Item 6.1

North Somerset Council

REPORT TO THE Planning and Economic Development Policy & Scrutiny Panel

Date of Meeting: 30th October 2006

Subject of Report: North Somerset Replacement Local Plan

Town or parish: All

Officer/Member presenting: John Crockford-Hawley

Key Decision: No

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Members note this report and the attached summary of representations and proposed responses, with any comments forwarded for consideration by Executive and Full Council at their respective meetings on 7^th November 2006.

(Please note that the Summary of Representations mentioned above is available for inspection as a schedule at the Council’s offices in; Somerset House, Oxford Street, Weston-super-Mare and, on the Council’s web-site)

1. Summary of Report

In accord with the Council decision of 6^th June (Council Minute 58) the approved Proposed Modifications to the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (NSRLP) were placed on deposit for public consultation for a period of six weeks commencing 15^th June 2006. The proposed amendments to the 2^nd Deposit Draft version of the NSRLP arose from consideration of the Inspectors Final Report following the Public Inquiry held during summer 2005 and the Council’s response to it.

The Inspector’s report considered the Council’s plans for managing all future development, ranging from housing to employment in the North Somerset area and amendments to the extent of the Green Belt. Overall, the Inspector’s report supported the Council’s key plans and approach for future development including: supporting the Council’s approach to the number of future homes to be built in the area up to 2011, supporting the employment led regeneration strategy for Weston-super-Mare and the retention of the Green Belt, with the exception of changes at Bristol International Airport and Royal Portbury Dock.  The Proposed Modifications broadly endorsed the Inspector’s recommendations but with some amendments, proposed and agreed by the Council, in respect of the better land-use planning of the Authority. The Council is empowered to make such changes as the Inspector’s report is non-binding on the Council. At this stage in the plan production consultation process, representations can only be made on the Proposed Modifications themselves or those recommendations in the Inspectors Final Report that the Council has decided not to accept in full or in part.

Following the latest consultation on the NSRLP, it is now time for the Council to decide whether in the light of the responses received to the June 2006 Proposed Modifications, it wishes to proceed with the Plan in this form to adoption.

Executive and Full Council will be considering a report on 7^th November 2006 with a recommendation that the formal process of adoption is commenced. SPED Members are asked to note this report and the attached summary of responses received and recommendations made.

2. Policy

The Replacement Local Plan, when adopted, will replace the currently adopted North Somerset Local Plan (2000).  The Replacement Local Plan will then comprise the local part of the development plan for North Somerset. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; require that decisions on planning applications be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Plan therefore performs an important statutory function as the basis for co-ordinating and directing public and private development and the use of land, giving certainty to the way planning decisions are made.

The North Somerset Replacement Local Plan delivers all six corporate aims and its preparation has reflected the “One Council” approach. This has involved extensive consultation, joint officer working on key issues, cross-cutting with other key council strategies and plans, making connections with the Community Strategy and working in partnership with other agencies and bodies. Briefing sessions have been held at various stages during the production of the Replacement Local Plan with Members, including consideration of objections by the Strategic Planning & Economic Development (SP&ED) Scrutiny Panel. 

3. Details

Context

The NSRLP is being prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan)(England) Regulations 1999. Following consideration of objections to the two Deposit drafts of the NSRLP published in 2002 and 2004, a Public Local Inquiry was held in 2005 to consider all objections that were not withdrawn. The Public Inquiry opened on 7^th June 2005 and was conducted by Mr Richard Poppleton, assisted by Mr Peter Robottom regarding BIA. In total there were some 4,835 representations. Inquiry sessions were held for 3 months (June, July and September), involved 30.5 sitting days and considered over 300 submissions by the Council and objectors to the Plan and its proposals. Following the formal close of the public local inquiry on 8^th November 2005, the council received the final inspector’s report on 23^rd March 2006, 4 months since its close. Once checked and issues clarified by officers, the inspector’s report was published and all objectors informed on 24^th April 2006.

Although there have been changes made to the way in which development plans will be produced in the future, through implementation of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Council has been allowed to continue with the production of an authority-wide local plan due to the advanced state of development of the document at the time of the coming into force of the new legislation. Under the transitional arrangements for plan production compiled by the (then) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, The Council was allowed to proceed with the production of the Replacement Local Plan under the original Regulations which include a Public Inquiry and a non-binding Inspectors Report. It is one of the last local planning authorities to be allowed to proceed in this way. All planning authorities that have had development plan Public Inquiries since the end of 2005 under either the original, or the new regulations, will be subject to a binding Inspectors Report. As a consequence of this, the Council has been able to use its discretion in respect of accepting or amending the Inspectors recommendations and testing these decisions through a further stage of public consultation.

The Council considered the recommendations contained in the Inspector’s Final Report and provided it’s response to it at it’s meeting on 6^th June 2006 and the decisions were placed on deposit for public comment for six weeks between 15^th June and 26^th July 2006. During that period a further 446 representations were received from 189 objectors of which 161 were new to the consultation process. Officers have summarised and analysed the representations received and made recommendations in response to the issues raised. These are included in the accompanying Schedule of Representations in Appendix 1. The remaining stages of the production of the Replacement Local Plan to adoption are set out in the table below.

Remaining stages	Key dates
SPED considers response to public consultation on Proposed Modifications	30^th October 2006
NSC considers response to public consultation on Proposed Modifications at Executive and Full Council meetings and considers recommendation to adopt the Replacement Local Plan.	7^th November 2006 Executive meeting 10:00 Full Council meeting 18:00
Notice of Intention to adopt the Plan incorporating 28 day notice period	November / December 2006
Adoption – Plan adopted	By 31^st December 2006 or 28 days from issuing the Notice of Adoption

Issues

As a consequence of the representations received to the Proposed Modifications, a number of key issues were identified. None of these are considered to be of a type where new matters have been identified as a result of the proposed modifications that were not considered as part of the Public Inquiry stage into the Replacement Local Plan held between 7^th June and 8^th November 2005 and dealt with through the Inspectors Final Report. This latter document provided the basis for the production of the Proposed Modifications. In terms of the quantum of representations received and/or challenges to the Council’s decisions, eleven issues have been identified as of particular significance. These are focused around the following locations;

· Royal Portbury Dock

· Bristol International Airport

· Former RAF Locking Camp

· Town Square, Weston-super-Mare

· Land at Laney’s Drove, Weston

· Havyatt Road Industrial Estate, Wrington

· St. Joseph’s RC School, Portishead

· Farleigh Hospital site

· Land at rear of 83 Claverham Road, Yatton

· Severn Paper Mill, Harbour Road, Portishead

· Oxford Instruments, North End, Yatton

· 117 High Street, Portishead

There were a number of detailed representations made by Central Government agencies on specific sites but these were primarily concerned with issues that would be addressed and resolved through the submission of planning applications.

Royal Portbury Dock

The proposal to remove land from the Green Belt and safeguard it for the future long-term development needs of the Port attracted a significant proportion of the overall number of representations received particularly from the residents in the settlements of Easton-in Gordano, Pill and Portbury. 144 respondants objected to the in-principle removal of Green Belt status from the land between the existing operational area of Royal Portbury Dock and the M.5 motorway to the south. A further 20 also objected to the proposal to permit an extension to the port operational area onto this land. A petition containing 818 names objecting to both these matters was submitted along with the representations of Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council. Of the quantum of representations received on this issue the following are of particular significance;

Parish Councils – Both Easton-in-Gordano and Portbury Parish Councils objected to the two modifications. Portishead reluctantly supported the Green Belt changes and the new Policy E/5A which provides the safeguarding of the affected land for long-term port related activities.

Government Office for the South West – Supported the proposed changes but suggested that the Council should critically review the alterations it made to the Green Belt boundary compared with those recommended by the Inspector.

Royal Portbury Dock – The dock company supported the changes but sought amendments to the western boundary from those proposed by the Inspector and the Council. It considered that the boundary should follow a continuous line following on southwards from the Elm Tree Park across the A.369 to the motorway so that it excluded the attenuation tanks for the M.5 from the potential extension to the port operational area and included it as part of the newly designated extension to the Green Belt.

Environment Agency – Reminded the Authority that the land was within a designated flood zone and that a Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out. It also pointed out the inclusion of the flood attenuation tanks within the proposed extension to the port and the fact that part of the land was designated as a Regional Wildlife Site. Many of the other matters raised were also more of a development control nature that would need to be addressed when formal proposals to use and develop the land were submitted as part of a planning application.

Highways Agency – Sought clarification on traffic matters particularly in relation to the transportation impact on the strategic highway network and access to and from it through Junction 19.

Other representations raised concern over matters such as the lack of community involvement in the decision making process when the proposal to allow the extension of the port operational area was considered, and the absence of justification as to the exceptional circumstances that warranted the removal of the land from the Green Belt. There appears to be a misunderstanding as to the opportunity for communities to become involved in the process. The proposals concerning the dock arose out of the Public Inquiry process and formed part of the Inspector’s recommendations. The Proposed Modifications represent the first opportunity for the public to comment on the findings of the independent Inspector and the Council’s response.

Concerns were also raised at the loss of a buffer between the port and the neighbouring settlements and, the impact of noise and light pollution once development of this land took place. Some objectors considered that more efforts should be made to screen the port operations from the neighbouring residential areas and the impact that future port activities would have on the local landscape and wildlife. The Inspector concluded that concerns regarding visual impact; “could be mitigated to some degree through the retention of some of the existing trees and additional structural planting (Chapter 7, para. 50.112). New Policy E/5A and its supporting text emphasise the need for; “satisfactory environmental safeguards” and “there being no significant demonstrable harm to the amenities of residents of Easton-in-Gordano, Portbury and Sheepway”.

It should be noted that in coming to his recommendations, the Inspector recognised that there was a need to protect the long-term coalescence of Portishead and the port operational area into one large urban area. This was identified and protected through the extension of the Green Belt between the two up to the coast. The Inspector was quite clear that he saw the extension of the Green Belt in this way as, long-term, providing a degree of permanence against the possibility of coalescence and not something that should be reversed at the earliest opportunity. He also acknowledged that in designating the land in this way that the future expansion options for the port were now restricted but that it would require further land to meet its longer term needs.

The Council had argued at the Public Inquiry that it did not think that allowing the port to be able to expand on the scale that the latter had proposed was necessary and that the company could continue to improve its operations through more efficient use of its existing landholdings. The Inspector neither supported the Council’s position on this matter nor that of the port company, whose preference was for the allocation of land at Sheepway Farm (land that was rejected on Appeal in 2004). The final outcome in his recommendation was effectively a compromise, which recognised the need to protect the open land between the port and Portishead, whilst providing an element of land for the former’s long-term expansion which would have the least impact on the local environment. The wording in the new Policy E/5A and its amended supporting text make specific reference to the need to safeguard the amenity and environment of the neighbouring residential areas from the impact of any port-related development on this land. These matters should be addressed in detail through the development control system when an application is submitted for the formal development and use of the land.

Whilst there is significant local concern at the implications of the proposals on the surrounding area as is demonstrated by the volume of objections received, it should be noted that the Inspector endorsed the principle that the port would need more land to accommodate its activities in the future. Proposing further amendments to the extent of the safeguarded land and Green Belt that would reduce the quantum of land from that currently proposed is likely to attract an in-principle objection from the port company. This would result in further delay to the adoption of the Replacement Local Plan and could result in a legal challenge in the High Court. This could potentially restrict our ability to confirm the Green Belt extension to the west, and re-open the debate about the future use of land at Sheepway Farm. It could also make development control decision making more difficult as the Officers concerned would be making recommendations based on policies in the existing adopted Local Plan. These are increasingly becoming out-of-date as the policy context in which they were drafted has changed.

In addition, the adopted Local Plan currently has only been saved under the transitional arrangements until 27^th September 2007. Representations would need to be made to Government Office in order to save the necessary policies from the adopted Local Plan beyond the September date. Justification for the retention of these policies and those that it was considered should not be saved beyond the three year limit would need to be submitted to GOSW before the end of March 2007.

Bristol International Airport

The airport operating company acknowledge the changes made to the Green Belt in removing the operational area from it. They continue to be concerned at the lack of opportunity to extend their activities outside of the operational area to meet their future expansion requirements without encroaching on to Green Belt and the restrictions on development that go with it. Until such time as the airport company make clear their longer term operational needs to 2026 and beyond, it would be unwise to make further adjustments to the Green Belt at this stage. This would be better undertaken as part of a general review of Green Belt provision within the Council’s boundaries and in conjunction with its neighbouring authorities. Such a proposal has been indicated in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy. At the local level, this would be more appropriately addressed through a development plan document (DPD) covering Green Belt issues to be produced under the new development plan system of the Local Development Framework that will supersede the Replacement Local Plan.

Former RAF Locking Camp, Weston

There have been a number of representations received concerning the location of the employment land allocation on this site, the type of uses that will be permitted on the land and, its proximity to existing residential areas. Some objectors seek to have the allocation moved further back on the site to include more of the land that previously had structures on it. The employment development proposed for the site is referred to in Policy E/1C and is confined to activities within the B1 Use Class, particularly research & development (B1b) and light industrial (B1c) but with consideration of employment generating businesses linked with educational facilities also an option. The nature of the B1 use class activities is that they must be suitable for locating within and adjoining residential areas without causing harm to the latter through production of sound, odour and other forms of pollution that would be harmful to the residents. Some representations questioned the loss of the current open landscape, natural features and wildlife habitats. It must be remembered that the whole of the site is designated as previously developed and therefore regarded as a priority for redevelopment ahead of Greenfield sites. Provision has been made in Policy E/1C and the relevant supporting text to ensure that the long-term overall development of the site is managed through production of a master-plan. This will provide the opportunity to identify the more important existing features that could be retained and necessary landscaping requirements between different types of development and land-use activities.

Town Square, Weston-super-Mare

Representations have been received concerning the failure of the Council to include the Inspector’s recommendation for the Town Square and Italian Gardens as part of the ‘area of search’ for future retail development in the town centre in the Proposed Modifications. Objectors have cited the recently published North Somerset Retail and Leisure Study as evidence of support for their representations as it states that the town centre area is in need of significant retail expansion up to 2021 in order to meet the anticipated future shopping demands and maintain its role and function as an important sub-regional shopping centre. The Council has made it clear through its identification of the town centre and seafront as a regeneration area through Policy E/1A that there could be a number of potential sites that could be considered as suitable for redevelopment for retail purposes within the area of search and it should not be confined to that which is, potentially, the easiest to develop.

Land at Laney’s Drove, Weston

Further representations have been received in respect of the identification of the land at Weston Business Park for employment use. Concerns have been expressed in relation to the Council’s decision not to allocate the land south and east of Laney’s Drove in line with the Inspector’s recommendation. The Council has made it clear that it does not regard this land as previously developed as it has not been actively used for some time. It also regards it as providing an important area of open land separating the development associated with the Weston urban area and the former airfield from the village character of Hutton.

Havyatt Road Industrial Estate, Wrington

Concerns have been expressed over the intention to move the settlement boundary and extend the extent of the employment land allocation at this industrial estate. Some local residents have expressed concerns over the impact of such development on the floodplain and flooding affecting other nearby properties. The need for further employment provision in the village has been questioned along with the increased traffic that will be generated by it and its impact on the character of the village. The land identified by the Council was specifically selected so that it was outside of the area designated as liable to flood based on the latest information available from the Environment Agency. The additional land allocation was in response to the successful take up and development of the existing sites particularly by local businesses.

St. Joseph’s RC School, Portishead

The Environment Agency has pointed out that the affected land is located within the floodplain. However, the school has now been built and the proposed modification is acknowledging the changed use of the land.

Farleigh Hospital site

An objection has been received in relation to the removal of the designation of the hospital as a Major Development Site in the Green Belt. The change has occurred in response to the fact that the development is now complete and therefore retention of the designation is no longer required as no further significant new development is expected to occur within the site.

Land at rear of 83 Claverham Road, Yatton

Yatton Parish Council have written in support of the Council’s decision not to follow the Inspector’s recommendation and adjust the settlement boundary.

Severn Paper Mill, Harbour Road, Portishead

A number of objections have been received, including from Portishead Town Council and the current owners of the site over the allocation of the land for employment and housing. The Town Council has objected to the in-principle allocation of further housing in the area and Gordano Council’s Transport Group are concerned about the impact of the traffic generated from the residential element on the town and the motorway junction. The owners have requested a change in the quantum of land allocated for each activity in favour of residential plus the opportunity to have a higher density of development on the site. The Environment Agency have noted that the site is within an area liable to flooding and therefore mitigation and alleviation measures may be sought if the development is implemented. The site constitutes previously developed land and is therefore a priority for redevelopment. In recognition of this and the desire to retain the existing occupiers of the business on the site, it was considered that a reduction in the amount of land allocated for employment plus the prospect of residential development to help fund the redevelopment of the employment activities offered the best long-term opportunities for the site that would otherwise eventually be abandoned and become derelict.

Oxford Instruments, North End, Yatton

The current owners of the site have made representations requesting a higher level of residential development on the site. The Council regard the density of development on the site as appropriate in the context of what can be achieved and in relation to the surrounding developments.

117 High Street, Portishead

Portishead Town Council has objected to the proposed allocation of this site for housing. Given its location within the town, its proximity to the social, community and employment facilities and the size of the site, the allocation is considered appropriate.

4. Consultation

The NSRLP is being prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999.  This requires full and open consultation on the changes proposed to the Plan at each of its production stages.  The Inspector’s report was published on the Council’s website on 24^th April.  The Proposed Modifications were considered and approved by Executive and Full Council at their respective meetings on 6^th June. The Proposed Modifications were placed on deposit for public comment from 15^th June for six weeks as required in the Regulations. All parties who objected to the Plan were written to, at this time, informing them of the availability of the Proposed Modifications and how to obtain copies of it and the Inspectors Report with which it is so closely linked.  Town and Parish Council’s were also informed.  Elected members were also informed and were sent a copy of the document. 

In order to adopt the Replacement Local Plan incorporating the Proposed Modifications the Council will have to;

· Publish a notice once in the London Gazette and for two successive weeks in at least one local newspaper, stating the date on which the plan will be adopted and the date when it will become operative

· Make copies of this notice, together with copies of the documents comprising the plan as adopted prior to publication of the final combined document and Proposals Map, and make them available for inspection at Somerset House (the ‘deposit place’) and in North Somerset Libraries

· Make the relevant documents available on the Council’s web-site

· Publicise the adoption of the Replacement Local Plan through the network of Council information sources and publications

· Send an individual notice to anyone who has made representations at any point through out the process and requested to be notified of the adoption of the Replacement Local Plan

· Send a copy to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government through Government Office for the South West.

5. Financial Implications

The cost of producing the Schedule of Modifications and all necessary consultation and community involvement will be borne by the existing Planning Policy budget and available officer resources. The overall Planning policy budget for 2006/07 is £470,000. The production and preparation of the NSRLP has taken place over six years and involved 5.5 full time equivalents dedicating around 80% of their time to the NSRLP during and after the public local inquiry.  In terms of financial costs in undertaking the public local inquiry this has involved the Council in instructing advocate barrister support, (£73k), other supporting expert witnesses (£14k), hiring the Campus (£11k), appointing a programme officer (£25k) and meeting the Planning Inspectorate costs (£111k). Further costs will be incurred in the publication of the final combined set of documents that will form the adopted Replacement Local Plan. This will comprise the Written Statement and the Proposals Map. The latter item will also form the first Proposals Map for the new system of Local Development Documents that will eventually build into the Local Development Framework for North Somerset.

6. RISK MANAGEMENT

Proposing further amendments to the Replacement Local Plan would result in further delay to its adoption. It would significantly add to the financial cost and delay production of Local Development Framework documents as set out in the Local Development Scheme. Further modifications could put the plan at risk of legal challenge in the High Court. A successful challenge could mean that development decisions would need to be based on policies in the existing adopted Local Plan. These are increasingly becoming out-of-date as the policy context in which they were originally drafted has changed.

The adopted Local Plan currently has only been saved under the transitional arrangements until 27^th September 2007. Unless the policies in this document can be shown to still be fit for purpose and relevant in the context of the new development plan and national planning guidance, The Council could find itself from 28^th September 2007 with no development plan against which to judge planning applications. Section 54A of the 1990 Act and its successor under the new development plan system, Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, both emphasise the issue of a plan-led system providing the basis for the determination of development proposals. Representations would need to be made to Government Office in order to save the necessary policies from the adopted Local Plan beyond the September date. Justification for the retention of these policies and those that it was considered should not be saved beyond the three year limit would need to be submitted to GOSW before the end of March 2007. There is no guarantee that such a request would be accepted.

7. Equality Implications

The preparation of an up-to-date spatial planning document for North Somerset has wide ranging equality implications in terms of, for example the distribution of land uses, facilities and transport requirements.

8. Corporate Implications

The Replacement Local Plan provides the spatial planning context for a wide range of cross-cutting corporate objectives.

9. Options considered

The Council has the choice to stop work on its NSRLP and make use of the new development plan arrangements that became operational on 28 September 2004. This would involve the preparation of a local development framework for North Somerset.  This alternative would delay the adoption of a new Plan and would mean that the planning policy framework for North Somerset would continue to be provided by the Adopted Local Plan, a plan that has been overtaken by national, regional and sub-regional policy changes.  Given the relatively advanced stage that has been reached with the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan, it is considered that the most efficient and effective action is to progress with the replacement of the Adopted North Somerset Local Plan, making use of the existing statutory provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and procedures provided by the 1999 Regulations. Adoption of the Replacement Local Plan would in turn provide a clear spatial planning context for the preparation of the new Local Development Framework documents.

10 CONCLUSION

That Members note this report and the attached summary of representations and proposed responses, with any comments forwarded for consideration by Executive and Full Council at their respective meetings on, 7^th November 2006.

Author

Martin Wilsher: Planning & Transport Policy Officer

01275 888510, martin.wilsher@n-somerset.gov.uk

Background Papers

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan First Deposit Draft, September 2002

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan Second Deposit Draft, March 2004

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan Further Pre-Inquiry Changes, March 2005

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan Inspector’s Report, April 2006

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan Proposed Modifications, June 2006

Town and Country Planning Act, as amended 1990.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Town and Country Planning (Development Plan)( England) Regulations 1999.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 12: Development Plans.