www.torbay.gov.uk

Local and Neighbourhood Plans

Informal discussion / exploring ideas

• 4 Plans – moving forward together, as quickly and effectively as possible.

• The issue

• The ask

• A way forward

Parallel tracking

• Producing Development Plan for the Bay

• Comprises Local and Neighbourhood Plans

• Groundbreaking, tricky – but do-able

Biggest issue• New homes

Approach• LP identifies 5 year supply and

broad areas for growth.• NPs allocate 6 -15 year sites

The issue – as PINS see it:PINS want to approve Local Plans, but have little experience of Neighbourhood Plans – especially on Torbay’s scale.

For Local Plans to be approved they must be deliverable. In other words, a Local Plan proposing 6,000 new jobs and9000 new homes must indentify / allocate the land to do that and show how they will be delivered.

In Torbay, the allocation of land for jobs and homes has – largely – been ‘delegated’ to neighbourhood plans (in linewith Localism). But there is no guarantee Neighbourhood Plans will succeed or that they will include the scale/locations of growth set out in the Local Plan. So PINS advise us that we can’t show the Local Plan is deliverable,unless…..

All allocations etc are set out in the Local Plan (as is traditional). But…..

Those allocations would be new to the Local Plan and would be a ‘surprise’ introduction to the Plan. Without extraconsultation on those sites / a revised Plan it is likely PINS would find the Plan unsound (lack of consultation) andthere is a big risk of challenge (from 3rd parties; natural justice). But…….

a) This would tread on the toes of Neighbourhood Plans and almost negate the need for them, and b) Would delay the Local Plan considerably, to submission around Oct 2014 (not March / April 2014) at the earliest

(very close to Local Elections = further delay)

So……We don’t want to follow the ‘traditional’ route suggested by PINS. Instead:1. Continue with the parallel tracking approach, with LP and NPS providing the Development Plan for the Bay;2. Set out clear, agreed roles for Local and Neighbourhood Plans3. Produce an agreed and detailed mandate (legally binding?) for Neighbourhood Plans, building on work already

done4. Convince PINS this is the right way forward

The issue – put starkly:

Work even closer together (parallel track), to an agreedmandate and “get on with it”

or

Delay Local Plan submission until end 2014 (at least!) and take key responsibility / power away from Neighbourhood Plans

(NB - we have looked at other options)

PINSClear, informal advice.• More certainly re delivery

- if delegate to another plan, how can Council be certain of delivery?- Show sites on policies map for 9000 homes and 6000 jobs

• Relationship between Local and Neighbourhood Plans- What happens if Neighbourhood Plans don’t deliver?- time for clear roles / mandates

• Lock system – regulatory, constraining- perception? Yep, so keep it but explain it better

• Market- Can’t use slow market as a reason for less new homes- Dacorum BC Inspectors report says otherwise

• NPPF promotes growth- Can’t fudge objectively assessed needs- Can’t constrain growth- “perpetuating recession based projections would not be promoting growth”- Can’t cap housing in relation to local employment.

NPPF: The starting point / end pointPara 47. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:

1. use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;

2. identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;

3. identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and

4. Set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.

- We think PINS may be going beyond NPPF;

- We think our hybrid approach (LP and NPs) is NPPF compliant.

Headlines of Local Plan: Based on evidence:Up for it• Economy is priority• Environment is key to economic success• Up for growth, but environment and infrastructure limit growth

Bandwidth: • Flexible, responsive approach.• 5,000 – 6,000 jobs• 8,000 – 10,000 homes

Capacity• SHLAA – in theory, capacity for 11,300 homes – but recognition that some sites in very

sensitive areas (e.g. AONB) and therefore not considered developable with significant policy change.

Plan• 20+ year vision; 15+ years delivery• Need to provide for 15 years (NPPF)• 5 – 6000 jobs – town centres, 12 employment sites• 9,000 homes in 15+ years – tallies with SHLAA developable sites• 2,300 homes in S Devon ‘pool’, where least sensitive sites come forward first (after 15 years)

DCLG5 basic conditions for all Neighbourhood Plans :• They must be appropriate in the context of the National Planning

Policy Framework (particularly para. 16)• They must help achieve sustainable development (as defined by

the NPPF to include a balance of economic, social and environmental aspects (para. 7)

• They must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan.

• They must comply with appropriate EU obligations and Human Rights requirements

• Neighbourhood Plans should not promote less development than that set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies.

The Ask:

• Continue with the hybrid approach – parallel tracking and getting on with it; - Local Plan 5 year supply and broad areas of growth;- Local Plan setting ‘targets’ for towns / areas, with strategic infrastructure requirements- Neighbourhood Plans allocate and identify 6 – 15 years, meeting ‘targets’- Delivery: when needed, not according to a specific year.

• Agree general responsibilities of Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans

• Produce and agree mandate for Neighbourhood Plans to follow.• That mandate will provide a guarantee of delivery of 6000 jobs and 9000

homes.• What does that mean in practice…………………….

Who does what:Local Plan• Scale of growth for Torbay and

towns

• Broad timeframes and locations

• Lock system and monitoring mechanisms

• Committed sites (with PP) for most of 5 year supply

• Urban Extensions – areas of search for sites / masterplanning

• Strategic infrastructure requirements

Neighbourhood Plan• Allocations – mainly urban

• Other sites to be explored

• Urban Extensions – identify sites (as part of ‘bottom up’ masterplanning), as per Winsford

• Use SHLAA as basis for site identification

• Local infrastructure requirements for sites

Jobs:Local Plan:• 5 – 6000 jobs• Town based ‘targets’• Sectors• Broad area (Ha’s)• Key sites in text• Delivery mechanisms

Neighbourhood Plans:• Allocate sites• Identify other

projects / opportunities

• Specific local requirements

Sites?Town centres; Woodlands; Northfields; Yalberton; White Rock; Edginswell Business Park; Torbay Hosp; Bookhams; Oxen Cove & Freshwater; Claylands; Browns Bridge; Yalberton (Jackson).

Types of housing / mixed use sites:

• Committed – with planning permission (Local Plan)

• Allocated (Neighbourhood Plans)

• Urban (Neighbourhood Plans)

• Edge of urban – areas of search; mixed use; GI etc (Local and Neighbourhood Plans)

• Led by SHLAA

Committed sites:Strategic Commitments

(with PP) Town 0 – 5 years 6 – 10 years TotalTesco Brixham B 14 14Palace Hotel T 35 35Scotts Bridge T 18 18White Rock P 125 225 350

Torre Marine T 75 75

Hatchcombe Lane T 50 50Scotts Meadow T 155 155

Hollicombe P 185 185

Bishops Court Hotel T 42 42

Yannons / Holly Gruit P 240 80 320Marine Park P 100 100

Oldway P 101 101

Churston Golf Club B 132 132Sharkham B 34 34

Paint Station B 22 22Great Parks P 174 276 450

Total 1502 581 2083Torquay = 375 Paignton = 1506 Brixham = 202

Allocations (based on NPs and SHLAA):Allocations Town 0 – 5 years 6 – 10 years Total

Palace Hotel T 115 115

Adj Abbey Hall, Rock Rd T 30 30

Pavilions / Marina Car Park T 45 45

Market St T 60 60

Pimlico T 50 50

Opp Market, Market St T 30 30

Courtland Rd (fomer Library) P 45 45

Grange Rd (Pitch & Putt) P 65 65

Great Parks 3 P 65 65

Grange Rd (Driving Range) P 50 50

Northcliffe Hotel B 15 15

St Mary's B 25 25

Preston Down Rd P 100 100

Total 440 255 695

Torquay = 330 Paignton = 325 Brixham = 40

Urban (allocations / identification based on NPs and SHLAA):Allocations / Identification Town 0 – 5 years 6 – 10 years 11-15 years Total

Large non-strategic sites NA (80% BF) 627 627

Small non-strategic sites NA (80% BF) 326 326

SHLAA deliverable urban NA (91% BF) 397 300 697

SHLAA constrained urban 71 71

Intek House P 12 12

Torbay Hospital* T 50 50

Council depot (Yalberton) P 40 40

Crossways P 75 75 150

Hyde Rd / Torbay Rd P 50 50

Queens Park P 50 50

Fishcombe Cove B 30 30

Total 953 704 446 2103

Urban Extensions – what the LP would show

Masterplanning / Search for sites

Urban Extensions (potential sites):Urban Extensions 6 – 10 years 11-15 years TotalHamlin Way/Moles Lane (part) TG 250 250 500Land at Edginswell TG 50 50Torquay Holiday Park TG 150 150North of Nuthatch Drive TG 100 100Holiday Park, Kingskerswell Rd TG 45 45Jackson Land WP 250 250Former Nortel WP 270 270Torbay Motel WP 42 42Woodlands, Totnes Rd WP 10 10Little Blagdon , CsM WP 20 230 250Land west Kings Ash Rd WP 30 30Land off Totnes Rd (TW) WP 150 150Land at Long Meadow WP 59 59Land North of Blagdon Rd WP 70 70Beechdown Court WP 90 90Higher Ridge, CsM WP 135 135Wall Park B 170 170Copythorne Rd B 80 80Wall Park + B 40 40Total 1092 1399 2491

Sites with significant constraints:

Not included in Local Plan

Not included in SA / HRA

Added to South Devon ‘pool’,

from which least sensitive / most

deliverable sites – from within S

Devon – come forward first, only

if needed.

Sites with significant constraints

The Strand 30

St Mary's Industrial Estate 25

Sandringham Gardens 20

Mathill Road, 20

Land adj Broadley Drive, Livermead 50

Fruit farm and Land off Nutbush Lane 50

Manor Farm, NW of Galmpton 100

Land on edge of Goodrington 250

Goodrington (SW of White Rock) 500

Car parks 600

Lower Yalberton Holiday Park 125

Greenway Rd, Galmpton 6

Total 1776

Source and timing of new homes Lock 3 Lock 2 Lock 1

Developable

Deliverable, viable + Marketable

Strategic commitments (with PP) 581

Sites with significant constraints 1776 Allocations 255Strategic Commitments (with PP) 1502

Urban Area sites 446Urban Area sites 704Allocations 440

Edge of Urban Area of search 1399Edge of Urban Area of search 1092Other non-strategic sites 953

Windfalls (4 years)

520

Windfall

650

Windfall650

Windfall 324

15+ years pool of sites 11 - 15 years 6-10 years 0-5 years

sub-total: 2296 sub-total: 2495 sub-total: 3282 sub-total: 3219

Annual ave: 499 Annual ave: 656 Annual ave: 644

Review Review Review

0 -15 year total 8996

PBA assessment: 11,306 Overall Pool 11292

Brownfield % Number

0 - 5 years 66 2109

6 - 10 years 51 1680

11 - 15 years 45 1134

15+ years 47 1071

Timetable etc• Evidence and Masterplans (x4)

• Reference Group – mid Sept

• PPDG – early Oct

• PINS – early Oct

• Local Plan consultation – Dec / Jan 2014

• NP consultation – Dec – March 2014?

• LP submission – April 2014

• LP Examination – July 2014

• NP Examination – Sept / Oct 2014

• NP Referendum – Dec 2014

• £s – what would help NPS (£10K each?)

Mandate• How specific? Fairly, to comfort PINS

• Legally binding? Ideally, then guarantee to PINS

Questions?• Delay / loss of power or get on with hybrid / parallel

tracking?• Are principles of proposal ok?• Could this be worked up into a mandate?• Legally binding mandate?• Builds on existing work, but will it get Forum support

(pre-determining)?• Impacts on NP timeframes?• What happens if Forum’s don’t accept?• What happens if consultation / referendum says ‘no’?