PAPER B

Purpose : for Decision

REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

Date : 30^th JUNE 2004

Proforma : PAN MASTERPLAN – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 12^TH JULY 2004

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. To consider the Pan Masterplan, as produced by the Council’s consultants. The draft SPG addresses the key issues raised through the various stakeholder workshops and public consultation. The draft SPG is attached to this report as Appendix A.

CONFIDENTIAL/EXEMPT ITEMS

2. None

BACKGROUND

3. The Unitary Development Plan includes an allocation adjoining Pan for some 20 hectares of housing and employment development. The Council resolved that the best way of bringing forward what is largely a Council owned site was to undertake a Masterplan exercise and to this end appointed Tibbalds as the consultants for the project. Since their appointment, Tibbalds, in conjunction with Council officers, have been progressing the Plan through a series of stakeholder workshops, discussion with individual agencies, survey work and information gathering to inform preparation of the Masterplan.

4. Options were prepared and discussed and following a broad consensus from the stakeholder workshops, a local public consultation exercise was carried out over 2 weeks at Downside Middle School. Views and comments from this process have enabled the Plan to be further refined.

5. The Masterplan is not intended to be a rigid blueprint but will set the context for the consideration of more detailed design and the planning applications that will come forward. In order to give it appropriate weight, the intention is that the Plan will become Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to the UDP.

6. In order for the Masterplan to achieve SPG status, the Council had to undertake a further round of public consultation and report all the comments received (together with how those responses were dealt with) back to the Executive prior to adoption.

7. Members will also be aware of the new Planning legislation that will come into effect on 13^th July 2004. The impact of the new legislation will mean that local authorities will no longer have the powers to progress SPG that, under the new system, will be replaced by Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD). If decisions about this draft SPG is delayed beyond 13^th July 2004, the Council will be left with no alternative but to start the process again on SPD, which could result in a further 12-18 month timescale. The impact would not only be to duplicate work already done, but will leave the Council without adopted supplementary guidance which could delay the Council bringing forward this site for development.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

8. The site is allocated in the UDP for mixed housing and employment use and needs to come forward for development to ensure the Council can meet both its general and affordable housing needs.

9. As the site is in Council ownership, the Masterplan will ensure that the housing provided will go some way to addressing homelessness on the Island and to keep families out of bed and breakfast accommodation, both of which are key achievements of the Corporate Plan and Community Strategy, and will help with the Housing PSA target.

10. The Masterplan will also provide strong linkages with the existing Pan community and the ongoing Neighbourhood Renewal Project. One of the main reasons for the success of the renewal bid was the ongoing Masterplan exercise and the opportunity to build one cohesive community at Pan.

CONSULTATION

11. The Masterplan has been developed to this draft stage through a continuing dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders. The exercise has included three stakeholder workshops with representation from the following:

· Isle of Wight Council (Members and officers)

· Housing Associations

· Community Groups (Pan Can Forum)

· Environment Agency

· Police

· Southern Water

· Business Groups

· IW Economic Partnership

· Education (local school governors and head teacher)

· SEEDA

12. In order to adopt SPG, national guidance in PPG12 makes it clear that proper consultation should be carried out, with relevant stakeholders and that any comments are considered and reflected upon before any decision is taken. In the case of the SPG on Pan the Council has notified interested parties, placed the draft SPG on the website and advertised its availability through the County Press for a period which will end on 28^th June 2004.

13. As this report is being compiled prior to the end of the consultation exercise, the comments and objections received will be report to the Executive verbally.

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

14. The costs of commissioning the consultants to carry out the Masterplan have been previously agreed and have been funded from capital receipts. The value of the site to the Council is in the order of £15m.

15. In order to meet its housing requirements set out in the Regional Planning Guidance and Part 1 of the UDP, it has been demonstrated through the Urban Capacity Study that the land allocated is necessary to meet both general and affordable needs.

16. Once adopted as SPG there will be a need to print the final document. The cost of this printing has already been identified within the planning services budget.

17. Under paragraph 3.15 of PPG12 Supplementary Planning guidance can be used as a means of setting out more detailed guidance on the way in which the policies in the UDP will be applied in particular circumstances or areas.  It will not form part of the plan but must be consistent with the plan and with national and regional guidance. The local planning authority must take into account the Human Rights Act and be sure that it has considered any relevant articles and that its decisions are proportionate and in accordance with the legitimate aims of the council.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

18. The power to adopt SPG to an existing development plan is set out in PPG12 (and revised PPS12). This is on the basis of proper consultation and that the SPG is supplementary to existing policy and not creating new policy. The Council has taken legal advice in respect of previous SPG at Project Cowes and the process for adoption of this document is considered to be in line with advice contained within PPG12. The issues of the Human Rights Act and the balancing of the rights of any affected residents as against the rights of any developers and the duties of the Council have been carefully considered and the recommendation is held to be proportionate and in line with the legitimate line of the Council.

OPTIONS

19. Although the recommendation is that this SPG should be adopted, the Council have three other courses of action it could pursue.

(1) To adopt as SPG

(2) Not to adopt as SPG

(3) To delay adoption and pursue SPD as part of the new planning legislation

(4) To adopt as interim guidance.

20. OPTION 1

To adopt as SPG.

21. OPTION 2

Not to adopt as SPG would leave the Council without guidance on an important site. During the pre Best Value Inspection meeting the lack of up-to-date SPG was identified as a major weakness of the Service.

22. OPTION 3

Delaying adoption would leave a policy gap for a period of approximately 12-18 months, duplicate work and consultation already undertaken. Other major greenfield sites coming forward may prevent Pan from being released.

23. OPTION 4

The Council could adopt the guidance on a more informal basis, which does comply with current advice. This however, would give it little weight in the development control process and could render the document ineffective or powerless.

24. Option 1 is the preferred option as it is the only one, which allows for the adoption of SPG prior to the enactment of the new legislation. The SPG is required to ensure that the site can be brought forward for development.

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

25. Adoption of SPG could result in High Court challenge if objections to the document are not properly considered or the document is not considered to supplement existing policy. If however, this were the case, the Council would choose not to implement the SPG through the DC process as it is only through its implementation with regard to a specific application that individuals could become aggrieved.

26. In order to ascertain the effectiveness and use of SPG it will be necessary to monitor its application and any resulting appeals. Through this process, the SPG can be kept under review and reconsidered (if necessary) as SPD in the new Planning process.

27. There is always the possibility of costs being awarded against the Council through the appeal process, however, adopted SPG is seen as a way of reducing uncertainty.

RECOMMENDATIONS

28. That the Executive endorse the adoption of SPG on the Pan Masterplan, attached as Appendix 1, subject to any further changes agreed by the Portfolio Holder in consultation with the Head of Planning Services (resulting from comments and objections received from the consultation period).

BACKGROUND PAPERS

UDP 2001

Urban Capacity Study 2002

Pan Project Brief – Expression of Interest

PPG12

Contact Point : Ashley Curzon, ext 4557, [email protected]

Head of Service Andrew Ashcroft Head of Planning Services

Portfolio Holder Cllr Terry Butcher Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development, Environment and Planning Policy