetomattersoffactorareareasinwhichIseekclarificationorfurtherinformation.1. ThePlancontainsavisiononpage3,objectivesonpage4,coreprinciplesonpages

10and11andthenanumberoftopic-by-topicvisionstatementsonpages12–15.Pleasecouldtherelationshipbetweenthesedifferentstatementsbeclarified?

2. PolicyE2referstolandscapes,vistasandskylines.Referenceismadeinthe

supportingtext(paragraph5.4.11)toamapentitled“TheNaturalEnvironment”.Pleasecouldyouconfirmwhethertheviews,vistasandskylinesreferredtointhepolicyarethoseidentifiedonthismapaseitherimmediateordistantperipheralviews(ornot)?

3. PolicyE6refersto“large-scaledevelopment”.DoesthePlancontainadefinitionof

thisphraseandifsopleaseindicatewhereImightfindthatandifnotwouldthePCliketobrieflyindicatewhatwasinmind?

4. PolicyIN4referstoexistinggreenopenspaces,LocalGreenSpacesandimportant

localpocketsofgreenspaceidentifiedonthe“DevelopmentConstraints”map.Howeverthismapdoesnotcontainanynotationsthatreflectthesethreeterms.Pleaseclarifywhetheritwastheintentionthatthismapshouldshowtheopenspaces,LocalGreenSpacesandlocalpocketssubjecttoPolicyIN4andifsoindicatewhichspacesarewhich.Afurthermapmightbeneededtoassistwiththisquery(?).

5. AlinkroadismentionedinvariousplacesthroughoutthePlanandparticularlyin

PoliciesH6andIN5.Pleasecouldyougivemesomefurtherbrieffactualinformationaboutthelinkroadandwhatisintended.

6. SDChasforwardedmecorrespondencefromMr.Hudsonaboutthesitesubjectof

PolicySSB3.Pleasecouldyouupdatemeonthefactualpositionwiththissite?Iparticularlywouldliketoknowwhetherconsultationhasbeencarriedoutwiththelandowner(s)andwhetherthereareanymaterialchangeincircumstancesincludingwhetherthesiteboundariescanberetainedasshownonthemapaccompanyingthepolicyasaresultofthiscorrespondence.

7. HasaneworalteredsettlementboundaryforKinetonbeenincludedinthePlan?IfsopleasetellmewhereinthePlanthisinformationisandtellmewhatthedifferencesarebetweenanycurrentlyadoptedboundariesinSDC’sLocalPlan

56

Reviewandtheproposedboundaryinthe(Neighbourhood)Plan.Amapmayperhapsusefullyassisthere(?).

8. TherearenocommentsorrepresentationfromSDCincludedinmybundleof

documents.PleaseconfirmwhetherSDChavesubmittedcommentsandifsowhereImightfindthese(itlooksasthoughtherearecommentsonthePCwebsite?)confirmingthatIshouldindeedtakeanycommentsintoaccount.

9. Inrelationtothefoursitesallocated,pleaseprovidemewithanysupporting

documentorotherinformationthatformspartofthepublishedevidencebasethatmightsupportthesepoliciesorcompriseanassessmentofsitesand/orthesiteselectionprocess.

10. PolicyH6referstosafeguardedland.Pleaseconfirmwhetherthetwosites

identifiedonthemaptitled“PotentialHousingSites”areaccuratelyshownandarethesitesreferredtointhepolicy(H6aandH6b).Ifthereareanyanomaliesorthemapisfoundtobeinaccuratepleasesupplyanothermapshowingthesitesaccurately.

ItmaybethecasethatonreceiptofyouranticipatedassistanceonthesemattersthatImayneedtoaskforfurtherclarificationorthatfurtherquerieswillcropup.Withmanythanks.AnnSkippers7December2015

© Warwickshire County Council, Corporate Equalities & Diversity Team Page 1 of 9 Kineton NDP - EQIA Statement - Appendix 4

Equality Impact Assessment

Section Planning Policy Officer(s) responsible for

the screening/scoping

Matthew Neal, Neighbourhood Planning

Officer and Dave Nash, Policy Manager (Planning and Housing)

Name of

Policy/Strategy to be assessed

Kineton Neighbourhood

Development Plan

Date of

Assessment

28/04/2016 Is this a proposed

new or existing policy/strategy?

New Policy

document

Signature of responsible officer (to be

signed after the EqIA has been completed)

© Warwickshire County Council, Corporate Equalities & Diversity Team

Kineton NDP - EQIA Statement - Appendix 4 Page 2 of 9

Form A1

INITIAL SCREENING FOR STRATEGIES/POLICIES/FUNCTIONS FOR EQUALITIES RELEVANCE TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION, PROMOTE EQUALITY AND FOSTER GOOD RELATIONS

High relevance/priority Medium relevance/priority Low or no relevance/ priority

Note: 1. Tick coloured boxes appropriately, and depending on degree of relevance to each of the equality strands 2. Summaries of the legislation/guidance should be used to assist this screening process

Business Unit/Services:

Relevance/Risk to Equalities

State the Function/Policy /Service/Strategy being assessed:

Gender Race Disability Sexual Orientation

Religion/Belief Age Gender Reassignment

Pregnancy/ Maternity

Marriage/ Civil Partnership (only for staff)

Kineton NDP x x x x x x x x x

Are your proposals likely to impact on social inequalities e.g. child poverty for example or our most geographically disadvantaged communities? If yes please explain how. The Kineton NDP seeks to have a positive impact on social inequalities by:

Supporting affordable housing for a local need, identified through a Housing Needs Survey;

Promoting a range of housing tenures and a mix of dwellings;

Ensuring that new development provides and/or has access to a range of services and facilities;

Enhancing existing facilities where appropriate;

YES



Promoting employment opportunities in accessible locations, including home working;

Promoting environmental sustainability and green energy solutions (within the policy context provided by Central Government);

Safeguarding and improving existing community facilities

Are your proposals likely to impact on a carer who looks after older people or people with disabilities? If yes please explain how.

NO



Form A2 – Details of Plan/ Strategy/ Service/ Policy

Stage 1 – Scoping and Defining



(1) What are the aims and objectives of Plan/Strategy/Service/Policy?

Neighbourhood Development Plans are one of a new set of community rights brought in by the Localism Act in 2011. Neighbourhood Plans are planning documents which, when ‘made’ (adopted) by the District Council will carry the same weight as the Local Plan. The Kineton Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) covers the Parish area of Kineton. Policies included within the Plan will affect the people who live, work and visit the Parish. The overarching ‘Vision’ for the Kineton NDP is: “Kineton will be a desirable place to live, being a sustainable rural community where people feel fully involved and supported in their work, life and play. The environment, community services, economic growth, cultural development and infrastructure of the neighbourhood will be valued, protected and enhanced for future generations”. The NDP includes the following strategic objectives:

To meet the economic, social and environmental needs of the village through sustainable organic growth, meeting local demand without breaking down existing structures;

Contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure is pivotal to achieving this role;

To provide the local policy framework to deliver opportunities for the development of local employment and preserving what local employment opportunities there are;

To develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area;

To seek opportunities for landscape, recreational and ecological gain whilst minimising the environmental impact of new development;

To ensure that as Kineton grows proper account is taken in considering any development of existing resource limitations, in particular sewerage, foul water systems and land drainage run off schemes but also power, broadband and road traffic congestion



(2) How does it fit with Stratford District Council’s wider objectives?

The Kineton NDP is consistent with wider objectives contained in the Sustainable Community Strategy, Housing Strategy, Business and Enterprise Strategy and the Local Plan (including the emerging Core Strategy).

(3) What are the expected outcomes?

The expected outcomes of the Kineton NDP are set out in the Vision and Objectives of the Plan itself and more specifically within a number of the individual policies.

(4)Which of the groups with protected characteristics is this intended to benefit? (see form A1 for list of protected groups)

The Kineton NDP is not intended to benefit any one particular group. It is relevant to everyone who will live, work or visits the district over the plan period to some degree.

Stage 2 - Information Gathering

(1) What type and range of evidence or information have you used to help you make a judgement about the plan/ strategy/ service/ policy?

The evidence base for assessing the Kineton NDP is the same as the Core Strategy, which includes primary and secondary information. This includes studies commissioned to establish the level of housing provision, issues around affordability and deliverability. The Strategic Environmental Assessment screening carried out in relation to the NDP also included consideration of baseline data and the potential for significant effects on people. The Basic Conditions Statement submitted with the NDP contained a short statement indicating that the Plan had had regard to fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and that it complies with the Human Rights Act. The Examiner confirmed that there was nothing in the NDP that led her to conclude there was any breach of the Convention or that the Plan was otherwise incompatible with it.



(2) Have you consulted on the plan/ strategy/ service/policy and if so with whom?

The production of the Kineton NDP has been an iterative process with community consultation central to its production. However, the NDP has been through two formal consultation processes in accordance with The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. The first being a 6 week Regulation 14 ‘Pre-Submission’ consultation carried out by the Parish Council as ‘Qualifying Body’. The second 6 week consultation was the Regulation 16 ‘Formal Submission’ consultation carried out by the Local Planning Authority. Groups consulted on the NDP at both consultation stages included:

Local businesses

Local residents

Community groups

‘Statutory’ consultees listed in the Regulations, including Historic England; Environment Agency; Natural England etc

(3) Which of the groups with protected characteristics have you consulted with?

The consultations set out above were open to all interested parties. The District Council has a database of individuals and organisations that it contacts to inform Them of the commencement of consultations. Any individual or group may be placed on the database. This database was shared with the Parish Council for the Regulation 14 consultation, for consistency. The only group with protected characteristics that was specifically consulted was Accessible Stratford, in relation to issues of disability.

Stage 3 – Analysis of impact

(1) From your data and consultations is there any adverse or negative impact identified for any particular group which could amount to discrimination? If yes, identify the groups and how they are affected.

RACE No

No policies in the NDP are targeted towards or against individuals of any race.

DISABILITY No

No policies in the NDP are targeted towards or against this equality group.

GENDER No

No policies in the NDP are targeted towards or against either gender.



MARRIAGE/CIVIL PARTNERSHIP

No

No policies in the NDP are targeted towards or against this group.

AGE No

No policies in the NDP are targeted towards or against people of specific age groups.

GENDER REASSIGNMENT No


RELIGION/BELIEF No


PREGNANCY MATERNITY

No


SEXUAL ORIENTATION No


(2) If there is an adverse impact, can this be justified?

No adverse impacts in relation to the identified groups are anticipated.

(3)What actions are going to be taken to reduce or eliminate negative or adverse impact? (This should form part of your action plan under Stage 4.)

No negative or adverse impacts are anticipated therefore no actions are needed.

(4) How does the plan/strategy/service/policy contribute to promotion of equality? If not what can be done?

The Kineton NDP will contribute to the promotion of equality by seeking to ensure access to suitable and affordable housing, transport, jobs, services and facilities for all.

(5) How does the plan/strategy/service/policy promote good relations between groups? If not what can be done?

This question is not relevant to the Kineton NDP.



(6) Are there any obvious barriers to accessing the service? If yes how can they be overcome?

This question is not relevant to the Kineton NDP.

Stage 4 – Action Planning, Review & Monitoring

If No Further Action is required then go to – Review & Monitoring (1)Action Planning – Specify any changes or improvements which can be made to the service or policy to mitigate or eradicate negative or adverse impact on specific groups, including resource implications.

No further action is required.

EqIA Action Plan

Action Lead Officer Date for completion

Resource requirements

Comments

N/A

(2) Review and Monitoring State how and when you will monitor policy and Action Plan

There is no specific review cycle set out in the Kineton NDP. However, should the document be reviewed within the Plan Period (up to 2031), the EqIA would be monitored and updated at the same time as the review of the NDP.