48

Report to Planning Committee

Date 13 June 2011

By Head of Planning

Title of Report Protocols for Joint Working on Lewes and East Hampshire Core Strategies & Minerals and Waste Core Strategies for Hampshire, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove, and West Sussex

Purpose of Report To seek members’ approval for the detailed arrangements for Joint Working on the Lewes and East Hampshire LDF Core Strategies and on the Hampshire, West Sussex and East Sussex/ Brighton and Hove Minerals and Waste LDFs

Recommendation: The Committee is recommended to: 1) Recommend to the Authority that LDF Joint Core Strategies be prepared for

East Hampshire and Lewes Districts in accordance with the Protocols attached at Appendices 1 and 2 and that the Head of Planning be authorised to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with these two districts on this basis.

2) Recommend to the Authority that Minerals and Waste LDF Joint Core Strategies be prepared for Hampshire (including Southampton, Portsmouth and New Forest), East Sussex (including Brighton and Hove) and West Sussex in accordance with the emerging Protocols attached at Appendices 3, 4 and 5 and that the Head of Planning be authorised to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the relevant authorities on this basis.

3) Authorise the Head of Planning to prepare a Local Development Scheme on this basis.

1. Introduction

1.1. The report to the National Park Authority meeting on the 9 December 2010 explained that the South Downs National Park Authority (Establishment Order) confers a power under Article 18(2) for the Authority to adopt, jointly with the relevant local authority, Development Plan Documents (DPDs) being prepared by the constituent South Downs local planning authorities as at 1 April 2011.

1.2. The report also explained that for those DPDs in the course of preparation but not yet submitted to the Government by 1 April 2011, an alternative to joint adoption was the omission of the National Park from the area to which the DPD applied.

1.3. The report to the Planning Committee on 14 March and to the Authority on 29 March recommended a set of principles for the preparation of joint Local Development Frameworks for the National Park. It stated that these principles should form the basis for discussion with officers in relation to the three “market town districts” (East Hampshire, Chichester and Lewes) and with the Minerals and Waste Authorities where it was felt to be appropriate for work to be jointly funded.

1.4. These discussions have now taken place and this report brings recommendations as to how joint adoption and working should proceed.

2. Background Information

2.1. Following the joint discussions, Chichester District Council have informed us that their Local Development Framework Panel has expressed the view that the option of joint working with

Agenda Item 10 Report PC 31 /11

49

the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) on their LDF should not be pursued. This is subject to a formal decision by Chichester’s cabinet but it is probable that they will therefore proceed with their Core Strategy excluding the part of their district within the National Park.

2.2. With regard to district authorities, there are therefore broadly five situations:

Where the district council has excluded the National Park from its Core Strategy and there will be no Core Strategy covering the National Park until the Park-wide Core Strategy is in place (Adur, Arun, Chichester, Eastbourne, Mid-Sussex).

Where a LDF Core Strategy was already adopted prior to 1 April 2011 (Horsham).

Where a LDF was at a very advanced stage at 1 April 2011 and the Core Strategy either has since been jointly adopted (Worthing) or will be jointly adopted following the remaining examination stage of the plan (Brighton and Hove).

Where the district council is proceeding with a Core Strategy for the whole of their district including part within the National Park but the SDNPA’s involvement would be “light touch” with little resource input by the SDNPA, leading up to Joint Adoption (Wealden, Winchester).

Where the district council is proceeding with a Core Strategy for the whole of their district including part within the National Park and the benefit of joint working is considered to justify a significant input of resources (East Hampshire, Lewes). This report relates mainly to these two authorities.

2.3 With regard to minerals and waste planning authorities the situation is that all four authorities (Hampshire County Council, West Sussex County Council, East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove) are proceeding with a Core Strategy/ies for the whole of their county including part within the National Park and it is considered beneficial for the SDNPA to work jointly with them, again justifying an input of resources.

3. Protocols for Joint Working with East Hampshire and Lewes District Councils

3.1. The principles set out in the Appendix to the report to Planning Committee on 14 March and to the Authority on 29 March formed the basis for negotiation with these two councils and similar protocols have been drawn up as set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to this report.

3.2. The Protocols cover the following headings:

Core Principles Joint Ownership and Equivalence of Decision-making Timetables Staffing Funding Continuity with SDNPA Core Strategy Consultation Evidence commissioned after the 1st April 2011 Examination Monitoring and implementation Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Implications of the Localism Bill and other changes to the planning system Website Enquiries, complaints and requests for information Memorandum of Understanding

3.3. Agreement has been reached on the Core Principles, including the broad basis for policies on such matters as the primacy of the National Park purposes and duty in relation to development within the National Park, the possible development of some sites within

50

Petersfield and Lewes in accordance with more detailed spatial strategies, and a restrictive settlement policy in the National Park outside the market towns.

3.4. The timetables for each Core Strategy have been set out and allow for the SDNPA’s members to be fully involved in the decision making process on an equivalent basis to the district councillors. The key milestones are as follows:

East Hampshire Lewes

Preferred Strategy approved November 2009 September 2011

Submission Core Strategy approved October 2011 March 2012

Pre-submission consultation Nov-Dec 2011 April- May 2012

Core Strategy submitted March 2012 July 2012

Examination in Public May 2012 Oct/ Nov 2012

Inspector’s Report August 2012 January 2013

Adoption of Core Strategy November 2012 February 2013

3.5. The costs to the SDNPA have been assessed in broadly the same way, albeit on the basis of slightly different detailed calculations. These reflect the marginal staff costs to the districts of including the National Park within their Core Strategies (on the basis that otherwise staff savings could have been made), together with a proportionate contribution towards other costs, mainly those of studies and evidence prepared by external consultants. The former costs would be a fixed price to be reviewed at least each year and the latter would be based on a share of the actual cost of the studies (or other expense). The cost to the SDNPA would be about £123,000 for East Hampshire and £108,000 for Lewes in 2011-12. There would also be substantial cost (in the order of £150,000 each) for Examinations in Public in 2012-13. The National Park’s share of these costs would be assessed on the basis of the nature of the issues examined by the Inspector.

4. Outcome of discussions on Joint Working on Minerals and Waste Core Strategies

4.1. The principles set out in the Appendix to the report to Planning Committee on 14 March and to the Authority on 29 March formed the basis for discussion with the county councils. The outcome of these initial discussions is set out in the emerging Protocols in Appendices 3, 4 and 5 to this report. Further, more detailed discussions will be taking place with each authority, to finalise the joint working arrangements into Protocols.

4.2. The emerging Protocols in the Appendices cover the following headings:

Core Principles Joint Ownership and Equivalence of Decision-making Timetables Staffing Funding

4.3 Further discussions will cover the following issues in detail: Continuity with SDNPA Core Strategy Consultation Evidence commissioned after the 1st April 2011 Examination Monitoring and implementation Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

51

Implications of the Localism Bill and other changes to the planning system Website Enquiries, complaints and requests for information Memorandum of Understanding

The timetables for each Core Strategy have been set out and allow for the SDNPA’s members to be fully involved in the decision making process on an equivalent basis to the county councillors. The key milestones are as follows:

West Sussex County Council

Hampshire County Council

Waste Minerals

East Sussex County Council and Brighton &

Hove

Informal community and stakeholder engagement

n/a n/a Jan – Mar 2013

n/a

Preferred Strategy approved

Mar 2011 n/a Apr – Oct 2013

Summer 2011

Submission Core Strategy approved

July – Sept 2011

Sept – Oct 2011

Sept - Oct 2013

Autumn 2011

Pre-submission consultation

Oct – Nov 2011

Nov – Dec 2011

Nov – Dec 2013

2011/12

Core Strategy submitted

Spring 2012 Feb 2012 Feb 2014 2012

Examination in Public Spring 2012 Jun 2012 Jun 2014 2012

Inspector’s Report Summer 2012 Sept 2012

Sept 2014 2012/13

Adoption of Core Strategy

Summer 2012 Dec 2012

Dec 2014 2012/13

The costs to the SDNPA have been assessed in broadly the same way as the district costs, but are subject to more detailed discussions with each authority. The cost to the SDNPA in 2011/12 would be about £54,011 for Hampshire County Council (including the Examination in Public), between £10,000 and £20,000 for West Sussex County Council (with additional costs in 2013/14 for the Minerals Plan) and approximately £23,000 for East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove (to be confirmed).

5. Conclusion

5.1 Although there are significant costs involved in participating in Joint Core Strategies for East Hampshire and Lewes, there will also be major benefits in enabling the SDNPA to have up-to-date Core Strategies in place for 56% of its area and 66% of its population (when Horsham, Woking, Brighton and Hove, Wealden and Winchester are also included). This will be of benefit in helping to resist inappropriate development, especially in the face of the Government’s proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of an approved Core Strategy, and in terms of the need to have a Core Strategy in place before a Charging Schedule can be prepared for the purposes of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

52

5.2 Although there are costs involved in participating in Joint Minerals and Waste Core Strategies with the four authorities, there will also be major benefits in enabling the SDNPA to have up-to-date Core Strategies in place for minerals and waste issues. The delayed timetable for the West Sussex Minerals Plan will ensure that the issue of soft sand extraction in the West Sussex area of the National Park will be discussed fully. A joint approach will also enable the SDNPA to benefit from the extensive evidence base gathered to date by the authorities. It will be of benefit in helping to resist inappropriate minerals and waste development, especially in the face of the Government’s proposed presumption in favour of sustainable development in the absence of an approved Core Strategy.

5.3 Another benefit of joint working on waste plans is the increased likelihood that the SDNPA will be compliant with the requirements of the revised Waste Framework Directive (‘the Directive’) which requires waste planning authorities to have spatial waste management plans in place, or at an advanced stage in preparation, in order to ensure compliance. The Localism Bill includes a power to pass on some, or all, of any fines to individual authorities. A letter will be sent to the Government once the arrangements for waste policy are finalised, in order to check the compliance of the SDNPA against the Directive requirements.

6. Resource implications

6.1 The costs of joint working on the Core Strategies in 2011-12 are set out in the Appendices to the report and total £318,000 - £328,000. They (together with £38,000 already committed to consultancy fees for the Petersfield Spatial Strategy) will be met from the planning budget provision of £500,000 for Other payments to Other LAs. In addition there will be staff resources used in liaising with the relevant authorities on the Joint Strategies and, in 2012-13, there will be a need to make a contribution towards the cost of several examinations in public, although there will be compensating savings from fewer, if any, evidence base studies.

6.2 This level of cost is justified in order to get Core Strategies in place as quickly as possible for significant parts of the Park and for the whole Park in relation to the vital issue of minerals and waste planning. These are transitional costs which will work their way through the system over two years, following which resources will be focused on the Park-wide Core Strategy.

7 Risk management

7.1 Without a comprehensive, sound and robust planning policy framework for the National Park underpinned by up-to-date evidence the Authority risks losing control over inappropriate new development, which may be allowed on appeal, and losing opportunities to guide and facilitate appropriate new development.

7.2 These risks are significantly reduced by the timely preparation of a sound Core Strategy or joint Core Strategies and associated Development Plan Documents for the South Downs National Park. In order for joint adoption to be successful, there has to be a clear understanding of and commitment to pursuing a joint approach by equal partners. These are set out in the Protocols attached to this report.

7.3 Not progressing with waste planning for the National Park area could place the SDNPA at risk of EU fines under the revised Waste Framework Directive. A letter will be sent to DCLG once the approach to waste policy to be taken by the SDNPA has been agreed, to check whether the SDNPA will be compliant with the Directive’s requirements.

8 Human rights, equalities, health and safety

8.1 There are not considered to be any human rights, equalities, or health and safety issues arising from this report.

53

JIM REDWOOD

Head of Planning

Contact Officers: Keith Reed, LDF Policy Lead Claire Potts, Minerals and Waste Lead

Tel: 01730 811752 01730 811759

email: Keith.Reed@southdowns.gov.uk Claire.Potts@southdowns.gov.uk

Appendices 1. Protocol for Joint Working – East Hampshire 2. Protocol for Joint Working – Lewes 3. Emerging Protocol for Joint Working - Hampshire County Council 4. Emerging Protocol for Joint Working – West Sussex County Council 5. Emerging Protocol for Joint Working – East Sussex County Council

and Brighton & Hove City Council SDNPA Consultees Chief Executive Officer

Director of Strategy and Partnerships Monitoring Officer & Senior Solicitor Deputy Chief Finance Officer

54

APPENDIX 1

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Local Development Framework

Protocol for Joint Working on the East Hampshire Core Strategy

between South Downs National Park Authority and East Hampshire District Council

As from 1 April 2011 the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) became the Local Planning Authority for that part of the South Downs National Park (hereinafter referred to as the Park) which lies within East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), covering 57% of EHDC’s geographical area and including 27% of its population. 35% of EHDC’s planning applications are in the Park. In due course the SDNPA will be preparing an LDF Core Strategy for the whole Park and intends to have this adopted by the end of 2014. In the meantime existing saved Local Plan policies and (where relevant) adopted LDF policies will apply in East Hampshire and elsewhere in the Park. There is advantage in having Joint Core Strategies adopted for as much as possible of the Park before 2014. The SDNPA will therefore seek to adopt as joint documents Core Strategies which are already well advanced and/ or which it can sign up to without a significant input of staff time and financial resources. Because of its larger area and population within the Park, the SDNPA is willing to provide specific resources for working with EHDC on a Joint Core Strategy, providing there is a real prospect of achieving a satisfactory document within reasonable cost and time constraints. Similarly there are benefits to East Hampshire in having a Core Strategy which covers the whole of their administrative area, such as being able to reflect housing, economic development and community infrastructure priorities as part of a more comprehensive spatial plan, albeit within the overriding priority of National Park purposes for the parts of the plan that are of relevance to the National Park.. In pursuit of this the SDNPA and EHDC hereby agree to prepare and in due course adopt a Joint Core Strategy for East Hampshire and to this end have agreed the following principles and procedures.

1. Core Principles EHDC recognises and understands the role of SDNPA as the sole planning authority for that part of the Park within its area and SDNPA recognises the continuing role of EHDC as planning authority for the rest of the district. EHDC recognises the over-riding primacy of the National Park purposes and duty in relation to development within the Park and to this end has amended its Pre-submission version of the Core Strategy. Its recognition of the Park’s purposes is evidenced by the Settlement Strategy chapter of this paper, which is attached as Appendix A. All subsequent documents and policies affecting land and development inside the Park will similarly recognise the importance of the Park purposes and duty, as well as any other Vision and Objectives that may emerge through the preparation of the SDNPA Management Plan. They will also take account of EHDC’s Sustainable Community Strategy and of its role as strategic housing authority and in promoting economic development, albeit that fostering social and economic well-being is to be done in pursuit of the Park’s purposes. The SDNPA agrees to the overall approach to development within the Park and to the overall development principles as set out in the Pre-submission version of the Core Strategy, including the broad approach to development in the Petersfield, for which a Spatial Strategy is being jointly prepared with full community involvement. EHDC and the SDNPA agree in principle, subject to budgetary and time constraints, that a similar strategy be prepared for Liss.

55

The approach to housing and other development outside Petersfield and Liss but within the Park shall be as set out in the Pre-submission version of the Core Strategy. Development in villages and settlements without settlement boundaries will be extremely restrictive, and, in particular, any new housing will be for local needs only. Development in villages and settlements with boundaries may provide for some market housing, but in the general context of meeting primarily local housing needs, while also avoiding village ‘cramming’ and ensuring the character and landscape contribution of the village/settlement is conserved and enhanced. 2. Joint Ownership and Equivalence of Decision-making There will be joint ownership and equivalence of the preparation and decision-making processes at all stages. In particular, all documents will be jointly and equally agreed by the SDNPA and EHDC prior to publication. The EHDC and SDNPA will ensure continued dialogue between both parties and will work together to present a unified and co-ordinated approach to the public. This will require that there is sufficient time in the project plan for the SDNPA members to familiarise themselves with the issues which relate to the Park within East Hampshire. In addition SDNPA members need to familiarise themselves with issues within the Core Strategy but outside the Park that have an impact on the Park (eg Whitehill-Bordon), while EHDC members may need to ensure an equivalent understanding of how issues in the Park impact on the area outside it. Joint training events, briefings and site visits are expected to be undertaken for District Councillors and Members of the SDNPA. Engagement and involvement of EHDC Councillors and Members of the SDNPA will be in accordance with the constitutional arrangements of each body. As key stages in the preparation of the Core Strategy will need to be approved by both EHDC and SDNPA, any engagement of Members in the process of production will be replicated for both authorities. The documents to be considered by the relevant authority Members will be prepared by a set date to be agreed by both parties. Officers from both parties will need to agree to the content of the documents by the set date. The agreed documentation, which is to be considered by the District Councillors and the Members of SDNPA, will be made public by both authorities on the same date, which has been pre-agreed by both parties. Consideration by the relevant authority Members will take place at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter. Both authorities will consider the documentation on dates that are as close as possible together. With two authorities needing to provide approval for various stages of the preparation of the Core Strategy to be undertaken, there is a chance that disagreement could occur. There will therefore be a need for the differing opinions of the two authorities to be resolved. In such instances, the dispute avoidance and dispute resolution procedure that is outlined in Section 6 of the Section 101 Agency Agreement will be expected to be followed. If this procedure needs to be enacted then in most instances the differing opinions will be expected to be resolved through officer level liaison between the two authorities. 3. Timetables EHDC and SDNPA hereby agree a common timetable for completion of the Core Strategy. The timetable will provide for full involvement and ownership of the project by the SDNPA and EHDC and provide realistically for SDNPA to participate fully in decision making. The SDNPA and EHDC are satisfied that the key dates set out in Appendix A would enable this.

56

Any changes to the Core Strategy timetable will be discussed and agreed upon jointly. If any changes are made, the need to make any further revisions to the LDS documents will be considered by Officers of both authorities. 4. Staffing The lead on professional /technical input into Core Strategy work will be taken by EHDC, with funding from the SDNPA as set out in Appendix B. This is because the District Council have been working on the Core Strategy prior to the joint-working arrangement coming into play and so have a good understanding of the plan preparation to date, and also because the District Council have a greater strategic role in the preparation of the Core Strategy (i.e. it is setting policies for the whole plan area albeit within the context of the National Park purposes for significant parts of the plan area). SDNPA will provide staff to participate in discussions and decisions, to ensure that agreed timescales are met. 5. Funding Costs to be incurred in progressing the Core Strategy will be agreed in advance by both parties and apportioned between SDNPA and EHDC in a fair and equitable manner. The SDNPA funding represents the marginal increase in cost which results from the Park’s inclusion. It includes a proportion of the costs of employing EHDC’s staff directly working on the LDF on the basis that savings could have been made on these costs had the joint strategy not been proposed. The basis for this is 35% of the part of these staff costs which are spent on LDF Core Strategy work. The proportion of planning policy staff costs assumed to be working on the Core Strategy has been estimated at 80%, a figure derived from the recent Managing and Excellent Planning Service exercise. The funding does not include fixed costs and recharges from other departments unless it can be established that these relate directly to additional work arising from the LDF Core Strategy and that this additional work is greater as a result of the Park’s inclusion in the Core Strategy. It also includes 35% of identifiable elements of significant expenditure during 2011-12, e.g. examination costs, consultancy work etc. These are estimated costs at this stage and payment would be on the basis of the actual costs as they are incurred. These costs may increase significantly during 2012-13 as a result of Examination expenses. The contribution of the SDNPA towards the Examination costs should reflect the relative importance of the Park-related matters being addressed at the Examination and would be assessed and agreed once the issues for Examination have been decided by the Inspector. Payment would be quarterly in arrears and would be reviewed should there be significant changes in staffing levels or work priorities and in any event prior to the start of year 2012-13. EHDC staff will maintain time-sheet records of time spent on LDF Core Strategy work to enable their input to be monitored and to support the quarterly invoices.

6. Continuity with SDNPA Core Strategy It is recognised that at the same time as the Joint Core Strategy is being progressed, SDNPA will also be commencing and progressing work on their own Core Strategy that will cover the whole National Park area. Although this Core Strategy will not be jointly produced in the same way as the East Hampshire Joint Core Strategy, it will be important that EHDC, and all other constituent authorities within the National Park, work closely with SDNPA in progressing their document through to adoption. In this regard, EHDC will commit to ensuring that it is able to contribute towards the development of the SDNPA’s Core Strategy, beyond just its statutory consultee role. This will include the sharing of evidence that has been prepared for the East

57

Hants Joint Core Strategy and the provision of informal comments on emerging strategy in the SDNPA’s document. The Joint Core Strategy will need to be prepared in a way that enables both parties to determine what parts of the document (including each of the policies) apply to the constituent authorities. This means that when the SDNPA prepare their own Core Strategy it will be possible for it to ‘lift’ the relevant policies from the Joint Core Strategy into their own Core Strategy. The SDNPA commits to transposing the relevant policies and principles of the joint CS work into the SDNP CS, assuming the policies are recently adopted and/ or appropriately current at the time of SDNPA CS submission. 7. Consultation

The SDNPA will be preparing its own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) as soon as possible, setting out how it will engage with the community and stakeholders in relation to their own LDF and development management. This will apply to the Park Core Strategy, to other DPDs which may be specified in the Local Development Scheme, to Supplementary Planning Documents and to significant planning applications that it decides itself. It will follow closely the community engagement activities being undertaken for the Park Management Plan. However Consultation undertaken on the Core Strategy will be undertaken in accordance with EHDC’s SCI, providing that a cross-check takes place against the Park’s stakeholder / consultee database and that opportunities for consultation in conjunction with the Park Management Plan and other forums and events in the Park are taken where appropriate. In advance of the Joint Core Strategy being considered by the Members of the respective authorities a schedule of consultation will be agreed upon by Officers from EHDC and SDNPA. Preparation of this schedule will be led by EHDC Officers. Details for how the costs of undertaking consultation events will be apportioned between EHDC and SDNPA are contained within Appendix B. Such costs include those incurred for advertising and the printing of documents and exhibition material. 8. Evidence commissioned after the 1st April 2011

EHDC has undertaken the preparation of much of the evidence that will be required to support the development of the Core Strategy. Hence, at this stage it is not envisaged that a considerable amount of additional evidence will need to be produced after the 1st April 2011. In undertaking further evidence base studies, including the updating of an existing study, the following will apply:

As far as possible the study should be undertaken and presented in a way that allows the parts of the evidence that apply to only the Park to be ‘detachable’ from the rest of the study. This will mean that, where appropriate, the SDNPA can utilise the evidence for their own LDF work, as can EHDC.

The need to commission or undertake a piece of evidence to inform the Core Strategy will need to be agreed by Officers from the EHDC and SDNPA. This will apply to updates to studies (e.g. the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment).

If consultants need to be appointed then the procurement will be led by EHDC whose procurement procedures will be followed. The exception to this will be if SDNPA consider there is a need to commission consultants to undertake a piece of work that EHDC does not consider necessary for the Core Strategy, or if the work is required as a specific result of National Park purposes.

Although in most instances the procurement of an evidence base study will be led by EHDC, SDNPA will be involved in the setting of the brief for the study and the

58

interviewing of potential consultants. The opposite will apply if the procurement is led by SDNPA.

The cost of producing an evidence base study will be apportioned between EHDC and SDNPA. The proportion that each authority pays will be agreed in advance of the commencement of the study. This will not apply to studies that are undertaken by Officers ‘in house’, since this has already been allowed for in the allocation of staff time.

Any evidence base studies that are published after the 1st April 2011 will be owned by both EHDC and SDNPA.

Prior to publication of an evidence base document, Officers from both authorities will have had the opportunity to comment on a draft. Publication of any evidence base document will not require Member approval from either authority, although such a document will normally be discussed with the District Council’s Portfolio Holder for Planning, and with the SDNPA’s Planning Committee Chairman. Any evidence base briefing/ workshop that is undertaken for the District Councillors will also be open to members of SDNPA, or replicated for them on a separate occasion.

9. Examination

Examination of the Core Strategy is due to take place in Summer 2012. One of the initial tasks for the Examination will be the appointment of a Programme Officer. This appointment will be made by EHDC. The Examination itself will be held by EHDC, unless agreed otherwise.

In advance of the hearing sessions it is expected that the Inspector will raise a number of issues and questions requiring a written response. On receipt of these issues and questions, Officers from the EHDC and SDNPA will agree on who prepares the response and their content. Once the hearing sessions have been arranged, Officers will agree on representation at each hearing.

Substantial costs are expected to be incurred in 2012-13 as a result of the Examination (predominantly the cost of the Inspector and Programme Officer). These costs will be apportioned between the EHDC and SDNPA once the Examination programme is known and the Inspector has identified the issues to be examined.

10. Monitoring and implementation

Once adopted, the policies in the Core Strategy will need to be monitored in order to determine their effectiveness. Under the ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach to Development Planning, a series of indicators will need to be identified (some of these will be indicators that are required to be reported upon through the present Annual Monitoring Report process) that will be used to assess the performance of adopted policies. Both SDNPA and EHDC will need to agree on the indicators that each authority is going to monitor, as well as targets that will apply to each authority. This will need to be agreed in advance of the publication of the Proposed Submission document (regulation 27). Implementation of certain policies within the Core Strategy may necessitate either authority, or both, preparing a Local Development Document (LDD) (e.g. an Area Action Plan to provide detailed policy direction for the development of a strategic site/area). If this is the case, the authority that is required to prepare the LDD will commit to its production by identifying the document in an up-to-date version of their LDS.

11. Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

The Sustainability Appraisal process (incorporating SEA) for the Core Strategy is being undertaken by EHDC Officers. To aid in the robustness of this process Officers from SDNPA will perform a ‘critical friend’ role in that they will provide comments on the draft appraisals

59

undertaken. Such comments will be reflected in the Sustainability Appraisal reports that accompany each stage of the Core Strategy.

12. Implications of the Localism Bill and other changes to the planning system As the Core Strategy is being progressed towards adoption reforms to the planning system, many of which will arise through the Localism Bill and subsequent regulations, are expected to take place. Such reforms may necessitate altering the process for progressing the Core Strategy towards adoption. If this happens to be the case the programme for progressing the Core Strategy towards adoption will be reviewed by EHDC and SDNPA Officers. The validity of this protocol against an amended programme for the Core Strategy will be reviewed and necessary amendments made.

13. Website To ensure consistency and to avoid duplication, it is proposed that the EHDC website will host all material and documentation associated with the Core Strategy. This will include evidence base documents (including Sustainability Appraisal reports), any consultation material, documents and statements associated with the Examination and the different iterations of the emerging Core Strategy document itself. SDNPA will provide a link from their website to the Core Strategy section of the EHDC website. 14. Enquiries, complaints and requests for information Any enquiries, complaints and requests for information (including those made under the Freedom of Information Act), which are concerned with the Core Strategy, will be responded to by the authority that receives the enquiry, complaint or request in the first instance. An exception to this will be if both authorities agree that the authority that did not receive the enquiry, complaint or request for information is best placed to respond. Where appropriate, both the EHDC and SDNPA will liaise in preparing responses (this could just involve copying the response to the non-responding authority). 15. Memorandum of Understanding

The above principles will be incorporated into a formal Memorandum of Understanding to be formally signed off by a senior representative of both authorities.

60

Appendix A

Key Milestones Milestone EHDC Meeting/

Date SDNPA Meeting /Date

Draft / partial chapters considered (Intro, Profile, Spatial Vision, Strategy, Natural Resources, High Quality Environment, Healthy & Safe Communities)

Development Policy Panel 31 March 2011

Planning Policy Workshop 14 April 2011

Draft /partial chapters considered (Sustainable Economic Development, Transport & Access)

Development Policy Panel 27 April 2011

Planning Policy Workshop 14 April 2011

Decision on whether Whitehill-Bordon is Strategic Allocation or Strategic Location

July 2011

Draft / partial Chapters considered (Housing, Place Shaping) Development Policy Panel 20 July 2011

Planning Policy Workshop 20 July 2011

Completion of Petersfield Spatial Strategy 26 August 2011 Draft / partial Chapters considered (Place Shaping, Infrastructure, Whitehill-Bordon)

Development Policy Panel 29 September 2011

Planning Policy Workshop tba

EHDC & SDNPA members agree publication of Pre-submission version of Core Strategy

26 October 2011 Planning Committee 10th October Authority meeting 25th October

Pre-submission Core Strategy published November 2011 Representations considered & summarised February 2012 Core Strategy submitted March 2012 Examination in Public completed May 2012 Inspector’s Report published August 2012 Adoption of Core Strategy by EHDC & SDNPA November 2012 Appendix B SDNPA Contribution to Joint Core Strategy Costs 2011-2012

Budget head £ Salaries 65,796 Employers NI 5,051 Overtime 1,592 Pension Costs 12,567 Bus, Train, Ferry, Parking 112 Hire of External Rooms 84 Officers Travel 308 Purchase of Equipment 95 Purchase of Materials 45 Stationery 28 SLA Printing & Stationery Charge 372 Sub-Total (fixed price) 86,050 Transport Study 3,850 Habitat Regs Assessment 1,400 Sustainability Appraisal 2,800 G.I. Strategy 7,000

61

Housing Requirements Study 5,250 Sub-Total (estimated) 20,300

Programme Officer (estimated)

1,470 Petersfield Study (staffing costs) 15,218 (fixed price) Grand Total 123,038

Staff costs will cover evidence base studies being undertaken in house, the drafting of the actual Core Strategy document, and undertaking consultations (including the analysis of reps). The above constitute a fixed price to be paid quarterly, subject to no significant changes in workload or staff levels. The figure will be reviewed for 2012-13 based on timesheets for 2011-12. With regard to t he estimated costs, SDNPA will pay on the basis of actual costs for these items, when known. Other costs in 2012-13 will include a share of Examination expenses, including the fees for the Inspector and Programme Officer. How this cost is split between the two authorities will only be established once the Examination programme is known and the Inspector has identified the issues to be examined. The costs incurred in preparing for and undertaking hearing sessions that relate to a particular geographical area (i.e. strategic site policies) will be incurred by the relevant authority. Including the costs of the Programme Officer and the employment of any specialist consultants who are required for EiP hearing sessions it is estimated that the total cost of the Examination will be £150,000. This figure is based on the costs quoted by PINS, the average length of time spent on the Examination and is consistent with the costs incurred by LPAs who have already been through the process.

62

APPENDIX 2

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Local Development Framework

Protocol for Joint Working on the Lewes District Core Strategy

between South Downs National Park Authority and Lewes District Council

As from 1 April 2011 the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) became the Local Planning Authority for that part of the South Downs National Park (hereinafter referred to as the Park) which lies within Lewes District Council (LDC), covering about 56 % of LDC’s geographical area and including 24% of its population. In due course the SDNPA will be preparing an LDF Core Strategy for the whole Park and intends to have this adopted by the end of 2014. In the meantime existing saved Local Plan policies and (where relevant) adopted LDF policies will apply in Lewes District and elsewhere in the Park. There is advantage in having Joint Core Strategies adopted for as much of the Park as possible before 2014. The SDNPA will therefore seek to adopt as joint documents Core Strategies which are already well advanced and/ or which it can sign up to without a significant input of staff time and financial resources. Because of its large area and population within the Park, the SDNPA is willing to provide specific resources for working with LDC on a Joint Core Strategy, providing there is a real prospect of achieving a satisfactory document within reasonable cost and time constraints. Similarly there are benefits to LDC in having a Core Strategy which covers the whole of their administrative area, such as being able to reflect housing, economic development and community infrastructure priorities as part of a more comprehensive spatial plan, albeit within the overriding priority of National Park purposes for the parts of the plan that are of relevance to the National Park. In pursuit of this the SDNPA and LDC hereby agree to prepare and in due course adopt a Joint Core Strategy for Lewes District and to this end have agreed the following principles and procedures.

1. Core Principles Lewes District Council recognises and understands the role of SDNPA as the sole planning authority for that part of the Park within its area and SDNPA recognises the continuing role of LDC as planning authority for the rest of the district. LDC recognises the over-riding primacy of the National Park purposes and duty in relation to development within the Park. Its recognition of the Park’s purposes is evidenced by Core Strategy Issues and Emerging Options Topic Papers that were published in May 2010. All subsequent documents and policies affecting land and development inside the Park will similarly recognise the importance of the Park purposes and duty, as well as any other Vision and Objectives that may emerge through the preparation of the SDNPA Management Plan. They will also take account of LDC’s Sustainable Community Strategy and of its role as strategic housing authority and in promoting economic development, albeit that fostering social and economic well-being is to be done in pursuit of the Park’s purposes. The SDNPA agrees to the overall approach to development within the Park and to the overall development principles as set out in the Vision for the Plan Area and the Issues and Emerging Options Topic Papers. However it will seek to include more reference to the Park and its purposes and duties in the Preferred Strategy stage for the Core Strategy. It is recognised that the Topic Papers were based on the housing delivery figures from the South East Plan, which is shortly to be abolished. Hence, a locally derived housing target is being developed for the Core

63

Strategy. In addition, further options for a housing delivery strategy have emerged since the Topic Papers (including potential strategic site options). The SDNPA is aware of the possibility of including a strategic site in Lewes as set out in Topic Paper 7, This, and any emerging issues arising from consultation, will be addressed in terms of the overall approach to the Core Strategy and achieving NP purposes, taking into account the social and economic well-being of the communities within the National Park. Prima facie, the SDNPA has no objection to the strategic development proposals set out in topic paper 7, subject to consideration of whether a Spatial Strategy for the town should be prepared as supporting evidence or as an SPD, AAP or Neighbourhood Plan. Also in the Preferred Strategy document, the SDNPA will prima facie seek an approach to housing and other development outside Lewes town but within the Park, which is as follows. Development in villages and settlements without settlement boundaries will be extremely restrictive, and, in particular, any new housing will be for local needs only. Development in villages and settlements with boundaries may provide for some market housing, but in the general context of meeting primarily local housing needs, while also avoiding village ‘cramming’ and ensuring the character and landscape contribution of the village/settlement is conserved and enhanced. 2. Joint Ownership and Equivalence of Decision-making There will be joint ownership of and equivalence in the preparation and decision-making processes at all stages. In particular, all documents will be jointly and equally agreed by the SDNPA and LDC prior to publication. The LDC and SDNPA will ensure continued dialogue between both parties and will work together to present a unified and co-ordinated approach to the public. This will require that there is sufficient time in the project plan for the SDNPA members to familiarise themselves with the issues which relate to the Park within Lewes District. In addition Park members need to familiarise themselves with issues within the Core Strategy but outside the Park that have an impact on the it, while LDC members may need to ensure an equivalent understanding of how issues in the Park impact on the area outside it. Joint training events, briefings and site visits are expected to be undertaken for District Councillors and Members of the SDNPA. Engagement and involvement of LDC Councillors and Members of the SDNPA will be in accordance with the constitutional arrangements of each body. As key stages in the preparation of the Core Strategy will need to be approved by both LDC and SDNPA any engagement of Members in the process of production will be replicated for both authorities. The documents to be considered by the relevant authority Members will be prepared by a set date to be agreed by both parties. Officers from both parties will need to agree to the content of the documents by the set date. The agreed documentation, which is to be considered by the District Councillors and the Members of SDNPA, will be made public by both authorities on the same date, which has been pre-agreed by both parties. Consideration by the relevant authority Members will take place at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter. Both authorities will consider the documentation on dates that are as close as possible together. If necessary to aid in the smooth and timely progression of the Core Strategy, the formation of an informal co-ordinating group will be considered. The purpose of such a group will be to oversee the strategic policy direction, work programme and resources for the Core Strategy and to advise on issues such as the consultation arrangements. If established, the group would be expected to meet at appropriate intervals. Recommendations concerning the work

64

programme and resources could be reflected in the two authorities service and financial plans that are prepared. The secretariat for the group will be provided by the District Council and it will be possible to co-opt representatives from other statutory bodies onto the group, if seen as necessary. It is worth noting that such a group would not be a decision making group and they would only make recommendations back to their respective parent bodies. With two authorities needing to provide approval for various stages of the preparation of the Core Strategy to be undertaken, there is a chance that disagreement could occur. There will therefore be a need for the differing opinions of the two authorities to be resolved. In such instances, the dispute avoidance and dispute resolution procedure that is outlined in Section 6 of the Section 101 Agency Agreement will be expected to be followed. If this procedure needs to be enacted then in most instances the differing opinions will be expected to be resolved through officer level liaison between the two authorities.

3. Timetables LDC and SDNPA hereby agree a common timetable for completion of the Core Strategy. The timetable will provide for full involvement and ownership of the project by the SDNPA and LDC and provide realistically for SDNPA to participate fully in decision making. The SDNPA and LDC are satisfied that the key dates set out in Appendix A would enable this. It should be noted that the timetable in Appendix A differs from that contained within LDC’s most recently adopted Local Development Scheme (LDS) in 2009, as well as the revision to that timetable agreed by LDC’s Cabinet on the 23 November 2010. LDC is committed to revising its LDS in order to reflect the agreed Core Strategy timetable and ensure consistency with the SDNPA’s LDS. This revised LDS for LDC will be submitted to the Secretary of State prior to the Core Strategy being formally submitted for Examination. Any changes to the Core Strategy timetable will be discussed and agreed upon jointly. If any changes are made, the need to make any further revisions to the LDS documents will be considered by Officers of both authorities. 4. Staffing The lead on professional /technical input into Core Strategy work will be taken by LDC, with funding from the SDNPA as set out in Appendix B. This is because the District Council have been working on the Core Strategy prior to the joint-working arrangement coming into play and so have a good understanding of the plan preparation to date, and also because the District Council have a greater strategic role in the preparation of the Core Strategy (i.e. it is setting policies for the whole plan area albeit within the context of the National Park purposes for significant parts of the plan area). SDNPA will provide staff to participate in discussions and decisions, to ensure that agreed timescales are met. 5. Funding Costs to be incurred in progressing the Core Strategy will be agreed in advance by both parties and apportioned between SDNPA and LDC in a fair and equitable manner. The SDNPA funding represents the marginal increase in cost which results from the Park’s inclusion. It includes a proportion of the costs (including on-costs such as pension and National Insurance) of employing LDC’s staff directly working on the LDF on the basis that savings could have been made on these costs had the joint strategy not been proposed. The proportion of planning policy staff costs assumed to be working on the Core Strategy varies between 39% and

65

78%, figures, derived from LDC’s time allocation forms (the average percentage of time for all Planning Policy posts is 69%). Of this about 44% of the work is associated with the National Park, which is the basis for the costs to be paid by SDNPA. The funding does not include fixed costs and recharges from other departments unless it can be established that these relate directly to additional work arising from the LDF Core Strategy and that this additional work is greater as a result of the Park’s inclusion in the Core Strategy. It also includes a percentage of identifiable elements of significant expenditure during 2011-12, e.g. consultancy work, etc. The percentage relates either to the split between the part of the District that lies within the Park and the part outside it, based on either population (24/76) or area (44/56), as appropriate. Most of these are estimated costs at this stage and payment would be on the basis of the actual costs as they are incurred. These costs may increase significantly during 2012-13 as a result of Examination expenses. The contribution of the SDNPA towards the Examination costs should reflect the relative importance of the Park-related matters being addressed at the Examination and would be assessed and agreed once the issues for Examination have been decided by the Inspector.

Payment would be quarterly in arrears and would be reviewed should there be significant changes in staffing levels or work priorities and in any event prior to the start of year 2012-13. LDC staff will maintain time-sheet records of time spent on LDF Core Strategy work to enable their input to be monitored and to support the quarterly invoices.

6. Continuity with SDNPA Core Strategy It is recognised that at the same time as the Joint Core Strategy is being progressed, SDNPA will also be commencing and progressing work on their own Core Strategy that will cover the whole National Park area. Although this Core Strategy will not be jointly produced in the same way as the Lewes District version will be, it will be important that the LDC, and all other constituent authorities within the National Park, work closely with SDNPA in progressing their document through to adoption. In this regard, LDC will commit to ensuring that it is able to contribute towards the development of the SDNPA’s Core Strategy, beyond just its statutory consultee role. This will include the sharing of evidence that has been prepared for the Lewes District Joint Core Strategy and the provision of informal comments on emerging strategy in SDNPA’s document. The Joint Core Strategy will need to be prepared in a way that enables both parties to determine what parts of the document (including each of the policies) apply to the constituent authorities. This means that when the SDNPA prepare their own Core Strategy it will be possible for it to ‘lift’ the relevant policies from the Joint Core Strategy into their own Core Strategy. The SDNPA commits to transposing the relevant policies and principles of the joint CS work into the SDNP CS, assuming the policies are recently adopted and/ or appropriately current at the time of SDNPA CS submission.

7. Consultation The SDNPA will be preparing its own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) as soon as possible, setting out how it will engage with the community and stakeholders in relation to their own LDF and development management. This will apply to the Park Core Strategy, to other DPDs which may be specified in the Local Development Scheme, to Supplementary Planning Documents and to significant planning applications that it decides itself. It will follow closely the community engagement activities being undertaken for the Park Management Plan. However Consultation undertaken on the Core Strategy will be undertaken in accordance with LDC’s SCI, providing that a cross-check takes place against the SDNPA’s stakeholder /

66

consultee database and that opportunities for consultation in conjunction with the Park Management Plan and other forums and events in the Park are taken where appropriate. In advance of the Joint Core Strategy being considered by the Members of the respective authorities a schedule of consultation will be agreed upon by Officers from LDC and SDNPA. Preparation of this schedule will be led by LDC Officers. Details for how the costs of undertaking consultation events will be apportioned between LDC and SDNPA are contained within Appendix B. Such costs include those incurred for advertising and the printing of documents and exhibition material. 8. Evidence commissioned after the 1st April 2011

LDC has undertaken the preparation of much of the evidence that will be required to support the development of the Core Strategy. Hence, at this stage it is not envisaged that a considerable amount of additional evidence will need to be produced after the 1st April 2011. In undertaking further evidence base studies, including the updating of an existing study, the following will apply:

As far as possible the study should be undertaken and presented in a way that allows the parts of the evidence that apply to only the Park to be ‘detachable’ from the rest of the study. This will mean that, where appropriate, the SDNPA can utilise the evidence for their own LDF work, as can LDC.

The need to commission or undertake a piece of evidence to inform the Core Strategy will need to be agreed by Officers from the LDC and SDNPA. This will apply to updates to studies (e.g. the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment).

If consultants need to be appointed then the procurement will be led by LDC whose procurement procedures will be followed. The exception to this will be if SDNPA consider there is a need to commission consultants to undertake a piece of work that LDC does not consider necessary for the Core Strategy, or if the work is required as a specific result of National Park purposes.

Although in most instances the procurement of an evidence base study will be led by LDC, SDNPA will be involved in the setting of the brief for the study and the interviewing of potential consultants. The opposite will apply if the procurement is led by SDNPA.

Details for how the cost of producing an evidence base study by external consultants will be apportioned LDC and SDNPA are contained within Appendix B. The proportion that each authority pays will be agreed in advance of the commencement of the study.

Any evidence base studies that are published after the 1st April 2011 will be owned by both LDC and SDNPA.

Prior to publication of an evidence base document, Officers from both authorities will have had the opportunity to comment on a draft. Publication of any evidence base document will not require Member approval from either authority, although such a document will normally be discussed with the District Council’s Lead Member for Planning, and with the SDNPA’s Planning Committee Chairman. Any evidence base briefing/ workshop that is undertaken for the District Councillors will also be open to members of SDNPA, or replicated for them on a separate occasion.

9. Examination

Examination of the Core Strategy is due to take place in Autumn 2012. One of the initial tasks for the Examination will be the appointment of a Programme Officer. This appointment will be made by LDC. The Examination itself will be held by LDC, unless agreed otherwise.

In advance of the hearing sessions it is expected that the Inspector will raise a number of issues and questions requiring a written response. On receipt of these issues and questions, Officers

67

from the LDC and SDNPA will agree on who prepares the response and their content. Once the hearing sessions have been arranged, Officers will agree on representation at each hearing.

Substantial costs are expected to be incurred in 2012-13 as a result of the Examination (predominantly the cost of the Inspector and Programme Officer). These costs will be apportioned between the LDC and SDNPA in accordance with the criteria in Appendix B.

10. Monitoring and implementation

Once adopted, the policies in the Core Strategy will need to be monitored in order to determine their effectiveness. Under the ‘plan, monitor and manage’ approach to Development Planning, a series of indicators will need to be identified (some of these will be indicators that are required to be reported upon through the present Annual Monitoring Report process) that will be used to assess the performance of adopted policies. Both SDNPA and LDC will need to agree on the indicators that each authority is going to monitor, as well as targets that will apply to each authority. This will need to be agreed in advance of the publication of the Proposed Submission document (regulation 27). Implementation of certain policies within the Core Strategy may necessitate either authority, or both, preparing a Local Development Document (LDD) (e.g. an Area Action Plan to provide detailed policy direction for the development of a strategic site/area). If this is the case, the authority that is required to prepare the LDD will commit to its production by identifying the document in an up-to-date version of their LDS.

11. Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

The Sustainability Appraisal process (incorporating SEA) for the Core Strategy is being undertaken by LDC Officers. To aid in the robustness of this process Officers from SDNPA will perform a ‘critical friend’ role in that they will provide comments on the draft appraisals undertaken. Such comments will be reflected in the Sustainability Appraisal reports that accompany each stage of the Core Strategy.

12. Implications of the Localism Bill and other changes to the planning system As the Core Strategy is being progressed towards adoption reforms to the planning system, many of which will arise through the Localism Bill and subsequent regulations, are expected to take place. Such reforms may necessitate altering the process for progressing the Core Strategy towards adoption. If this happens to be the case the programme for progressing the Core Strategy towards adoption will be reviewed by LDC and SDNPA Officers. The validity of this protocol against an amended programme for the Core Strategy will be reviewed and necessary amendments made.

13. Website To ensure consistency and to avoid duplication, it is proposed that the LDC website will host all material and documentation associated with the Core Strategy. This will include evidence base documents (including Sustainability Appraisal reports), any consultation material, documents and statements associated with the Examination and the different iterations of the emerging Core Strategy document itself. SDNPA will provide a link from their website to the Core Strategy section of the LDC website. 14. Enquiries, complaints and requests for information

68

Any enquiries, complaints and requests for information (including those made under the Freedom of Information Act), which are concerned with the Core Strategy, will be responded to by the authority that receives the enquiry, complaint or request in the first instance. An exception to this will be if both authorities agree that the authority that did not receive the enquiry, complaint or request for information is best placed to respond. Where appropriate, both LDC and SDNPA will liaise in preparing responses (this could just involve copying the response to the non-responding authority).

15. Memorandum of Understanding

The above principles will be incorporated into a formal Memorandum of Understanding to be formally signed off by a senior representative of both authorities.

Appendix A

Key Milestones Milestone LDC Meeting/

Date SDNPA Meeting /Date

Discussion of draft Preferred Strategy Members workshop Mid July

Planning Policy Workshop 20 July 2011

Preferred Strategy approved Cabinet 7 September 2011

Planning Committee 12th September 2011 Authority meeting13th September

Consultation on Preferred Strategy End of September- early November 2011 Consideration of responses to consultation and preparation of Proposed Submission Document

November- December 2011

Discussion of Proposed Submission Document Members Workshop January 2012

Planning Policy Workshop January 2012

Approval of Proposed Submission Document Cabinet 14 March 2012

Planning Committee March 2012 Authority meeting March 2012

Consultation on Proposed Submission Document published April- May 2012 Representations considered & summarised May- June 2012 Core Strategy submitted July 2012 Examination in Public completed October/ November 2012 Inspector’s Report published January 2013 Adoption of Core Strategy by LDC & SDNPA February 2013

69

Appendix B SDNPA Contribution to Joint Core Strategy Costs 2011-12

£ Staff Costs

Planning Policy Manager: 70% of 1 post x 0.44 £17,007

Senior Planning Officer: 75% of 1 posts x 0.44 £14,258

Senior Planning Officer: 78% of 1 post x 0.44 £13,358 Principal Planning Officer: 72% of 1 post x 0.44 £13,688 Planning Officer: 67% of 0.5 post x 0.44 £4,735 Planning Officer: 62% of 0.5 post x 0.44 £4,382 Team Clerk: 39% of 0.5 post x 0.44 £1,892 Sub-Total (fixed price) £69,320 Evidence Base Appropriate assessment 15,000 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2,800 Lewes Town Transport Study 8,997 Retail Study Update 7,500 Viability test of affordable housing 3,600 Sub-Total (estimated *) 37,897 Other Costs Publicity materials and venue hire 776 (estimated) Grand Total 107,994

* apart from the Transport Study which is a firm figure. Staff costs will cover evidence base studies being undertaken in house, the drafting of the actual Core Strategy document, administering and undertaking consultations (including the analysis of reps) and SA/SEA work. The above constitute a fixed price to be paid quarterly, subject to no significant changes in workload or staff levels. The figure will be reviewed for 2012-13 based on timesheets for 2011-12. With regard to t he estimated costs, SDNPA will pay on the basis of actual costs for these items, when known, using the methodology set out in the Schedule below. Other costs in 2012-13 will include a share (to be agreed) of Examination expenses, including the fees for the Inspector and Programme Officer. Total cost of these could be in the order of £150,000. Schedule of Anticipated Costs The following schedule identifies how the above costs have been arrived at. This schedule will be kept under review through the Joint Members Steering Group. The evidence base studies that are specifically identified are those studies that the District Council is currently committed to

70

undertaking. Items of expenditure that are likely to just relate to Officers time (i.e. do not involve paying for consultants, inspectors or any items of expenditure) are identified in red.

Who pays for what?

Items of expenditure Lewes District Council

South Downs National Park Authority

Actual Cost / Comment

Plan-wide evidence base studies – general approach

If the study relates to physical issues (e.g. infrastructure, landscape, flood risk) then the proportion of the total cost to be paid will equate to the proportion of the plan area that is outside the Park (44%) . If the study relates to human issues (e.g. affordable housing), then the proportion of the total cost to be paid will equate to the proportion of the population that is outside the Park (76%).

If the study relates to physical issues (e.g. infrastructure, landscape, flood risk) then the proportion of the total cost to be paid will equate to the proportion of the plan area that is within the Park (56%) . If the study relates to human issues (e.g. affordable housing), then the proportion of the total cost to be paid will equate to the proportion of the population that is within the Park (24%).

This approach will be pursued unless stated otherwise for a particular study detailed in the remainder of this Schedule.

Site/area specific evidence base studies – general approach

If the site/area is wholly within the part of the District outside of the National Park (even if some of the impacts may be felt within the NP).

If the site/area is wholly within the part of the District within the National Park (even if some of the impacts may be felt outside of the NP).

In such instances, the authority that is not meeting the cost of the study will be expected to be involved in its production. This would include commenting on a brief for the study and a draft of the study itself.

Landscape Capacity Study

100% , given that the study will be close to completion as at 1/4/11.

Any additional costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers’ time, included above

Infrastructure Position Paper and Delivery Plan

Costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers time, included above.

Green Infrastructure Study

Costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers time., included above.

Appropriate Assessment (AA)

Assessing the impact of development scenarios (across the plan area) on the Ashdown Forest SPA (the Pevensey Levels Ramsar site has been screened out).

Assessing the impact of development scenarios (across the plan area) on the Lewes Downs SAC (the Castle Hill SAC has been screened out).

The cost of the anticipated consultancy work is expected to be approx £20,000. The majority of this work will involve assessing the impact of development scenarios in Lewes town (within the NP) on the Lewes Downs SAC (within the NP). Hence the majority of the costs are likely to be met by the NPA.

71

This could potentially be £15,000 for the NPA and £5,000 for LDC.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Sequential Test

44%. 56%. Estimated cost of this work is £5,000, hence £2,800 for the NPA and £2,200 for LDC.

Strategic Transport Studies

Any modelling and testing of development scenarios that are within the part of the District outside of the National Park.

Any modelling and testing of development scenarios that are within the National Park

The Lewes Town Transport Study has been commissioned at a cost of £17,995. It is proposed to split the cost on a 50:50 basis given the location of the scenarios being tested (half within and half outside of the NP). A Newhaven Town Transport Study has also been commissioned at a cost of £15,400. This is being entirely funded by LDC.

Update to the Retail Study

75%, relating to 3 towns outside the Park (Newhaven, Seaford & Peacehaven/ Telscombe)

25%, relating to 1 town within the Park (Lewes)

Estimated cost of the study is £30,000, hence £7,500 for SDNPA and £22,500 for LDC.

Viability testing of affordable housing policies (supplement to the SHMA)

76%. 24%. Estimated cost of the study is £15,000, hence £3,600 for the NPA and £11,400 for LDC.

Update to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

All sites assessed and re-assessed that are outside of the National Park and the publication of the report.

All sites assessed and re-assessed that are within the National Park.

Costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers time, included above.

Publicity material (including cost of statutory notices, leaflets and posters) Hire of venues for consultation events

76% 24% Estimated cost for the two remaining consultations is £3,234, hence the share to be paid by the NPA will be £776. LDC will pay £2,458.

Cost of the Planning Inspector and Programme Officer

How this cost is split between the two authorities will only be established once the Examination programme is known and the Inspector has identified the issues to be examined. The costs incurred in preparing for and undertaking hearing sessions that relate to a particular geographical area (i.e. strategic site policies) will be incurred by the relevant authority. Including the costs of the Programme Officer and the employment of any specialist consultants who are required for EiP hearing sessions it is estimated that the total cost of the Examination will be £150,000. This figure is based on the costs quoted by PINS, the average length of time spent on the Examination and is consistent with the costs incurred by LPAs who have already been through the process.

Undertaking the Sustainability Appraisal/ SEA process

The appraisal of any policy areas that are limited in scope to areas outside of the

The appraisal of any policy areas that are limited in scope to areas within the

Costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers time.

72

National Park. The cost incurred for appraising policies that are not limited in their geographical scope will be met by the District Council on the provision that SDNPA performs the ‘critical friend’ role.

National Park. Cost of the ‘critical friend’ role.

Drafting the actual Core Strategy document

Costs to be met by both authorities. How the costs are split could depend on the policy areas within the emerging document and whether they apply to either the National Park area, the District Council area, or both. Costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers time..

Administering and analysing representations made on the Core Strategy

76% 24% Costs to be incurred will be the cost of Officers time.. But could include the appointment of temporary staff and/or the purchase of consultation software if an unexpectedly high level of representations is made.

Appointment of a mediator to resolve any potential conflict(s) arising as the Core Strategy is progressed

50%. 50%. Hopefully such a cost will not need to be incurred.

73

APPENDIX 3

Hampshire County Council: Emerging Protocol Hampshire County Council, with their partner authorities, are producing a minerals and waste plan. Agreement on Core Principles The principle of joint working with Hampshire County Council (HCC) was established by the SDNPA (Planning Committee) on 8 November 2010. The authority subsequently approved the ‘Have your Say’ document for public consultation (Planning Committee, 14 February 2011). HCC recognises and understands the role of SDNPA as the sole planning authority for that part of the Park within its area and SDNPA recognises the continuing role of HCC, with the other partners, in planning for the rest of the county. HCC and the SDNPA are also adjoining Local Planning Authorities and will consult each other on planning matters accordingly. The ‘Have your Say’ document recognises that Hampshire’s environment will be protected by ‘conserving and enhancing the special qualities of the National Parks’. This recognises the Park’s purposes. The document also recognises that it is within the national interest to protect the National Parks, and their adjoining areas or settings, from inappropriate development. The main issue for the SDNPA is the approach to the extraction of soft sand. The ‘Have your Say’ document recognises that the soft sand resource is regionally important and there is still a need to plan for sand and gravel extraction from the land to enable a steady and balanced supply of aggregate for the economy. The document recognises the Government’s intention to abolish the South East Plan (SEP) (which previously set out the amount of land-won sand and gravel that each county was required to provide1). There has been much discussion in the South East (as part of the proposed revision to Policy M3 of the SEP) about the amount of sand and gravel that each county should provide. Policy M3 set out the figures for each county, based on a regional figure. The majority of the counties in the South East considered that the overall figure proposed for the South East was too high and that it did not reflect the actual demand for sand and gravel. The revision of Policy M3 of the SEP did not reach a conclusion and was not continued by the coalition Government. However, Hampshire was urged by Government to adopt the apportionment of 2.05 mtpa as recommended by the Examination in Public (EiP) Panel. Furthermore, until the Localism Bill is enacted, the South East Plan is still part of the development plan, and that contains an apportionment for Hampshire of 2.63 mtpa. But, the weight given to this and to the Government’s intention to abolish the plan is for individual decision makers to consider. In this case, HCC have decided to give the revised SEP little weight in the light of more up to date evidence to that was available to the EiP and have made a local decision on the amount of land-won sand and gravel that will be needed over the plan period in their area (including the Park). The new apportionment has been calculated using an average of ten years sales and this approach results in a figure of 1.7 million tonnes of sand and gravel per year to 2030 or 34 million tonnes overall. The extensions and new sites proposed to meet the need are all outside the South Downs National Park area and the document recognises that ‘mineral development within designated areas should only take place in exceptional circumstances’. However, even with the suggested new extensions and new sites, there will still be a small (847,000t) shortfall over the plan period – to be provided from ‘windfall’ sites. The provision of this shortfall is linked to the Bordon Whitehill ‘eco-town’ where prior extraction of the soft sand reserves should be encouraged. The SDNPA have a roll to play in ensuring that the soft sand resource at Bordon Whitehill is not sterilised - as this could put additional pressure on unallocated soft sand sites within and adjacent to the Park. The reliance on unallocated ‘windfall’ sites could also lead to pressure on sites within the Park, particularly if the preference is for extensions to existing quarries. Careful monitoring of supply (through the landbank) will be required. 1 This is also called the sub-regional apportionment

74

In relation to other minerals, the document suggests that support should be given to the sustainable extraction of brick-making clay in new areas at Michelmersh and Selborne. Part of the proposed extension at Selborne is within the Park. There is limited demand for chalk and therefore the proposed approach is only for small scale extraction. There is no requirement to identify sites for oil and gas, but there are reserves within the South Downs National Park and current exploration sites. In relation to waste, there is no separate data in the amount of waste generated by the Park. As set out in the suggested approach to landscape designations, the anticipation is that waste development should not take place within the Park unless there are exceptional reasons for this to occur (in line with national guidance set out in Planning Policy Statement 7). The major urban areas offer the most potential as locations for new facilities and this is recognised in the document. All subsequent documents and policies affecting land and development inside the Park will similarly recognise the importance of the Park purposes and duty, as well as any other Vision and Objectives that may emerge through the preparation of the SDNPA Management Plan. Joint ownership of the process and equivalence of decision making HCC currently work jointly with the New Forest National Park, Southampton City Council and Portsmouth City Council. HCC have agreed that joint ownership of the process at all stages is important and they already have procedures in place for involving partner authorities in the document preparation process. The process during document production is as follows: Officer level:

draft documents will be sent to SDNPA officers as they are prepared; Partner officer meetings – all partners involved

Member level:

Joint member panel – all partners Member briefings – with individual partners (suggest SDNPA Planning Committee

Workshop) Prior to publication of documents all partner authorities are required gain democratic approval (SDNPA – Planning Committee Workshop, Planning Committee, Full Authority). The document production process will allow any potential issues or points of conflict to be resolved early on in document preparation. This will also ensure that any issues are raised prior to documents being published. Timetables The formal timetable for the preparation of the joint Core Strategy will be set out in the HCC Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS, ‘the Scheme’). The adopted Scheme (2009) is now out-of-date and a new timetable was approved by HCC on 25 November 2010. This set out the following key dates:

Stage Dates ‘Have your Say’ (consultation and engagement)

January-March 2011

Incorporate feedback March-May 2011 ‘Have Your Say’ supplement and engagement

June – July 2011

Revise plan April-August 2011 Cabinet & Council including Partners

September-October 2011

75

Statutory consultation on soundness

November- December 2011

Public Examination Spring 2012 Adoption Summer 2012

The above timetable is subject to change and the final timetable will be in the Scheme when it has been approved and published (anticipated June 2011). It is considered that the proposed timetable will allow sufficient time for the SDNPA to participate fully in decision making. Any further changes to the timetable will need to be discussed and agreed upon jointly to ensure that this remains the case. Staffing The lead on professional and technical input into Core Strategy work will be taken by HCC, with funding from the SDNPA (to be agreed). This is because HCC have been working on the Core Strategy prior to the joint-working arrangement coming into play and so have a good understanding of the plan preparation to date, and also because HCC have a greater strategic role in the preparation of the Core Strategy (i.e. it is setting policies for the whole plan area albeit within the context of the National Park purposes). SDNPA will provide staff to participate in discussions and decisions, to ensure that agreed timescales are met. Funding As only initial discussions have been held with HCC, funding arrangements will need to be finalised. This will be done through the Protocol for Joint Working that will be prepared. As a guide the likely costs to the SDNPA for plan preparation and the public examination have been estimated as £54,011 for April 2011 – March 2012 (15% of the total budget). The costs that may be subject to increases are the cost of legal and consultancy fees and the cost of the public examination.

76

APPENDIX 4

West Sussex County Council: Emerging Protocol West Sussex County Council (WSCC) are preparing a separate minerals plan and waste plan, which will each contain strategic site allocations. Agreement on Core Principles WSCC recognises and understands the role of SDNPA as the sole planning authority for that part of the Park within its area and SDNPA recognises the continuing role of WSCC in planning for the rest of their area. WSCC and the SDNPA are also adjoining Local Planning Authorities and will consult each other on planning matters accordingly. The last published documents from WSCC were the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy Background Papers, Version 2, in 2009. These documents set out the evidence, issues and options for minerals and waste in West Sussex, including a ‘long-list’ of potential sites. Consultation and engagement on the background papers took place in winter 2009/10. However, due to the uncertainty caused by the review of the National Waste Strategy, changes to the planning system, the South Downs National Park and the revocation of the South East Plan, it was considered counter-productive to progress with the Core Strategy and a decision was made to suspend formal preparation of the Core Strategy. Since then, the draft Localism Bill made it clear that there was a risk that authorities without adopted waste plans in place could be at risk of EU fines under the revised Waste Framework Directive. This has lead to a decision by WSCC (County Council, 13 May 2011) to approve and submit a revised Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS, ‘the Scheme’), with the aim of progressing with a Waste Plan separately from a Minerals Plan. The Waste Plan will be progressed as a priority and the Minerals Plan work will be put on-hold until after adoption of the Waste Plan. Since the decision of 13 May, preferred strategic policies and a shortlist of preferred waste sites has been published (this shortlist does not contain any sites within the South Downs National Park). The delay to the work on minerals will ensure that the SDNPA will have sufficient time to be involved in the strategies that emerges and in ensuring the document recognises the National Park purposes and duty. This is of particular important in West Sussex due to the high number (compared with ESCC and HCC) of existing and potential sand and gravel sites in the part of the SDNPA formally planned for by WSCC. Following discussions with WSCC on waste issues, it was agreed that the approach to be taken would steer major waste development to areas outside of the SDNPA. Due to its location in the SDNP, it was agreed that Shoreham Cement Works should be progressed by the SDNPA through the SDNPA Core Strategy. Other issues for the SDNPA include: ensuring that waste facilities are located outside the Park but recognising that, small scale facilities to meet local needs may still be appropriate; recognising that sites outside the Park can have an impact on the Park (i.e. sites on the coastal plain but visible from the Downs). In relation to transporting waste, the movement of waste already takes place along the main routes that run through the SDNP (A272, A29, A24, A286). The Waste Plan will have a negligible impact upon these traffic movements. In relation to minerals, the South East Plan (SEP) apportionment for WSCC was 0.91mtpa and the figure proposed in the revision of Policy M3 was 1.03mtpa. The majority of the soft sand resource is within the SDNPA, with a number of active and inactive soft sand extraction sites. Some of the gravel resource north of Chichester is also close to or within the Park boundary. One issue, where waste and minerals cross over is the restoration of former and current mineral workings and ensuring inert waste is directed to sites that need the material. In order to set out the mineral issues that need addressing, a joint briefing paper could be prepared for Members.

77

All subsequent documents and policies affecting land and development inside the Park will similarly recognise the importance of the Park purposes and duty, as well as any other Vision and Objectives that may emerge through the preparation of the SDNPA Management Plan. Joint ownership of the process and equivalence of decision making Joint working arrangements with the SDNPA will have to be put in place, through a new protocol document. However, WSCC have agreed that joint ownership of the process at all stages is important and the protocol will ensure that the procedures are in place for involving the SDNPA in the document preparation process. The process during document production is likely to be as follows: Officer level:

Draft documents will be sent to SDNPA officers as they are prepared Regular joint officer progress meetings

Member level:

Informal steer to be provided by WSCC Member Task Force and SDNPA Planning Workshop

Prior to publication of documents both partner authorities will be required gain democratic approval. For the SDNPA this will involve Planning Committee Workshop, Planning Committee, Full Authority. The document production process will allow any potential issues or points of conflict to be resolved early on in document preparation. This will also ensure that any issues are raised prior to documents being published. Timetables The formal timetable for the preparation of the Waste Plan and the Minerals Plan will be set out in the WSCC Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS, ‘the Scheme’). The adopted Scheme (2008) is now out-of-date and a new timetable went to County Council meeting on the 13 May and was sent to the Government on 20 may 2011. The dates for the Waste Plan are as follows: Stage Dates Informal consultation and engagement

2008 – February 2010

Document preparation Current – June 2011 Representations on soundness

November – December 2011

Submission of final document February 2012 Public Examination June 2012 Adoption December 2012 The dates for the Minerals Plan are as follows: Stage Dates Survey and evidence gathering

July 2012 – December 2012

Informal consultation and engagement

January – March 2013

Document preparation April – October 2013 Representations on soundness

November – December 2013

Submission of final document February 2014 Public Examination June 2014 Adoption December 2014

78

It is considered that the proposed timetable will allow sufficient time for the SDNPA to participate fully in decision making. Any further changes to the timetable will need to be discussed and agreed upon jointly to ensure that this remains the case. Staffing The lead on professional and technical input into Waste Plan and Minerals Plan work will be taken by WSCC, with funding from the SDNPA (to be agreed). This is because WSCC have been working on the Plans prior to the joint-working arrangement coming into play and so have a good understanding of the plan preparation to date, and also because WSCC have a greater strategic role in the preparation of the Plans (i.e. it is setting policies for the whole plan area albeit within the context of the National Park purposes). SDNPA will provide staff to participate in discussions and decisions, to ensure that agreed timescales are met.

Funding As only initial discussions have been held with WSCC, funding arrangements will need to be finalised. This will be done through the Protocol for Joint Working that will be prepared. As a guide the likely costs to the SDNPA in 2011/12 will be in the region of £10,000 - £20,000 for the waste plan preparation and possible additional costs associated with the public examination (in 2012). There will be further costs associated with the production of the Minerals Plan in 2013 - 2014.

79

APPENDIX 5

East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove: Emerging Protocol East Sussex County Council (ESCC), working in partnership with Brighton & Hove City Council, are preparing a joint Waste and Minerals Core Strategy. Agreement on Core Principles ESCC recognises and understands the role of SDNPA as the sole waste and minerals planning authority for that part of the Park within its area and SDNPA recognises the continuing role of ESCC, with Brighton & Hove, in planning for waste and minerals for the rest of their area. ESCC, Brighton & Hove, and the SDNPA are also adjoining Local Planning Authorities and will consult each other on planning matters accordingly. The latest published document from ESCC and Brighton & Hove was the Waste and Minerals Core Strategy, Preferred Strategy (2009). This document went out to consultation from October 2009 to January 2010 and resulted in the receipt of over 3,000 comments mostly about landfill and land raise. As a result of this, and other factors (review of the National Waste Strategy, changes to the planning system and the revocation of the South East Plan), considerable time has been spent on examining an alternative approach to the concerns raised. This programme will allows the SDNPA to have sufficient time to be involved in the final strategy that emerges and in ensuring the document recognises the National Park purposes and duty. Main issues for the SDNPA may include: considering the location of built waste facilities but recognising that, particularly along the coast, the built up areas have closely drawn boundaries with the Park and even sites outside the Park could have an impact on the Park (long distance views, traffic movements etc). There are existing waste facilities in and around Lewes. In relation to transporting waste and minerals, any movements north/south to and from the coastal settlements could impact on the Park. In relation to minerals, the Secretary of State’s Proposed Modifications to Policy M3 of the South East Plan gave an apportionment of 0.1m tonnes p.a. for East Sussex / Brighton & Hove. The whole proportion of the soft sand resource is within the SDNPA, with one existing soft sand extraction site at Novington. All subsequent documents and policies affecting land and development inside the Park will need to recognise the importance of the Park purposes and duty, as well as any other Vision and Objectives that may emerge through the preparation of the SDNPA Management Plan. The SDNPA has responsibilities as a waste and minerals planning authority. These are complex matters with waste crossing borders to be treated at the nearest appropriate installation and minerals only being available to be extracted where they exist. The most appropriate way forward is to plan jointly with ESCC and Brighton & Hove to deal with waste and minerals issues across the whole former administrative area of the County and the City. Joint ownership of the process and equivalence of decision making ESCC work jointly with the Brighton & Hove, and already have a joint working protocol in place. ESCC and Brighton & Hove have agreed that joint ownership of the process at all stages is important and the protocol ensures that the procedures are in place for involving partner authorities in the document preparation process. The process during document production is as follows: Officer level:

draft documents will be sent to SDNPA officers as they are prepared; Board meetings – all partners involved (Director level) Joint planning management group – officer level

80

Member level:

To be confirmed - but could include Member briefings with individual partners (suggest SDNPA Planning Committee Workshop)

Prior to publication of documents all partner authorities are required gain democratic approval (SDNPA – Planning Committee Workshop, Planning Committee, Full Authority). The document production process will allow any potential issues or points of conflict to be resolved early on in document preparation. This will also ensure that any issues are raised prior to documents being published. Timetables The formal timetable for the preparation of the joint Core Strategy will be set out in the ESCC Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS, ‘the Scheme’). The adopted Scheme (2008) is now out-of-date. A dialogue on the way forward is proposed with communities that have already commented on the plan and a new timetable will be taken through the democratic process at each authority. A possible programme could be along the lines of : Stage Dates Consultation on draft Core Strategy

Summer/autumn 2011

Submission 2012 Public Examination 2012 Adoption Winter 2012/13 ESCC is likely to consider a revised Scheme and a final timetable in July. It is considered that the above timetable would allow sufficient time for the SDNPA to participate fully in decision making. Any further changes to the timetable will need to be discussed and agreed upon jointly to ensure that this remains the case. Staffing Professional and technical input into Core Strategy work will be taken by ESCC / Brighton & Hove, with funding from the SDNPA (to be agreed). This is because ESCC / Brighton & Hove have been working on the Core Strategy prior to the joint-working arrangement coming into play and so have a good understanding of the plan preparation to date, and appropriate in-depth waste and minerals expertise. SDNPA will provide staff to participate in discussions and decisions, to ensure that agreed timescales are met. Funding As only initial discussions have been held with ESCC and Brighton & Hove, funding arrangements will need to be finalised. This will be done through the Protocol for Joint Working that will be prepared. Approximate figures from ESCC indicate that costs for SDNPA will be in the region of £23,000 for 2011/12. This excludes the cost of the Examination in Public which will be in 2012/13.