PAPER B
Purpose
: for Decision
Date : 2 MAY 2006
Subject : ISLAND PLAN – SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY 2006-2026
Report of: REPORT OF THE CABINET HOLDER FOR ENVIRONMENT,
TRANSPORT AND PLANNING
1.
To agree the Island Plan Core Strategy for
submission to Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and Planning
Inspectorate (PINS).
2.
None.
BACKGROUND
3.
Under the Planning and
Compensation Act 2004 the Council is required to replace its current statutory
development plan ( the Unitary Development Plan 2001) with a new Local
Development Framework. This will be
known as the Island Plan and is a key document in the future delivery of the
Community Strategy, the Local Area Agreement and the 2020 Vision.
4.
Unlike the UDP, the new Island
Plan will be a folder of documents covering a range of issues which
will be regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure they are delivering agreed
outcomes and objectives. The Council has submitted and agreed with government a
timetable for producing these various documents known as the Local Development
Scheme. The first document to be
produced will be the Island Plan Core Strategy which will set the strategic
vision for the Island over the next 20 years.
5.
The Council resolved to
set up an Island Plan Task Group comprising Council Members and LSP
representatives to drive the preparation and production of the plan. Their first task was to agree an Issues and
Options paper for public consultation.
Following consideration of the comments received from the consultation
on the Preferred Core Strategy, the Task Group have now produced a Core
Strategy for submission to GOSE and PINS.
Once submitted, the document will be made available for
consultation. The plan will be
submitted as soon as possible after the 12th May (implementation
date for this Cabinet report).
6.
The Preferred Option
Report has been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal against the
sustainability criteria set by the SA process and the submission consultation
on this document will run at the same time.
7.
The timescale for
progressing the Island plan beyond this is illustrated by the timetable on the
next page.
9.
We
are currently working on responses to all individuals as well as revising the
documents themselves. All respondents
have been informed that a full list of the comments can be found on the
Council’s web site and that a full response report will be completed and
available by the end of April 2006.
10.
The
changes made to the document include the following:
11.
The
revised Core Strategy is Appendix 1 of this
document.
12.
The
draft Core Strategy is due to be submitted to GOSE by the end of May 2006. This will trigger a final 6-week round of
consultation. At this stage the plan
should be considered against a series of tests, designed to illustrate that the
plan is “sound” and based upon robust evidence. Further detail about the tests of soundness are attached as
Appendix 2 of this document.
13.
Once
submitted, the Core Strategy will be available at all Council libraries and
County Hall and Seaclose receptions, as well as on the Council’s Website. A formal advert will be placed in the County
Press informing people that the document has been submitted and when and when
it can be found/seen.
14.
The
Council holds an extensive consultee database and has an obligation to send
hard copies of the documents to all statutory consultees. In addition to this, stakeholders, local
groups, residents and agencies/companies on the database will be individually
notified. All those people who
responded to the preferred option consultation will be notified of the
submission as a matter of course.
15.
The replacement of the UDP with a new Island
Plan is a key objective of Aim High and a fundamental delivery
mechanism to ensure the sustainable economic led regeneration of the Island.
CONSULTATION
16.
As part of
the new planning process the Council is required to produce a Statement of
Community Involvement (SCI) which sets out how it will engage the wider
community in the planning process. The
SCI was developed in consultation with a broad range of individuals, groups and
organisations and has also undergone examination by the Planning Inspectorate
before finally being adopted by the Council in Nov 2005. All consultation on the Island Plan Core Strategy
has been carried out in accordance with the SCI and this will continue over
future stages of the Plan. Part of the
submission documentation will be a Statement of Conformity with the SCI.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET
IMPLICATIONS
17.
The Island
Plan has so far been produced by the use of Planning Delivery Grant
(PDG) monies and existing staff resources.
Failure to meet the timescales and key milestones agreed with government
for the Plan will more than likely result
in loss of future PDG monies from government.
LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
18.
The Council are
required under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to produce a Local Development
Framework.
OPTIONS/RISK
ASSESSMENT
19.
Option
1: To agree the Island Plan Core Strategy
for Submission to GOSE and PINS.
20.
This will
enable the Council to progress the Island Plan in line with the agreed
timetable. It will ensure the authority
maximise receipt of PDG monies for plan making and ensure an early replacement
of the UDP’s strategic policy guidance.
21.
Option
2: To delay the Submission of the Island
Plan Core Strategy for further consideration.
22.
Any delay in
the agreed timetable with government will impact on future PDG monies and could
result in future delays for other parts of the process including any public
examination. This would ultimately result
in the Island Plan taking longer for the Council to adopt therefore
relying on the UDP for ongoing strategic policy guidance.
RECOMMENDATIONS 23.
To agree
the Island Plan Core Strategy for Submission to GOSE and PINS. |
APPENDICES ATTACHED
24.
1. Appendix 1
2. Appendix
2
BACKGROUND
PAPERS
25.
Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
26.
Island
Plan Local Development Scheme, April 2005.
27.
Issues
and Options Report, IW Council, September 2005.
28.
Preferred
Core Strategy Report February 2006.
29.
Preferred
Core Strategy Consultation Report April 2006.
30.
Preferred
Core Strategy Responses Report April 2006.
31.
Development
Plans Examination – A Guide to the process of Assessing the Soundness of
Development Plan Document – Dec 2005
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
32.
None.
Contact
Point : Ashley Curzon, ext: 5557.
ANDREW ASHCROFTHead of Planning Services |
CLLR IAN WARD
Cabinet
Member for Environment, Transport and Planning |
Appendix 2
Test 1- The DPD
has been prepared in accordance with the Local Development Scheme
Key
question |
Possible
evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Is
the DPD identified in the authority’s LDS? |
The
adopted LDS at the time consultation was undertaken on the preferred options
(Regulation 26). The
current adopted LDS |
Local
Development Scheme |
Have
the details set out in the LDS such as the role, rationale or scope of the DPD been met? |
The
section of the current adopted LDS containing the profile given for the DPD A
brief statement of how the details have been met |
Local
Development Scheme page 19 |
Test 2 – The DPD
has been prepared in compliance with the Statement of Community Involvement
(SCI), or with the minimum requirements set out in the regulations where no SCI
exists
Key
question |
Possible
evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Having
regard to the nature of the DPD, have all the relevant consultation /
participation procedures set out in the Statement of Community Involvement
(SCI) been carried out? |
The
adopted SCI (s) at the time consultation was carried out under Regulation 25
and participation under Regulation 26. The
section of the consultation statement
showing how the consultation procedures were carried out and how they
relate to the SCI and the Regulations |
Statement
of Community Involvement Consultation
plans Consultation
reports Response
reports |
Test 3 – The plan and its policies have been subjected to
Sustainability Appraisal
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Has
Sustainability Appraisal (SA) been carried out in relation to the particular
DPD in question? |
The
SA report prepared for the preferred options participation (Regulation 26)
identifying the process carried out for SA, the baseline information used and
the outcomes of the process The
SA report as amended after the Regulation 26 participation and submitted with
the DPD. Depending on the extent of
change, this may take the form of an annex to the SA report prepared for
Regulation 26 or more extensive supplementary material or rewriting. A
brief statement of the main changes made |
Scoping
Report SA
report – Preferred Option Final
SA Report SA
Consultation report. |
Test 4 – It is a
spatial plan which is consistent with national planning policy and in general conformity
with the RSS for the region or the Spatial Development Strategy if in London,
and it has properly had regard to any other relevant plans, policies and
strategies relating to the area or adjoining areas
(a) it is a
spatial plan which has regard to other relevant plans, policies and strategies
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Does
the DPD reflect the guidance on spatial planning which is set out in national
planning policy? |
The
evidence will depend on the type and nature of the DPD, but may include
sections of the DPD, SA report, consultation statement and technical papers (which may be
identified under Test 7) which demonstrate that -
|
Vision
and objectives Member/LSP
Task Group decision making process Links
with other Strategies |
Test 4
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Has
adequate account been taken of the relationship between the proposals in the
DPD and other requirements, such as those of utility companies and agencies
providing services in the area including their future plans or strategy and
any requirements for land and premises, which should be prepared in parallel? |
Sections
of the DPD identifying other strategies and their relationship to delivery of
the strategy in the DPD. Evidence for Test 8 will also be relevant. Representations
from bodies responsible for other strategies affecting the area. Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how the representations have been
considered and dealt with. These
should either make clear the issues raised in the representation or include a
copy of the substance of the representation. |
Task Group representation of
various sectors and services Southern Water response to the
consultation Specific presentations to PCT. Response reports. |
Is
it clear how the DPD relates to other plans and strategies such as local transport
plans which will influence the delivery of policies and proposals within the
plan? |
Sections
of the DPD identifying other strategies and their relationship to delivery of
the strategy in the DPD. Evidence for
Test 8 will also be relevant. Representations
from bodies responsible for other strategies affecting the area. Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how the representations have been
considered and dealt with. |
See
above |
Test 4
(b) it is
consistent with national planning policy
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Does
the DPD contain any policies or proposals which are not consistent with
national planning policy and, if so, is there a local justification? |
Sections
of the DPD which refer to PPGs and PPSs and justify why any policies are not
consistent with national policy Community
strategy, local studies forming evidence for the DPD or other information
which provide the basis for departing from national planning policy Evidence
provided from the sustainability appraisal (including reference to the SA
report) and/or from the results of community involvement Representations
from GOs on preferred options or the submitted DPD Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how GO representations have been considered
and dealt with |
There
have been no representation to suggest that the Core Strategy is not
consistent with PPS. |
(c) The plan is
in general conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy or, where relevant, the
Spatial Development Strategy in London.
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Does
the DPD contain any policies and proposals which are not in general
conformity with the RSS, or SDS in London?
If so, is there a local justification? |
Sections
of the DPD which refer to or implement policies in the RSS or SDS Community
strategy, local studies forming evidence for the DPD or other information
which provide the basis for departing from regional planning policy Evidence
provided from the sustainability appraisal (including reference to the SA
report) and/or from the results of community involvement Representations
from the relevant Regional Planning Body or the Mayor of London Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how
RPB’s / Mayor’s representations have been considered and dealt with |
SEERA
have responded to the Preferred Option Report and have not suggested that the
Core Strategy is not in conformity with the RSS. |
Test 5 – It has
had regard to the authority’s community strategy.
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Does
the DPD have regard to the Community Strategy, by setting out policies and
proposals which deliver key components of that strategy so that they are
consistent with or in general conformity with higher level planning policy
and relate to the use and development of land? |
Sections
of the DPD which set out how the objectives of the community strategy relate
to the plan and how key components of the community strategy relating to
development and the use of land will be delivered Sections
of the community strategy (in two tier areas the community strategies of both
relevant authorities) Representations
from the Local Strategic Partnership where they have prepared the community
strategy Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how the LSP’s representations have been
considered and dealt with |
Extract
from the Plan Draft
Community Strategy Member/LSP
Task Group decision making process. |
Test 6 – The
strategies / policies / allocations in the plan are coherent and consistent
within and between Development Plan Documents prepared by the authority and by
neighbouring authorities, where cross-boundary issues are relevant.
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Do
the policies clearly relate to the objectives in the submitted DPD or a
related DPD (e.g. the Core Strategy) |
Sections
of the DPD and documents used in community involvement which show how the
policies in the DPD relate to the objectives. If
the DPD is not a core strategy DPD, sections of the DPD which show how the
DPD conforms with the core strategy |
Submitted
document |
Are
the policy objectives within the DPD themselves consistent? |
Sections
of the DPD, documents used in community involvement, and technical papers
which demonstrate that the objectives are consistent A
brief statement explaining how the authority considers its objectives are
consistent |
Statement
explaining how the authority considers its objectives are consistent. |
Test 6
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Is
it clear how the DPD relates to other plans in the authority’s Local
Development Framework and to other relevant plans prepared by neighbouring
authorities? |
The
adopted LDS, showing how the LDDs in the LDFrelate together LDSs
of neighbouring authorities and if necessary commentary on how the DPD is
consistent with them Sections
of the DPD setting out its purpose, depending on the type of DPD Sections
of the DPD and documents used in community involvement which show how the DPD
relates to other DPDs and to the DPDs of neighbouring authorities Joint
studies, reports and technical papers conducted by or for the authority and
neighbouring authorities (in two tier areas, may include joint county /
district work) Representations
from neighbouring authorities Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how the representations have been considered
and dealt with |
Local
Development Scheme Responses
from neighbouring authorities to consultation stages. Consultation
and response reports. |
Are
there any obvious gaps in the coverage of the DPD having regard to its
purpose and the relevant requirements set out in national planning policy
statements? |
Representations
referring to plan coverage Representations
from GOs Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how the representations have been
considered and dealt with |
Response
from Government Office and our response to them. Response
reports |
Is
it clear how cross boundary issues are addressed? |
Sections
of the DPD and documents used in community involvement which explain cross
boundary issues Representations
from neighbouring authorities Representations
referring to issues which cross the authority’s boundary Reports or copies of correspondence as to how representations on cross boundary issues
have been considered and dealt with |
RSS
Special Policy Area Response
from Southampton City Council Policy
T1 |
Test 7 – The
strategies / policies / allocations represent the most appropriate in all the
circumstances, having considered the relevant alternatives, and they are
founded on a robust and credible evidence base.
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Is
it clear that the local planning authority considered all reasonable options
and alternatives in preparing the DPD? |
Sections
of the consultation statement showing how the community was involved in
considering issues, alternatives and options Documents
used in community involvement (during Regulation 25 consultations) to
encourage the community (including stakeholder interests) to identify the
issues and options they wished to see considered The
report produced at the end of the issues and options stage setting out the
issues and options raised Sections
of the preferred options report explaining -
Sections
of the SA report showing the options and alternatives and explaining how they
were objectively assessed. Any
other documentation showing how alternatives were developed and evaluated |
Statement
of Community Involvement Issues
and Options papers Issues
and Options consultation and response reports. Preferred
Option Core Strategy SA
Report |
Are
the assumptions in the DPD set out clearly and are they supported by
evidence? |
Sections
of the DPD setting out the assumptions Sections
of the SA report setting out the
assumptions A
brief statement for each assumption as to how the evidence led to the assumption Reference
to national or regional policy, correspondence from bodies consulted or
technical papers that provide the basis for assumptions |
SA
Report |
Test 7
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Does
the evidence clearly support the policies in the DPD? |
Sections
of the DPD which show how the policies or proposals derive from the evidence. Sections
of the pre-submission proposals documents Sections
of the preferred options report Sections
of the SA report which set out its main conclusions in relation to the
policies in the DPD Sections
of the consultation statement OR a brief statement of how the main findings
of consultation support the policies, with reference to -
The
studies, reports and technical papers, which provide the evidence for the
policies set out in the DPD. OR
for each policy (or group of policies dealing with the same issue) a brief
statement of the evidence documents relied upon and how they support the
policy (where this is not already clear in the reasoned justification in the
DPD) Note:
the PINS Guide, at Paragraph 1.4.12, provides examples of the types of
documents that would constitute supporting evidence. The particular documents will depend on
the type and nature of the DPD. |
Submission
document. SA
Report Issues
and options consultation and response reports. Preferred
Option consultation and response reports. Background
studies and evidence reports. |
Test 7
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Is
the evidence robust and credible - ie has it been prepared in accordance with
national policy and good practice guidance? |
Sections
of the SA report which set out the methodology followed and how it conforms
with the SA guidance For
each other main source of evidence, either - Sections
of the relevant evidence documents which show how their production has
followed national policy and/or good practice guidance, OR
a brief statement as to how evidence accords with national policy and/or good
practice guidance Representations
on the process of plan preparation or any methodologies used, including any
representations made by GOs, the RPB or Mayor of London Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how representations on plan preparation
have been considered and dealt with |
SA
Report Response
reports. |
Where
a balance has been struck in taking decisions between competing alternatives
- is it clear how these decisions have been taken? |
Sections
of the preferred options report explaining -
Sections
of the SA report showing the options and alternatives and explaining how they
were objectively assessed Reports
prepared during the plan preparation process
(including after the preferred options participation) contributing to
the decisions made on the inclusion of policies in the DPD Sections
of the consultation statement explaining how the main findings of
consultation support the decisions, OR
a brief statement of the influence upon decisions of -
Any
other documentation showing how alternatives were developed and evaluated A
brief statement and any other supporting documentation of the way decisions have been taken |
SA Report Consultation and Response reports. |
Test 8 – There
are clear mechanisms for implementation and monitoring.
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Does
the DPD contain targets and milestones which relate to the delivery of the
policies, including housing trajectories where the DPD contains housing
allocations? |
Sections
of the DPD setting out indicators, targets and milestones Sections
of the current AMR which report on indicators, targets, milestones and
trajectories Reference
to any other reports or technical documents which contain information on the
delivery of policies |
Monitoring
framework Annual
Monitoring Report Background
reports and evidence papers |
Is
it clear how these are to be measured and are these linked to the production
of the Annual Monitoring Report? |
Sections
of the DPD setting out indicators, targets and milestones Sections
of the current AMR and the SA report setting out the framework for monitoring,
including monitoring the effects of the DPD against the sustainability
appraisal Reference
to any other reports or technical documents which contain information on the
collection or measurement of indicators |
Monitoring
framework |
Are
the delivery mechanisms and timescale for implementation for the policies
clearly identified? |
Sections
of the DPD setting out delivery mechanisms and timescale Brief
statements on how other stakeholders intend to support the delivery of the
policies, with any supporting correspondence or reports by the authority or
the relevant stakeholder Representations
from stakeholders on delivery mechanisms and timescale Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how representations on delivery and
implementation have been considered and dealt with |
Implementation
policies and framework. |
Is
it clear who is intended to implement each policy? Where the actions required to implement policy are outside the
direst control of the LPA is there evidence that there is the necessary
commitment from the relevant organisation to implementation of the policies? |
Sections
of the DPD setting out responsibilities for delivery Correspondence
showing how other stakeholders intend to support the delivery of the policies Reports
by the authority or the relevant stakeholder Representations
from stakeholders on implementation Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how representations on delivery and
implementation have been considered and dealt with |
Submission
paperwork. |
Test 8
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Do
the processes for measuring the success of the DPD accord with national
guidance? |
Sections
of the DPD, the current AMR and any supporting technical documents that
national guidance has been followed Representations
by the GO Reports
or copies of correspondence as to how the representations have been
considered and dealt with |
AMR |
Does
the DPD explain how its key policy objectives will be achieved? |
Sections
of the DPD Other
supporting material, for example, commitments in the Community Strategy to
support the strategy in the DPD |
|
Test 9 – It is
reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances.
Key
Question |
Possible
Evidence |
Evidence
provided |
Is
the DPD flexible enough to respond to a variety of, or unexpected changes in,
circumstances? |
Sections
of the DPD setting out the assumptions of the plan (see Test 7) and identifying
the circumstances when policies might need to be reviewed Sections
of the AMR and SA report describing how the authority will monitor -
Statements
or correspondence from stakeholders which commit to providing information to
be used in monitoring the progress of the policies and changes in the baseline
Risk
analysis of the strategy and policies to demonstrate robustness and how the
plan could cope with changing circumstances, or what would trigger a review
of the DPD Note:
Paragraph 1.4.14 of the PINS Guide
gives some examples |
SA
Report AMR |