SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED PRE-EIP CHANGES STRATEGY POLICIES
STRATEGY POLICIES
Strategy Policy 2: Location of Development
Summary of Issues
- A number of developers contend that
the policy is not consistent with the sequential approach as set out in either PPG3 or the Examination
Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), including because in the Policy the sequence is applied to all
forms of development, brownfield land is not prioritised, priority locations are proposed rather than
a search sequence, and it is not clear whether the policy relates to site allocations or planning permissions.
- There should be a single policy for the whole of the
Plan area - i.e. Strategy Policy 2B and 2C should be combined. In general there is scope for the policy
to be simplified and clarified.
- A number of organisations,
including several developers state that the policy should make reference to transport corridors/rail
stations and/or new settlements.
- Concern was expressed,
including by some district councils, about the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (CLPA), and the impact
it will have on development patterns within the Plan area. GOEM argues that the priority to be given
to the CLPA should be indicated, and that the CLPA should have a related policy.
- It
is argued that the policy should acknowledge the role of rural centre locations and be clearer about
the applicability of the policy to village developments. In particular it is suggested that the relationship
between 2B and 2D is not clear and/or that they conflict with each other, and that 2Be and 2D should
be more closely linked or merged.
- Several respondents,
including some district councils, consider that the Plan should not identify Rural Centres (as is done
in the Explanatory Memorandum in paragraph 2.28) and that this should be a matter for local plans.
- The listing of locations on the edge of Stamford as a priority location for development in Strategy Policy 2C, following sites within Oakham and Uppingham, is an issue for some respondents. The Government Office for the East Midlands GOEM, objected to the Policy on the grounds that reference to development on the edge of Stamford is premature and should be deleted. An objection was also made by Planning Consultants that Stamford should not help meet Rutland’s housing needs and that development should be directed to locations within or on the periphery of its own towns, largely Oakham. Two expressions of support were received for the consideration of development in Rutland on the edge of Stamford.
Reasoned Response
- Accepted. It is accepted that the
policy should be redrafted to take into account the representations received and the advice in PPG3.
In addition the contents of the Examination Draft RPG and the recommendations of the RPG Panel Report
have been important considerations in the redrafting process. In redrafting the Policy particular attention
has been paid to making it clear that the policy applies to all forms of development (in line with the
recommendations of the RPG Panel), to integrating the approach to previously developed land within the
sequential approach, to clarify that the policy relates to the allocation of land, and to establish
a search sequence alongside appropriate locational criteria.
- Accepted.
The policy has been revised so that it applies to the whole of the Plan area, and has been simplified
to bring it closely into line with the sequential approach as set out in PPG3 and recommended in the
RPG Panel Report.
- Not accepted. It is not considered
that locating development in transport corridors will result in reducing the need to travel. Such corridors
have only a limited potential to encourage more sustainable alternatives to the car. The proposed new
Strategy Policy 3 does, however, give flexibility to allocate development in locations outside the Leicester
and Leicestershire Urban Area and the main towns which have good transport links to Leicester and/or
the main towns. With respect to new settlements it is not considered that the scale of growth proposed
in the Deposit Plan warrants the development of a new settlement.
- Accepted
in part. The purpose of the CLPA is to direct development to the existing built up areas of the Leicester
and Leicestershire Urban Area, to balance housing and employment within the CLPA, and to secure integration
between land use and transport policy objectives. The priority given to the CLPA is already clearly
expressed in the policies on housing and employment land provision. However, it is recognised
that the
CLPA approach is central to the overall strategy and should be reflected in a specific CLPA policy.
The proposed new Strategy Policy 2 fulfils this role.
- Accepted.
The redrafted sequential approach policy integrates consideration of development in rural centres and
other rural settlements within the sequential approach policy as a whole.
- Not
Accepted. The list of rural centres provided in paragraph 2.28 is not a definitive list. It is based
on research carried out to determine which settlements fulfil the requirements of Rural Centres. It
is accepted that Rural Centres will be identified in Local Plans, and indeed the Explanatory Memorandum
acknowledges that the list in paragraph 2.28 may be changed through the Local Plan preparation process.
- Not Accepted. Paragraph 2.25, to which the identification of locations on the edge of Stamford as a priority location for development in Strategy Policy 2C, is cross referred, proposes that subject to the agreement of the adjacent authorities, a joint study be undertaken to determine whether any such development potential exists. It is clear that any development on the edge of Stamford, within Rutland, would be subject to the findings of the study.
This
approach to development potential on the edge of Stamford, within Rutland, has been supported by the
Local Planning Authority for some time. It is considered that the reference should be maintained to
reflect possibility, depending on the findings of a joint study, that land on the edge of Stamford,
within Rutland, may provide some potential for development in a relatively sustainable location, subject
to proper regard being given to safeguarding the environment of Stamford and the surrounding area. To
delete any such Policy reference could result in the consideration of any potential being deferred until
the Plan is reviewed. While any development would be closely related to Stamford there is no reason
to suppose that development here should not contribute to meeting the housing needs of Rutland, just
as any other development in the locality could do. This was accepted by the Inspector presiding at the
Rutland Local Plan Inquiry in recommending the allocation of ‘Land off Belvoir Close in the Parish of
Little Casterton’ for residential development to help meet Rutland’s housing requirement.
Proposed Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change
It is proposed
that Strategy Policies 2 and 3 in the Deposit Plan be deleted and replaced by the new Strategy Policies
2 and 3 set out below.
Deposit Plan Policy
2A: The Role of Urban Areas
The
urban areas centred on Leicester and adjoining settlements and the main towns of Ashby, Coalville, Hinckley
and Earl Shilton, Loughborough, Lutterworth, Market Harborough, Melton Mowbray, and Shepshed will be
the main urban areas for housing, employment, services and leisure. The vast majority of development
will be directed to locations within and adjoining these urban areas in accordance with Strategy Policy
2B.
Within Rutland, the majority of development will be directed to Oakham,
Uppingham and the edge of Stamford*.
2B: The Priority Locations for Development
within Leicestershire and Leicester Development will be allocated according to the following list which
is set out in priority order:
a) within or adjoining the central area of Leicester City and within or adjoining other town centres of the main towns;
b) other town centres within Leicester and its adjoining settlements;
c) other locations within the urban areas of Leicester and its adjoining settlements and the main towns where there are good public transport, walking and cycling links with central areas and other more local centres;
d) locations which adjoin the urban areas of Leicester and its adjoining settlements and the main towns where there are good public transport, walking and cycling links with central areas and other more local centres; and
e) if required to meet any remaining development requirements, locations within and adjoining other settlements where there are good public transport links to Leicester City and/or the main towns.
a) within or adjoining the central area of Leicester City and within or adjoining other town centres of the main towns;
b) other town centres within Leicester and its adjoining settlements;
c) other locations within the urban areas of Leicester and its adjoining settlements and the main towns where there are good public transport, walking and cycling links with central areas and other more local centres;
d) locations which adjoin the urban areas of Leicester and its adjoining settlements and the main towns where there are good public transport, walking and cycling links with central areas and other more local centres; and
e) if required to meet any remaining development requirements, locations within and adjoining other settlements where there are good public transport links to Leicester City and/or the main towns.
Development in locations defined d) and e) above will only
be permitted provided commercial public transport services to defined standards are secured.
2C:
The Priority Locations for Development in Rutland
The priority for development
in Rutland is as follows: Within Oakham and Uppingham, followed by locations on the edge of Oakham,
Uppingham and Stamford, where there are good public transport, walking and cycling links with the town
centres*. 2D: Development in Rural Centres and Other Settlements in Leicestershire and Rutland Within
and adjoining rural centres, development of an appropriate scale, size, form and character will be allocated
to support their role as centres for services and employment. Within and adjoining other rural settlements,
proposals for small scale development to meet local needs will be allocated provided they are in keeping
with the size, form and character of the village.
Strategy
Policy
2: Central Leicestershire Policy Area
in
order to:
- direct development to the existing built up areas of the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban Area;
- balance housing and employment development within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area; and
- secure integration between land use and transport policy objectives
provision
will be made within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (CLPA) for 28,750 dwellings and for 376 hectares
of employment land for the period 1996-2016.
Strategy
Policy 3: The Sequential Approach to the Allocation of Land
3A:
Priority Locations for Development
Locations for development
will be considered in the following priority order:
a.
within
or adjoining the central area of Leicester and the town centres of the Main Towns (Ashby, Coalville,
Hinckley/Earl Shilton, Loughborough, Lutterworth, Market Harborough, Melton Mowbray, Shepshed, Oakham
and Uppingham);
b. within or adjoining
other
town centres in the Central Leicestershire Policy Area (Blaby, Beaumont Leys, Hamilton, Oadby and Wigston);
c. within the Leicester and Leicestershire Urban
Area
and the Main Towns;
d. adjoining
the Leicester
and Leicestershire Urban Area, the Main Towns and Stamford on land within Rutland *;
e.
within
and adjoining other settlements within the Central Leicestershire Policy Area;
f.
within
and adjoining other settlements outside the Central Leicestershire Policy Area; and
g.
exceptionally,
in the Countryside, provided for in Strategy Policy 9.
*
see paragraph 2.25 3B: Assessing the Suitability of Land
In
considering land within the context of Policy 3A above priority will be given to:
i.
the
use of previously developed sites and vacant or under-used buildings which will be developed to their
full potential; and
ii. the use
of sites accessible
by non-car modes, or where there is potential to improve such accessibility. In categories c) and d)
of Policy 3A sites should only be allocated where good walking, cycling and public transport links with
central areas and other more local centres exist or will be provided. In categories e) and f) of Policy
3A sites should only be allocated where good public transport links to Leicester City and/or the main
towns exist or will be provided.
iii. development
which contributes to strengthening local communities, supporting local services and meeting local needs.
Within and adjoining rural centres development of an appropriate scale, size, form and character will
be allocated where this supports their roles as centres for services and employment. Within and adjoining
other rural settlements, proposals for small scale development to meet local needs will be allocated
where this is in keeping with the size, form and character of the settlement.
Account
will also be taken of:
- the need
to achieve
the most sustainable pattern of development by ensuring a concentration within and adjoining urban areas,
with the aspiration that these areas will accommodate at least 80% of built development;
- the
capacity of existing infrastructure, including public transport, utilities and social infrastructure
to absorb further development, and the potential to improve infrastructure capacity;
- physical
constraints on the development of land, including, for example, the level of contamination, stability
and flood risk;
- the
impact that
development will have on natural resources and cultural assets;
- the
cost of development, the economic viability of sites and the likely availability of resources (both
public and private) to bring forward sites and buildings for development; and
- the need to achieve a balance of mixed uses and the suitability of sites for mixed use development.
List
of Respondents
Andrew Granger and Co Ltd, Andrew Thomas Planning, Arlington
Securities PLC, Ashby de la Zouch Town Council, Bellway Estates, Birch Homes, Birstall Parish Council,
Bitteswell Parish Council, Blaby District Council, Blackfordby & Boothorpe Action Group, British
Waterways (Southern Region), Burbage Matters!, Burton & Dalby Parish Council, Charnwood BC, Clawson,
Hose & Harby Parish Council, Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd, CPRE Charnwood, CW Clowes and Birch,
David Wilson Estates Ltd & Wilson Bowden Devts, Development Land & Planning Consultants Ltd,
Donington Park Estates Ltd, Ensor Holdings plc, Environment Agency, Gazeley Properties Ltd, George Wimpey
Strategic Land Management, Glenfield Parish Council, Government Office for the East Midlands, Great
Glen Parish Council, Hallam Land Management, Harborough District Council, Hepworth Properties Ltd, Hinckley
& Bosworth Borough Council, JS Bloor Ltd, Julie Price & Co, Kibworth Harcourt Parish Council,
House Builders Federation, Leicester Civic Society, Leicestershire Institute of Directors, Long Whatton
& Diseworth Parish Council, Lutterworth Town Council, Market Harborough Civic Society, McDyre &
Co, Melton Borough Council, Melton Mowbray & District Civic Society, National Farmers Union, NHS
Executive Trent Regional Office, Northamptonshire County Council, North West Leicestershire District
Council, North West Leicestershire District Council, Oadby & Wigston Borough Council, Old Road Securities,
Parkers of Leicester Ltd, Persimmon Homes North Midland Ltd, Peterborough City Council, Quorn Parish
Council, Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd, Rothley Parish Council, Samuel Rose Ltd, Severn Trent Water, Shackerstone
Residents Association, Six Hills Farm and Leisure Centre, Society for the Protection of Rutland, Society
for the Protection of Rutland, South Derbyshire District Council, South Derbyshire District Council,
South Kesteven District Council, Stop The Enderby Power Station Campaign (STEPS), The Burghley House
Preservation Trust Ltd, The Countryside Agency, The Society of Merchant Venturers, Transport 2000, Viridor
Waste Management Ltd, Walker Morris, Welland Land, Westbury Homes Ltd, Westleigh Developments Ltd, Wheatcroft
& Son Ltd, Wilcon Development Group, Wilcon Homes (Northern), William Davis Ltd, Williamson &
Cliff and Newlandglebe Ltd, Wymeswold Parish Council
30 individual respondents
Strategy Policy 3: Re-use of Brownfield Sites
Summary
of Issues
- Main concern from developers and Blackfordby
Action
Group is that the policy and supporting text do not accord with PPG3 in that not all brownfield sites
are in sustainable locations thereby creating a conflict with Strategy Policy 2b.
- Targets
for recycling land should be included.
- Final paragraph
requiring new development
to address existing deficiencies in open space is contrary to Circular 1/97.
- "Brownfield sites" is no longer the accepted term. The Plan should use the term "previously developed land" as defined in Annex C of PPG3.
Reasoned
Response
- Accepted. It is proposed to replace Strategy
Policies
2 and 3 with a new Strategy Policy 3 on the sequential approach to the allocation of land, which will
give priority to the re-use of previously developed land and buildings in sustainable locations.
- Accepted.
The Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) Panel Report recommends the inclusion of land recycling targets
for new housing in structure plans. The principle of such targets is accepted and it is intended to
carry out further work to include appropriate targets in the Plan.
- Accepted.
Existing
Policy 3 will be deleted. The issue of open space deficiencies is addressed by Environment Policy 2.
- Accepted. The PPG3 definition of ‘previously developed land’ will be included in the glossary. This change will be made to the Explanatory Memorandum after the Examination-in-Public.
Proposed
Policy Action
Pre-EIP
Change Delete Strategy Policy 3. See response to Strategy Policy 2
Deposit
Plan Policy
In
considering the locations of new development in accordance with Strategy Policies 2 and 9, priority
will be given to the re-use of brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites. Brownfield sites
will be developed to their full potential.
When re-using land and buildings
opportunities will be taken to create open space, particularly in urban areas identified as being deficient
in open space.
List
of Respondents
Andrew Granger and Co Ltd, Ashby de la Zouch Town Council, Bellway Estates,
Birch Homes, Bitteswell Parish Council, Blaby District Council, Blackfordby & Boothorpe Action Group,
Burbage Matters, Burton & Dalby Parish Council, Carlton Parish Council, CPRE Charnwood, CPRE NW
Leicestershire, David Wilson Estates & Wilson Bowden Developments, Defence Estates (East), English
Heritage, Ensor Holdings Plc, Environment Agency, Hallam Land Management, Harborough District Council,
House Builders Federation, Invensys Plc, JGK Environmental Consultancy, JS Bloor Ltd, Kings Lynn Agricultural
Services Ltd, Leicestershire Institute of Directors, Leicestershire & Rutland Federation of Women’s
Institutes, Newton Linford Parish Council, Oadby & Wigston Borough Council, Quorn Parish Council,
Parkers of Leicester Ltd, Persimmon Homes (North Midland) Ltd, Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd, Rothley
Parish Council, Sileby Parish Council, Society for the Protection of Rutland, Sport England, The Countryside
Agency, The National Farmers Union, The National Forest Company, Viridor Waste Management, Wilcon Development
Group, Wilcon Homes (Northern) Ltd, Wilcon Homes Ltd, William Davis Ltd, Williamson & Cliff and
Newlandglebe Ltd, Wymeswold Parish Council
21 individual respondents
Strategy Policy 8: Separation of Settlements
Summary
of Issues
- Developers and the Countryside Agency
considered the
policy to be too restrictive and contrary to PPG3 and the sequential approach. The policy implies that
any reduction in the distance between settlements is unacceptable and does not accord with Government's
new approach to considering development in locations adjoining settlements. Clarification over definitions
is required. There is a need for further emphasis that the policy applies to land which is not a green
wedge and which cannot be properly designated as countryside and to no other areas. Application of this
policy should not prohibit achieving the aims of Strategy Policy 2B. Policy would prevent any development
on land between existing settlements. A definition as to the types of areas to which the policy will
apply is required. The reference to only applying in exceptional circumstances in the text does not
appear in the policy.
- Developers argued that there
is no support in government guidance
for the sub division of land outside urban areas into other categories. All land beyond existing and
planned settlements should be designated as countryside.
- Developers
argued that
the policy is not appropriate for a strategic plan and should be deleted.
- The policy needs to take into account the effects on the character of the areas separated.
Reasoned
Response
- Accepted in part. The policy is not intended
to be
applied in a blanket fashion - rather it will be applied in exceptional circumstances in small areas
by district councils in local plans. The policy sets the strategic context for this. All the policies
in the Plan should be read together. Other policies in the Plan allow for development in locations where
it will help to meet sustainable development objectives. The policy is not in conflict with PPG3 or
the sequential approach because it would not preclude the extension of urban areas in appropriate locations
and circumstances. It is accepted that the exceptional circumstances in which the policy will be applied
need to be made clearer in the policy. Also, consideration will be given to adding more guidance to
the Explanatory Memorandum regarding the objectives and use of the policy.
- Not
accepted.
The Separation of Settlements Policy is an established policy which has been working effectively in
the adopted Structure Plan. It serves a different purpose to Countryside designations. The policy is
intended to be used in exceptional circumstances to prevent the coalescence of settlements and to maintain
important views between settlements when the area may be too small or too urban in nature to justify
Countryside designation. Consideration will be given to adding more guidance to the Explanatory Memorandum
regarding the objectives and use of the policy.
- Not
accepted. It is considered that
the Structure Plan should set the strategic context for the designation of Areas of Separation in local
plans.
- Accepted. Clearer guidance is required in the Explanatory Memorandum regarding the objectives and use of the Separation of Settlements Policy, including their function of preventing the coalescence of settlements and maintaining important views between settlements.
Proposed
Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change
Strategy
Policy 8: Separation of Settlements
In areas to locations
which fulfil an important role in the
separation of settlements, but where
Green Wedge policies do not apply and which where the area
cannot be properly designated as countryside, development will only be appropriate where it would not
result in a reduction in the separation between the built up area of settlements.
List
of Respondents
Andrew Thomas Planning, Ashby de la Zouch Town Council,
Birch Homes, CPRE Charnwood, CPRE NWLeics, David Wilson Estates Ltd & Wilson Bowden Devts, Development
Land & Planning Consultants Ltd, George Wimpey Strategic Land Management, Government Office for
the East Midlands, Hallam Land Management, House Builders Federation, Julie Price & Co, King's Lynn
Agricultural Services Ltd, NHS Executive Trent Regional Office, Persimmon Homes North Midland Ltd, Redrow
Homes (Midlands) Ltd, Stop The Enderby Power Station Campaign (STEPS), The Countryside Agency, William
Davis Ltd.
Strategy
Policy 9 – Development in the Countryside
Summary
of Issues
- A landscape character approach should
be adopted in
relation to development in the Countryside based on nationally defined maps and areas defined on the
Key Diagram.
- Areas of Local Landscape Value and Local
Landscape Improvement Areas
should be deleted as they are not justified by a landscape character assessment and are contrary to
PPG7.
- Local designations will unduly restrict all new
development, particularly
residential, rural economy interests and sites for sport.
- A
review of existing Areas
of Local Landscape Value is needed and should be made explicit in the policy.
- Areas
of Local Landscape Value and Local landscape Improvement Areas can apply equally in Green Wedges or
and Areas of Separation.
- Inappropriate to state that
"the countryside will
be protected for its own sake".
- Development which
enhances the appearance of
the countryside should be encouraged.
- The words "no
adverse effect" in
the policy would rule out almost all development in the countryside.
- The
wording
of the policy implies acceptable uses in the countryside will only be through the re-use of existing
buildings.
- Re-use for existing buildings should include
residential.
- Fails
to allow for farm diversification to create a healthy rural economy.
- Fails
to allow
appropriate minerals and waste development in the countryside.
- Fails
to allow for
expansion of existing employment premises.
- Individual houses of exceptional quality should be referred to, as allowed for by PPG7.
Reasoned
Response
- Not accepted. Areas of Local Landscape
Value and Local
Landscape Improvement Areas (ALLVs and LLIAs) are not defined on the Key Diagram as it is intended that
these will be defined in local plans based on local assessments of the quality of the countryside. However,
the revised policy does require that the appearance and character of the landscape should be safeguarded
and/or enhanced.
- Not accepted. PPG7 does not preclude
local countryside designations
if they are justified and based upon a formal assessment of the qualities of the countryside. Consideration
will be made to amending the Explanatory Memorandum to indicate that such assessments should be carried
out as part of the local plan process.
- Not accepted.
It is intended that ALLVs and
LLIAs will only restrict new development to the extent necessary to conserve, restore or enhance the
character of the landscape. The circumstances in which such areas should identified in local plans are
set out in paragraph 2.71 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
- Accepted
in part. It is
not considered necessary to amend the policy but consideration will be given to amending the Explanatory
Memorandum to indicate that a review of existing ALLVs and LLIAs should be carried out.
- Not
accepted. Green Wedges and Areas of Separation perform different functions to Countryside and to each
other and there should be no overlap between them.
- Not
accepted. The protection
of countryside "for its own sake" is consistent with guidance in PPG7.
- Accepted.
The revised policy also allows for development where the appearance of the Countryside and landscape
is to be enhanced.
-
Accepted. It is proposed that the words "no adverse effect"will be deleted. The revised policy
requires the general appearance of character of the landscape and
the Countryside to be safeguarded and/or enhanced.
- Accepted
in part. The revised
policy is reworded to make clear that existing buildings should be re-used wherever possible.
- Not
accepted. Residential re-use is not considered appropriate in the Countryside, except where essential
for agriculture or forestry. PPG7 indicates that similar strict control may apply to re-use as to new
housing in the open countryside.
- Not accepted. The
revised policy allows for farm
diversification by specifying that small scale development for employment or leisure and land extensive
outdoor recreation uses are appropriate uses in the Countryside.
- Accepted.
The revised
policy allows for minerals extraction and waste management development in appropriate circumstances.
- Not accepted. The revised policy allows for expansion
of existing employment premises
by providing for small scale development for employment.
- Not accepted. A reference to individual houses of exceptional quality is not considered necessary. PPG7 makes clear that isolated new houses in the countryside will require special and exceptional justification.
Proposed
Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change
Strategy
Policy 9: Development in the Countryside
Land beyond the
existing and planned limits to the built up area of settlements, and
outside land defined as which
is not land comprising a green wedge or an
areas of separation will be designated as Countryside.
In
addition, Countryside of local importance may be designated as Areas of Local Landscape Value, and land
in the Countryside which is degraded or unattractive may be designated as Local Landscape Improvement
Areas. Within Local Landscape Improvement Areas, additional measures will be taken to enhance the landscape.
The Countryside will be protected for its own sake. Development
in the Countryside will only be acceptable if it has
no adverse effect on the general
appearance and character of the landscape and
the countryside is to be safeguarded and/or enhanced. Built
development should be well integrated in relation to existing development and designed sympathetically
to fit into the local surroundings.
Development
will be limited to the following uses which
are most appropriate in the countryside comprising:
limited small scale development for employment, leisure, forestry, agriculture (including dwellings essential for agricultural and forestry needs) or renewable energy installations;- small scale development for employment or leisure;
- dwellings essential for agricultural or forestry needs;
- land extensive outdoor recreation uses that do not include substantial built development; and
- agricultural or forestry buildings.
In
addition, the following uses could be accommodated if they cannot be satisfactorily located within the
existing and planned limits to the built up area of settlements; it can be demonstrated that there is
an overriding need for the development; that there is an overriding need for the development to be located
in the countryside; and appropriate works of mitigation are to be undertaken:
Buildings
in the Countryside should be well integrated in relation to existing buildings and designed sympathetically
to fit into the local surroundings.
e)
telecommunications installations;
f) renewable energy installations;
g) minerals extraction and waste management development; and
h) transport infrastructure.
f) renewable energy installations;
g) minerals extraction and waste management development; and
h) transport infrastructure.
List
of Respondents
Andrew Granger and Co Ltd, Andrew Thomas Planning, Bellway
Estates, Bitteswell Parish Council, Blaby District Council, Carlton Parish Council, Charnwood Borough
Council, Countryside Agency, CPRE Charnwood, David Wilson Estates Ltd, Desford Village Appraisal Group,
Development Land & Planning Consultants Ltd, Donington Park Estates Ltd, Farming and Rural Conservation
Agency, Government Office for the East Midlands, Hallam Land Management, Harborough District Council,
Harborough District Council, House Builders Federation, Ibstock Property & Minerals Services, Long
Whatton & Diseworth Parish Council, Melton Mowbray & District Civic Society, National Farmers
Union, Newtown Linford Parish Council, Northamptonshire County Council, Old Road Securities, Redrow
Homes (Midlands) Ltd, RJB Mining Ltd, Six Hills Farm & Leisure Centre, Sport England, Stop the Enderby
Power Station Campaign (STEPS), The National Forest Company, Viridor Waste Management Ltd, Walker Morris,
Wheatcroft & Son Ltd, Westbury Homes Ltd, Wilcon Development Group, William Davis Ltd, Wilson Bowden
Developments, WINGS, Wymeswold Parish Council.
3 individual respondents
Strategy Policy 17: Junction 23A/24/24A Area
Summary
of Issues
- Local councils and local people object to further B1/B2 prestige employment development around J23A/24/24A because:
- there is no evidence of demand or proven need for such development;
- there have already been generous employment land allocations and developments in this location;
- it is not a sustainable location for development;
- it would have an adverse impact on local settlements and the quality of life of local people;
- the infrastructure/road network is already gridlocked;
- extensive areas of best and most versatile agricultural land/countryside will be lost.
Developers who support the
policy
in principle object to the criteria of the policy. It is considered that a number of the criteria:
- repeat processes which already have to be undertaken;
- are unachievable and unenforceable;
- do not comply with Circulars 11/95 and 1/97 in terms of (b), (c) and paragraph 2.106 reference to cross subsidy.
They also consider that there is a
need
for housing development close to the proposal commensurate with growth of Airport, related activities
and a prestige B1 business park and the definition of urban areas should include other settlements.
A number of developers also argue that there is inadequate justification for the exclusion of B8 development
in Junction 23A/24/24A area, particularly because of the proximity to East Midlands Airport which transports
freight. It is noted that any allocations without planning permission are not commitments and so the
presumption against B8 would rule out regional storage and distribution facility advocated in the adopted
Structure Plan. The policy advocates allowance of additional prestigious employment site without making
it a requirement of Plan, thus delegating strategic issues to the local plan level.
Reasoned
Response
- Strategy Policy 17 was developed in tandem with the policy in RPG and allows for development of a prestige employment site subject to a number of criteria being met. Given the Panel's recommendations and subject to the Secretary of State’s Proposed Modifications it is considered appropriate to revert to the more restrictive Consultation Draft Structure Plan policy.
Proposed
Policy Action
Pre-EIP
change.
Beyond
the boundaries of the Airport around M1 motorway junctions 23A/24/24A land for an additional B1 and
B2 prestige employment site should be considered if:
I) the future operational
development of East Midlands Airport is not prejudiced;
II) the regeneration of urban areas is not detrimentally affected, and where feasible could benefit from the development;
III) adverse impacts on sustainable development objectives are kept to a minimum.
II) the regeneration of urban areas is not detrimentally affected, and where feasible could benefit from the development;
III) adverse impacts on sustainable development objectives are kept to a minimum.
In
addition, it will be ensured that:
a) increased traffic generated by the development,
together with that arising from other proposed and committed development in the vicinity, does not adversely
affect local communities or undermine the contributions made by the road network to the regional and
local economies, and that any necessary travel demand and mitigation measures are satisfactory;
b) the development is accessible by public transport and that at least 20% of employees travel to work by public transport;
c) appropriate measures are in place to restrict development (both initially and in the future) to that which would not otherwise have come to the region;
d) in consultation with local communities the cumulative impact of development on those communities is assessed and measures to ameliorate detrimental impacts identified;
e) any additional housing requirements arising from additional employment development are met within and adjoining existing main urban areas in the travel to work area of the Airport; and
f) specific proposals are subject to a sustainability assessment and any environmental impacts are minimised to the satisfaction of local planning authorities.
b) the development is accessible by public transport and that at least 20% of employees travel to work by public transport;
c) appropriate measures are in place to restrict development (both initially and in the future) to that which would not otherwise have come to the region;
d) in consultation with local communities the cumulative impact of development on those communities is assessed and measures to ameliorate detrimental impacts identified;
e) any additional housing requirements arising from additional employment development are met within and adjoining existing main urban areas in the travel to work area of the Airport; and
f) specific proposals are subject to a sustainability assessment and any environmental impacts are minimised to the satisfaction of local planning authorities.
Further B8 storage and distribution development
in this area in addition to existing commitments will not be permitted.
Strategy
Policy 17 – Junction 23A/24/24A Area
Beyond
the boundaries of the airport in the vicinity of Junction 23A/24/24A of the M1 further large concentrations
of employment development or other travel intensive uses will not be acceptable.
List
of Respondents
Andrew Granger and Co Ltd, Arlington Securities PLC,
Birch Homes, Blaby District Council, Blue Circle Industries PLC, Breedon on the Hill Parish Council,
Carlton Parish Council, Castle Donington Parish Council, CPRE Charnwood, CPRE N W Leics, CW Clowes and
Birch, David Wilson Estates Ltd & Wilson Bowden Devts, Derbyshire County Council, Development Land
& Planning Consultants Ltd, Donington Park Estates Ltd, English Heritage, Erewash Borough Council,
Farming & Rural Conservation Agency, Forestry Commission, General Aviation Awareness Council, Government
Office for the East Midlands, Hallam Land Management Ltd, House Builders Federation, Julie Price &
Co, Leicestershire Institute of Directors, Long Whatton & Diseworth Parish Council, Loughborough
University, North West Leicestershire District Council, Northamptonshire County Council, Nottingham
City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Penwise Properties Limited, People Against Intrusive Noise
(PAIN), Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd, South Derbyshire District Council, Transport 2000, Westbury Homes
Ltd, Westleigh Developments Ltd, William Davis Ltd, WINGS, Wymeswold Parish Council
4
individual respondents
Strategy
Policy 18: Green Belts
Summary
of Issues
- The following land uses should be included
as acceptable
in the Green Belt - more farm diversification activities, waste disposal and appropriate buildings that
could be used for agricultural residential use.
- The
proposed limits of the outer
boundary to a position north of the A453 will not produce a Green Belt boundary that is continuous with
the adjoining counties.
- Developers considered that there is no need to extend the Nottingham and Derby Green Belt into Leicestershire. Other planning tools can be used to control development and land subject to the proposed designation lies within the floodplain and in the Countryside. Neither the existing or draft regional guidance make any reference to the need to extend the Green Belt into Leicestershire and the Baker Report concluded that no additions be made to the area covered by the Green Belt. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify such an extension. PPG2 points out that changes should only be made in exceptional circumstances. The policy is superfluous.
- Object
as it could result in added pressure to develop south of A453.
- Policy
should be
in strict accordance to PPG2 especially in terms of acceptable uses and reference to "undeveloped
character".
- The Plan should positively promote a comprehensive review of the Nottingham Green Belt.
Reasoned
Response
- Not accepted. Specific uses acceptable
in the Green
Belt are identified in PPG2.
- Accepted. Consideration
will be given to amending the
Green Belt boundary on the Key Diagram to ensure that it is continuous with that of adjoining counties.
- Not accepted. PPG2 states that green belts should be
several miles wide to ensure
an appreciable open zone all around the built up area concerned. To maintain this suggested width of
Green Belt to the south of the Nottingham urban area it is necessary to extend it into Leicestershire.
Therefore the policy is not superfluous. There is nothing to say that Green Belt cannot also be flood
plain - indeed it often is.
- Not accepted. The boundary
of the Green Belt will be
revised to ensure that it is continuous with that of adjoining counties and therefore land to the south
of the A453 will be included as Green Belt.
- Accepted
in part. Some rewording of
the policy is required to bring it more in line with PPG2.
- Not accepted. It is not for the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan to promote such a review. It would be a matter for the county in question or Regional Planning Guidance.
Proposed
Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change
Strategy
Policy 18: Green Belt
Only the following land uses will be acceptable in the green belt:
a) agriculture, forestry and mineral extraction;
b) outdoor recreational uses; and
c) re-use of rural buildings for employment and tourism.
a) agriculture, forestry and mineral extraction;
b) outdoor recreational uses; and
c) re-use of rural buildings for employment and tourism.
Development will only
be acceptable provided it is located and designed so as not to adversely affect the open and undeveloped
character of the green belt.
Green
Belt will
be designated to include land lying to the south of the River Trent. The detailed boundary should follow
clear physical boundaries and be continuous with the Nottingham and Derby Green Belt established in
adjoining counties.
Within the Green
Belt land should remain open in order to fulfil Green Belt purposes. Only appropriate development, located
and designed so as not to compromise the open character of the Green Belt will be permitted.
List
of Respondents
Andrew Granger and Co Ltd, Arlington Securities PLC,
Birch Homes, Blue Circle Industries PLC, British Waterways, David Wilson Estates Ltd & Wilson Bowden
Devts, Derbyshire County Council, Development Land & Planning Consultants Ltd, Government Office
for the East Midlands, Hallam Land Management, House Builders Federation, Ibstock Property and Minerals
Services, Jelson Ltd, Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd, Long Whatton & Diseworth Parish Council, National
Farmers Union, Nottinghamshire County Council, Old Road Securities, Viridor Waste Management Ltd, Westbury
Homes Ltd, Wymeswold Parish Council
1 individual respondent
New Policy: Strategic River Corridors
Summary
of Issues
- The Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) Panel Report states that the strategy needs to adopt a stronger spatial expression in dealing with biodiversity matters. River floodplains are identified in the Report as a key wildlife resource of the Region (covering 20% of the East Midlands) requiring a strategic approach to protect and enhance their value. The need for inter-regional co-operation to identify strategic river corridors is emphasised. The Panel put forward the following policy for inclusion in the RPG:
"Development
plan policies and environmental strategies should seek to protect and enhance the nature conservation
value of the strategic river corridors of the Nene, Trent, Welland and Witham and their tributaries.
Actions by local authorities, English Nature, the Environment Agency, English Heritage and other agencies,
developers and landowners should be co-ordinated to maintain and enhance the ecological and landscape
value of the river corridors and optimise access to them for leisure and recreation. In pursuing these
objectives, actions requiring co-ordination with plans and strategies in adjoining counties and regions
should be identified and arrangements for effective co-operation put in place."
In their response to GOEM on the Panel Report, the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association (EMRLGA) agreed with the inclusion of this policy. The identification of the corridors to be shown on the Key Diagram is yet to be confirmed although it is apparent that it will include rivers within and bordering the Structure Plan area.
In their response to GOEM on the Panel Report, the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association (EMRLGA) agreed with the inclusion of this policy. The identification of the corridors to be shown on the Key Diagram is yet to be confirmed although it is apparent that it will include rivers within and bordering the Structure Plan area.
Reasoned
Response
- Accepted. The policy put forward by the Panel makes quite clear that development plans have a key role to play in the management of strategic river corridors. It is therefore important that the Structure Plan provides a strategic lead on this. A policy on strategic river corridors will also complement the objectives of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) which identifies Floodplain Wetlands as a ‘priority habitat’. Nature Conservation Officers from the City and County Councils are preparing a map that identifies key corridors within the Plan Area adding a spatial dimension to the BAP which would supplement a new policy. The regional work on identifying the key river corridors will feed into this.
Proposed
Policy Action
Pre-EIP Change
Strategy
Policy 19: Strategic River Corridors
The strategic importance
for flood relief and biodiversity of the Rivers Soar, Trent, Welland [list to be confirmed] and their
floodplains will be recognised. Measures will be taken along these corridors, through development control
and implementation programmes, to protect and enhance:
(a) their capacity to function as floodplains;
(b) their linear continuity in the interests of biodiversity; and
(c) the form, local character and distinctiveness of the natural and built environment.
(a) their capacity to function as floodplains;
(b) their linear continuity in the interests of biodiversity; and
(c) the form, local character and distinctiveness of the natural and built environment.
Opportunities
for access, recreation and tourism will be encouraged along these corridors where they do not have an
unacceptable affect on the above interests.
List
of Respondents
Not relevant
Page Last Updated: 1 May 2003
