PAPER B

Purpose : for Decision

REPORT TO CABINET

Date : 2 MAY 2006

Subject : ISLAND PLAN – SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY 2006-2026

Report of: REPORT OF THE CABINET HOLDER FOR ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 12 May 2006

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

1. To agree the Island Plan Core Strategy for submission to Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and Planning Inspectorate (PINS).

CONFIDENTIAL/EXEMPT ITEMS

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 12^th 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.

8. There were a total of 594 responses to the Preferred option document, and these can be broadly split into three themes:

• Comment on language used, style and grammatical errors.
• Comments on detailed issues which are beyond the scope of the Core Strategy and will be covered by other Island Plan documents.
• Comments which require a revision to the policy or justification. Any revisions considered are a reflection of the both the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Appraisal and of public consultation and provide more depth and detail rather than whole-sale change of the underlying spatial approach or policy content.

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:

• Greater detail included on particular targets or thresholds (for example the 70% brownfield justification)
• More detail with regard to the implementation and monitoring framework.
• Amendments to the Built Environment policies to cover the historic environment (BE1 and BE2).
• A new policy to cover minerals.
• Amendment of ENV1 to include hazardous waste.
• A revised Key diagram to show environmental designations and give more spatial steer to the likely broad areas of development/growth.

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.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

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 ASHCROFT Head 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 - The DPD contains a vision for development and change of the area; The DPD delivers social, economic and environmental objectives related to (but not confined to) the use of land The preparation process has been participative, integrated with other strategies, including the community strategy, responsive to change and deliverable.	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 - how alternative strategies were developed and evaluated, and why alternatives and options were rejected in favour of the preferred options 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 statements on the issues raised during the Regulation 25 consultation the issues raised at the Regulation 26 participation, and how they have been addressed, Any other information on community views and preferences 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 - how alternative strategies were developed and evaluated, and why alternatives and options were rejected in favour of the preferred options 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 - the issues raised during the Regulation 25 consultation the issues raised at the Regulation 26 participation, and how they have been addressed 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 - the effectiveness of policies and what evidence is being collected to undertake this changes affecting the baseline information and any information on trends on which the DPD is based. 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