New Forest National Park Authority - · PDF fileHS / New Forest National Park Authority / 3...

New Forest National Park Authority

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD

Examination in Public

New Forest National Park Authority’s Hearing Statement on Inspector’s Matters

Session 3: Housing

August 2010

1

HS / New Forest National Park Authority / 3

Session 3: Housing

Issue 1: Does the evidence base support the settlement hierarchy? (Justified)

1.1 In accordance with national planning policy, there is a need to define a

basic settlement hierarchy within the Park as part of the spatial planning framework. Following consideration of the evidence base and the views of consultees expressed during the development of the plan, the Core Strategy carries forward the approach taken by successive New Forest District Local Plans since the 1990s. The alternative options of (i) expanding the list of ‘defined villages’; or (ii) having no settlement hierarchy at all, received little support during the consultation undertaken in developing the plan.

1.2 National planning policy in PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic

Growth, 2009) [Core Document 103] states that in rural areas authorities should locate most new development in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing and other facilities can be provided close together (EC6.2). PPS3 (Housing, 2010) [Core Document 102] supports this, stating that housing should be developed in suitable locations which offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure (paragraph 36). The Core Strategy is consistent with this guidance in setting out a settlement hierarchy, based on the hierarchy established for many years, where the limited development that takes place will be focused in the more sustainable villages.

1.3 The existing New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (2005)

[Core Document 341] covers approximately 94% of the National Park. This Local Plan sets out a simple settlement hierarchy, with the villages of Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst and Sway designated as ‘defined villages’ where particular planning policies apply. This settlement hierarchy has existed since the 1990s and is well understood by communities in the New Forest. The Core Strategy proposes to retain this hierarchy.

1.4 The Settlements, Services and Communities Topic Paper [Core

Document 16] summarises the evidence base and consultation undertaken to inform this settlement hierarchy. As well as having the largest populations in the Park, the four ‘defined’ villages are already substantially developed, have a range of facilities and public transport links. Brockenhurst and Lyndhurst in particular have a wide range of local services with over 30 retails units in each of the defined shopping frontages and offer a range of employment opportunities. The existing New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (2005) states that the essential character of the remaining villages is their dispersed nature, with frontage development and farms interspersed with paddocks and farmland. Boundaries could not be defined for these areas (e.g. Burley,

2


Hyde) without inviting a degree of development prejudicial to the character of the New Forest (paragraph D1.16).

1.5 The New Forest National Park Socio-Economic Self-Containment

Assessment (LUC, 2009) [Core Document 345] highlights that the National Park exists in a highly mobile labour market, with strong functional relationships with nearby urban centres. The ‘defined villages’ do, however, have a degree of self containment. Brockenhurst has the highest level of employment self-containment, with Lyndhurst identified as a significant employment centre. A high proportion of the jobs in Sway are occupied by people living in the settlement. The self-containment of these settlements can be supported through small scale employment development and protection of local services, alongside housing development focused on meeting local needs.

1.6 The Wiltshire area of the Park has a population of approximately 2,500

people, mainly located in the smaller villages of Hamptworth, Landford, Lover/Bohemia, Nomansland and Redlynch. As set out in the Settlements, Services and Community Topic Paper [Core Document 16], as well as having significantly smaller populations than the four ‘defined villages’, the villages in Wiltshire have significantly less basic services and facilities. The Core Strategy therefore does not retain the approach of the Salisbury District Local Plan (2003) which included settlement boundaries for Hamptworth, Landford Common, Landford Wood, Landford, Nomansland, Lover, Bohemia and Redlynch. The Service Villages and Housing Working Group [Core Document 307] concluded there was no support for designating a ‘defined village’ in the northern part of the Park.

1.7 Alongside the evidence base, the settlement hierarchy has been

debated in detail during the development of the Core Strategy. The New Forest New Chapter events [Core Document 306] consisted of 10 workshops that took place over the autumn and winter of 2007/8. The workshops brought together people from more than 70 organisations and the settlement hierarchy for the National Park was debated as part of the ‘Living and Working in the National Park’ workshops, with a range of options put forward. The option of maintaining the existing four ‘defined villages’ was preferred by participants over the alternatives of (i) expanding the number of defined villages; or (ii) defining no main villages, but allowing modest levels of development throughout the Park. The Sustainability Appraisal of the consultation draft National Park Plan (2008) concluded that maintaining the present settlement hierarchy would provide for a more sustainable and concentrated service provision than a dispersed approach, which could increase the need to travel across the Park.

1.8 The consultation draft National Park Plan (August 2008) [Core

Document 334] retained the existing settlement hierarchy with Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst and Sway identified as ‘Service Villages’.

3


Annex 1 to the consultation draft Plan set out the consideration of policy options. In terms of the settlement hierarchy, the alternative options of (i) maintaining the present settlement hierarchy; (ii) expanding the current settlement hierarchy; or (iii) defining no hierarchy, were presented and comments invited. No ‘Service Villages’ were proposed within the Wiltshire part of the Park in the draft National Park Plan.

1.9 Following the consultation on the draft National Park Plan in 2008, the

Authority set up a Service Villages and Housing Working Group [Core Document 307]. The Working Group concluded that the term ‘Service Villages’, although consistent with the terminology in PPS7 and recently adopted National Park Core Strategies, was not suitable, with alternatives including the existing term ‘defined villages’ proposed. Concern was also raised that seemingly all development would be focused into these four villages. There was limited support for the designation of a second tier of settlements below the ‘defined villages’

1.10 The submitted Core Strategy has been developed in accordance with

these conclusions. The existing term ‘defined villages’ has been retained and in addition the Core Strategy confirms that appropriate development proposals including convenience shops (DP8); essential local community facilities (CP10); local needs affordable housing (CP11); and small scale employment uses (CP14) will be supported. The proposed settlement hierarchy attracted little objection during the statutory consultation period.

4


Issue 2: Given the low level of envisaged growth, why are development boundaries necessary and could these result in pressure to build on valuable open land? (Justified and Effective)

2.1 The Authority proposes to retain the existing approach to development

boundaries in the New Forest National Park, as they (i) are understood by local communities; and (ii) provide greater certainty and clarity in considering planning applications.

2.2 The issue of whether development boundaries are appropriate within

the National Park context has been discussed at a number of recent National Park Core Strategy examinations. The North York Moors Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD Examination, for example, considered the definition of countryside and settlements (Main Matter 1). The Inspector noted that although there was no requirement to do so, many planning authorities define settlement boundaries to provide certainty and clarity to communities and other users of the DPD (Inspector’s Report, October 2008).

2.3 The Northumberland National Park Core Strategy and Development

Policies DPD Examination Inspector’s Report (February 2009) acknowledged that, “…a defined boundary would appear to provide the benefit of sure guidance to developers and other users of the DPD as to where development would be permitted.”

2.4 The current planning policy framework contained within the New Forest

District Local Plan First Alteration (2005) [Core Document 341] identifies village boundaries for the main villages and sets out the justification for doing so (paragraph D1.16). The Authority is keen to continue the established practice of defining boundaries – an approach that is well understood by the local communities in the Park. The North York Moors National Park Core Strategy Inspector’s Report gave weight to continuing the “well understood” existing approach to development boundaries (paragraphs 3.2 – 3.10). In the case of the New Forest, settlement boundaries for the defined villages have appeared in successive Local Plans dating back to the 1990s. Indeed the villages are known as ‘defined villages’ for the very reason that they have defined boundaries.

2.5 National planning policy in PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic

Growth, 2009) [Core Document 103] states that in rural areas authorities should locate most new development in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing and other facilities can be provided close together (EC6.2). The Authority believes that defining settlement boundaries helps to do this and reduce pressure for greenfield development on the edge of settlements.

2.6 Despite being the smallest National Park in the UK, there are more

planning applications submitted per annum in the New Forest than any

5


other Park (1,060 in 2009/10) and the annual figure has remained relatively constant even with the national economic downturn. With this intense pressure for development in the New Forest, the Authority is concerned that the removal of the established settlement boundaries could increase development pressures across the Park, make it more difficult to control inappropriate development, cause uncertainty for local communities, and make it more difficult to defend a criteria-based approach at appeal.

2.7 In terms of the potential pressure to build on open land resulting from

the definition of settlement boundaries, the Authority considers that the other policies in the Core Strategy should ensure this does not happen. For example, policy CP2 offers protection to the natural environment throughout the Park and the Core Strategy also requires development proposals to enhancement local character and distinctiveness. Open space areas within the main villages are specifically protected through policy DP3. The Authority therefore considers the approach in the Core Strategy to be justified and effective.

6


Issue 3: What are the targets for social-rented and intermediate affordable housing? (Consistent with national policy)

Statement agreed by the New Forest National Park Authority and New Forest District Council

3.1 The Authority acknowledges the guidance in paragraph 29 of PPS3

(Housing, 2010) [Core Document 102] that “…where appropriate…” planning authorities should set separate targets for social rented and intermediate affordable housing. However, given the low level of development in the Park, the Authority considers the approach of varying the proportions of social rented and intermediate housing on a site by site basis, in response to local needs and with advice from the local housing authority, to be justified and proportionate to the scale of development in the Park. This approach is consistent with that taken in a number of recently adopted National Park Core Strategies, is supported by New Forest District Council as the Housing Authority for the vast majority of the Park, and reflects the low levels of development within protected landscapes.

3.2 Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy confirms that the Authority will seek

at least 50% affordable housing on development sites within the ‘defined villages’, with 100% affordable housing on exceptions sites considered across the rest of the Park. Paragraph 7.26 of the Core Strategy confirms that within this affordable housing provision, “…there will need to be a balance in provision between social rented housing and intermediate housing. The Authority recognises that the nature of local need will differ between settlements and there should be flexibility to vary the relative proportions of social / intermediate housing on a site by site basis with the benefit of advice from the respective local housing authority (New Forest District Council, Wiltshire Council or Test Valley Borough Council).”

3.3 This approach is supported by New Forest District Council - the

Housing Authority for over 90% of the National Park - and the Authority will work with the local housing authorities and the Hampshire Alliance for Rural Affordable Housing (HARAH) to deliver affordable housing in the Park. Given the low level of development within the National Park, the approach of considering the nature of local need on a site by site basis is favoured over setting a broad Park wide target, which would then be varied on a site by site basis in any means.

3.4 The Authority’s proposed approach is also consistent with that taken by

a number of other national park authorities in their Core Strategy documents. For example, neither the adopted Northumberland National Park Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD (March 2009) Policy 11 (Affordable Housing); or the adopted North York Moors National Park Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD

7


(November 2009) Core Policy J (Housing) include separate targets for social rented or intermediate affordable housing.

3.5 Although the Dartmoor National Park Core Strategy (June 2008) does

include a broad target, the Inspector’s Report (February 2008) introduced additional wording emphasising the need for case by case determination (paragraph 3.15). Policy COR15 states that, “…around 70% of this development should be social rented housing provided by registered social landlords, with the balance being intermediate housing, though the precise split will be determined on a site by site basis…” (our emphasis). The Authority’s Core Strategy approach is to determine the precise split of social rented and intermediate housing on a site by site basis. This is considered to be consistent with national policy and proportionate to the scale of development in the Park.

8


Issue 4: What size and type of affordable housing is required? (Consistent with national policy)

Statement agreed by the New Forest National Park Authority and New Forest District Council

4.1 The Authority acknowledges the guidance in paragraph 29 of PPS3

(Housing, 2010) [Core Document 102] that planning authorities should, “…specify the size and type of affordable housing that, in their judgement, is likely to be needed in particular locations and, where appropriate, on particular sites…” However, given the limited scale of future development within the Park, the Authority is of the view that the size and type of affordable homes provided on development sites should be determined on a site by site basis, having regard to the type of development.

4.2 PPS3 confirms that affordable housing should be provided on site and

therefore the size and type of affordable housing will clearly be dictated by the nature of the individual development. For example, the affordable housing provision as part of a village centre flatted scheme (e.g. 26 additional dwellings at 2a Gosport Lane, Lyndhurst, application 09/94299) will differ significantly from that provided in a development of detached dwellings (e.g. 4 additional dwellings at ‘Meadowbank’, Sway Road, Brockenhurst, application 08/92562).

4.3 The Central Hampshire and New Forest Housing Market Assessment

(DTZ, 2007) [Core Document 329] provides some detail on the type and size of affordable housing need in the study area. Analysis of the size of dwellings required by those on the New Forest housing waiting and transfer lists indicates that the majority of households require a one or two bedroom property (page 135), but the Authority would prefer to respond to local parish need on development sites, rather than setting a broad Park wide target. The Housing Market Assessment suggests that the local planning authorities within the study area should, “…avoid enshrining a prescriptive size mix within local development frameworks…” (paragraph 11.46), as the size of affordable housing should be informed by a range of factors.

4.4 The proposed approach of determining the type of affordable housing

required on a site by site basis is consistent with the Authority’s position on specifying the target of social rented and intermediate affordable housing (Issue 3), and also the approach taken by other National Park authorities. None of the other recently adopted National Park Core Strategies – namely the Broads (September 2007); Dartmoor (June 2008); the North York Moors (November 2008); and Northumberland (March 2009) - specify the size and type of affordable housing required, and the Authority’s approach is consistent with this.

9


4.5 The Dartmoor Core Strategy (adopted June 2008) states that the type

of affordable housing provided will be dictated by the extent and nature of housing need identified by the local housing authority, housing market assessment and parish council needs surveys (Policy COR15). Likewise, the Inspector’s Report into the North York Moors Core Strategy and Development Policies DPD (October 2008) noted that, “…The size and type of affordable housing will depend on the circumstances of those in need in a particular parish, to be identified in parish based surveys…” – paragraph 3.30. The New Forest National Park Authority proposes a similar approach and this is supported by New Forest District Council as the Housing Authority for the majority of the National Park.

10


Issue 5: How is the affordable housing contribution from single dwelling schemes to be assessed? (Justified)

5.1 The Authority intends to continue the established practice of seeking

affordable housing contributions equivalent to the unconstrained open market residential land value for the number of affordable dwellings required (had they been provided on the application site), from single dwelling schemes in the four ‘defined villages’.

5.2 Affordable housing contributions have been sought from developments

of one or two dwellings within the ‘defined villages’ for over five years now since the adoption of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration in August 2005 [Core Document 341]. Policy AH-2 confirms that the local planning authority will seek to negotiate with developers the inclusion of an element of affordable housing on all suitable sites, and, “…in the case of one or two dwellings, an equivalent contribution will be sought.”

5.3 The Authority’s Core Strategy carries forward this approach of seeking

affordable housing on all development sites, stating that, “…proposals for single dwellings within the defined villages will be required to make an affordable housing contribution to be used in the local area, rather than on site provision…” (Policy CP11).

5.4 New Forest District Council adopted a Supplementary Planning

Document (SPD) in November 2005 entitled The Delivery of Affordable Housing (on Development Sites) through the Planning Process. This SPD was inherited by the Authority when it assumed its full planning powers in April 2006 and confirms that where one or two dwellings are proposed in Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst, or Sway a financial contribution will be an acceptable way of contributing to the provision for affordable housing.

“The financial contribution must be equivalent to the unconstrained

open market residential land value for the number of affordable dwellings required (had they been provided on the application site).”

– page 6 5.5 The Authority intends to continue this established practice of seeking

affordable housing contributions from single dwellings.

11


Issue 6: Does the evidence demonstrate that 50% affordable/open market housing provision will deliver additional dwellings within the National Park and would this have any meaningful effect in addressing the shortfall in affordable housing? (Justified and Effectiveness)

6.1 The Authority considers that the target for 50% affordable housing on

sites within the ‘defined villages’ to be viable and will, when compared with current policies, deliver additional affordable dwellings within the National Park. Housing need within the Park cannot be fully met without compromising the Forest’s special qualities but, within the context of the small-scale of development in the New Forest, the Core Strategy will prioritise the delivery of local needs affordable housing.

6.2 PPS3 (Housing, 2010) [Core Document 102] is clear that authorities, in

setting policies for site size thresholds and the percentage of affordable housing sought, must consider development economics and should not promote policies which would make development unviable (paragraph 29). The importance of this requirement has been highlighted in a number of Core Strategy Examinations where DPDs have been found unsound due to the lack of consideration given to economic viability. For example, the affordable housing policies in the Blyth Valley Core Strategy DPD were quashed in the High Court due to the failure to properly consider the economic viability of the policies.

6.3 In response to PPS3, the Authority appointed Three Dragons to

undertake a study looking at the issue of viability and its impact on likely site delivery - the New Forest National Park Authority Affordable Housing Viability Assessment (2009) [Core Document 328]. The Three Dragons methodology has already been endorsed through the New Forest District Core Strategy Examination Inspector’s Report (September 2009). Based on the robust evidence provided by the Three Dragons Study, the Core Strategy proposes to retain the zero site threshold in the ‘defined villages’ (i.e. all sites contribute to affordable housing) and increase the percentage of affordable housing sought from 35% to at least 50%. The Assessment concluded that the target figure of 50% was “conservative” in nature and the methodology was robust in the longer plan period to 2026 (paragraph 6.8).

6.4 The starting point for considering whether the Core Strategy will deliver

additional dwellings is the existing affordable housing policies. The current Local Plan policies vary in the proportions sought:

The New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (2005) seeks

35% affordable housing on all sites in the defined villages (no site threshold), with a financial contribution required from developments of 1 or 2 dwellings. Exception sites are considered elsewhere.

The Salisbury District Local Plan (2003) allows additional residential dwellings within the defined ‘Housing Policy Areas’ of Bohemia, Hamptworth, Landford, Landford Common, Landford Wood, Lover,

12


Nomansland and Redlynch. Infilling is restricted to a net increase of one dwelling and no affordable housing contribution is currently required. Where a site is capable of providing more than a single dwelling the site should be developed for local needs affordable housing. Exception sites are considered elsewhere.

There are no defined settlements within the Test Valley part of the National Park. Therefore, only exception sites would be considered.

6.5 The Authority considers the increase in the percentage of affordable

housing sought in the ‘defined villages’ from 35% to at least 50% will result in the delivery of more affordable housing. The Core Strategy also supports appropriate exceptions sites (100% affordable housing) across the rest of the National Park. The Authority would anticipate that the removal of housing policy boundaries for the small settlements in the Wiltshire part of the Park – thereby prioritising the development of affordable housing rather than open market housing – would also increase the delivery of affordable housing in this part of the Park.

6.6 In terms of the effect the policies will have in addressing the shortfall in

affordable housing, it is important to consider the context for development within the Park. The Authority fully acknowledges the significant local need for housing. The Central Hampshire and New Forest Housing Market Assessment (DTZ, 2007) [Core Document 329] revealed there were almost 5,000 households with current applications registered in the New Forest. The minimum estimate of housing need suggested there was a need for 600 affordable homes in the New Forest per annum.

6.7 However, development on this scale would clearly not be compatible

with national planning policy, the Habitats Regulations Assessment [Core Document 126] and the statutory National Park purposes, which provide a strong framework within which planning policies and decisions must fit. The National Parks Circular (2010) [Core Document 137] acknowledges that National Parks, “…are not suitable locations for unrestricted housing…” – paragraph 78. All development within the New Forest must be of a scale and quality to reflect the statutory National Park purposes and development will necessarily be small scale.

6.8 The Authority will never be able to meet all of the need for housing

within the New Forest. To do so would compromise the special qualities of the Forest, including its communities and landscape. The Core Strategy therefore seeks to maximise the provision of affordable housing, within the remit of the statutory Park purposes and related duty, through (i) increasing the proportion of affordable housing required in the four ‘defined villages’ from 35% to 50% to ensure more on-site provision; and (ii) only supporting affordable housing across the rest of the Park (including those parts in Wiltshire). The Core Strategy affordable housing policies are supported by a robust evidence base and will make a contribution towards addressing local housing need.

13


Issue 7: What contingency exists for delivering affordable housing? (Effectiveness)

7.1 The Authority considers that the evidence base clearly demonstrates

the affordable housing target to be viable and deliverable. However, the Core Strategy acknowledges that if it can be clearly demonstrated that it was unviable to develop sites with at least 50% affordable housing, the Authority would negotiate to provide a percentage of affordable housing as close as possible to the target set in policy, having regard to a site specific economic viability assessment. This contingency recognises that site viability can affect the delivery of affordable housing and the wording accords with (i) the New Forest District Core Strategy Inspector’s Report which recommended additional wording to increase the flexibility of the affordable housing policy (paragraph 3.25); and (ii) the Authority’s Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment Study (2009) [Core Document 328].

7.2 There are currently just under 15,000 dwellings in the National Park,

meaning there is already a significant stock of open market housing. In line with the Authority’s socio-economic duty, the Core Strategy aims to ensure that the future development within the Park prioritises the delivery of affordable housing to meet local community needs.

7.3 The Core Strategy affordable housing requirements have been

informed by a robust economic viability assessment, as required by PPS3. The New Forest National Park Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment (2009) [Core Document 328] was based on house prices during an economic downturn and modelled local house prices with a 15% discount to the original 2007 study figures to reflect the downturn. The Assessment concludes that the analysis undertaken by Three Dragons will be somewhat “conservative” in approach (paragraph 3.8) and that over the period of the Core Strategy it is expected that prices would return to the longer term upward trend.

7.4 This position is consistent with the approach taken in the New Forest

District (outside the National Park) Core Strategy Inspector’s Report (September 2009). In this, the Inspector considered the delivery of affordable housing, noting that, “…an important feature of Core Strategies is that they look over a long time frame – in this case to 2026…In this context, I have seen no substantive evidence that the present economic difficulties represent a structural reversal in the way in which housing markets have historically operated.” – para. 3.23.

7.5 The Authority also acknowledges that it is necessary for the DPD to be flexible enough to accommodate changing conditions. In this context, paragraph 7.29 provides for negotiations between developers and the Authority. In circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that the 50% affordable housing target is not viable, the Authority will consider a reduction in the overall percentage of affordable housing provided. This is considered to be reasonable and provides the necessary contingency for the delivery of affordable housing.

14


Issue 8: Would CP11 c) frustrate the provision of Commoners’ dwellings? (Justified and Effectiveness)

8.1 Without an appropriate management body, the Commoners’ Dwelling

Scheme could not operate effectively. Criterion c) to Policy CP11 carries forward the existing planning policy approach and is therefore necessary in supporting the delivery of commoners’ housing.

8.2 The provision of affordable housing for commoners is essential to the

future viability of the commoning in the Forest. Without commoning the special qualities of the National Park cannot be maintained. The New Forest Commoning Review (2007) [Core Document 323] highlighted that the lack of affordable housing for commoners could be the single largest threat to sustaining commoning in the future.

8.3 Paragraph 7.30 of the Core Strategy confirms the Authority will

consider proposals for commoners’ dwellings under Policy CP11. This continues the approach of the existing Local Plans, as set out below. Criterion c) of policy NF-H8 (Affordable housing for local needs in

the New Forest) in the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (2005) [Core Document 341] states that the housing must be capable of, “…management by an appropriate body.”

Policy HA3 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (2003) states that permission may exceptionally be granted for commoners’ dwellings provided that appropriate mechanisms are agreed between the applicant and the local planning authority to guarantee the proper management of the dwelling (criterion iii).

8.4 The requirement for commoners’ housing to be managed by an

appropriate body (Policy CP11 c) is a continuation of current practice and has not frustrated the provision of commoners’ dwellings. The Commoners’ Dwelling Scheme was set up by the New Forest Committee in 1992 and since its inception 8 dwellings have been completed and a further 3 have planning permission (as at July 2010). The latest of these dwellings (land at Lyndhurst Road, Beaulieu; ref. 09/94648) was considered against policy NF-H8 and supported in May 2010 by the Authority’s Planning Development Control Committee.

8.5 The scheme requires a management body able to ensure that

successful applicants meet the requirements of the scheme over the life of the property. This involves monitoring the agreement and managing the re-sale of the property in the event that the property is no longer used for commoning. The New Forest Commoning Trust carried out this role from 1992 to 1999, New Forest District Council from 1999 to 2006, and the National Park Authority from 2006 to the present day.

8.6 There remains a requirement for a “management body” as this is the

organisation which is required to be a signatory to the legal documents required for the scheme (e.g. Section 106 agreement), and to ensure

15


that these requirements are met in perpetuity. Without an appropriate management body the Commoners’ Dwelling Scheme could not operate effectively.

16


Issue 9: Is there any conflict between ‘amended’ policy CP11(a) and CP12(a)? Justified and Effectiveness)

9.1 The minor proposed amendment to policy CP11(a) [Core Document

05] simply aims to clarify that the established policy approach of considering exceptions sites on the edge of the ‘defined villages’ will continue. This existing approach has successfully delivered affordable housing adjacent to the ‘defined villages’. For example, in March 2007 the Authority granted permission for 10 dwellings at Mill Lane, Brockenhurst as an exceptions site adjacent to the defined village boundary (application ref. 05/84765).

9.2 After considering the consultation responses received on the

Submission draft Core Strategy, the Authority noted the potential for a misunderstanding in the interpretation of CP11(a). The policy wording in the Submission draft Core Strategy could have been interpreted to have ruled out exceptions schemes adjacent to the ‘defined villages’ and the proposed amendment seeks to correct this.

9.3 Policy CP12(a) confirms that new residential development will be

permitted in the National Park to maintain the vitality and local communities and support local services, “…within the defined New Forest villages.” The Authority would emphasise that policy CP12 should be read as a whole, with the criterion linked with “or”, to give the full picture of where residential development will be considered in the Park. Criterion (e) of the policy confirms that new residential development will also be permitted in the Park through, “…affordable housing for local needs in accordance with CP11.” This criterion, when read in conjunction with criterion (a), ensures consistency with ‘amended’ policy CP12(a) and the Authority is therefore of the view that there is no conflict between the policies.

17


Issue 10: Does policy CP13 accord with Circular 01/2006 and would it conflict with the objectives of policy CP17? (Consistent with National Policy and Effectiveness)

10.1 Future pitch requirements for gypsies, travellers and travelling

showpeople will be progressed in liaison with New Forest District Council and the respective site allocations DPDs. Policy CP13 is considered to be consistent with Circular 01/2006 [Core Document 132] and the Authority does not believe there is a conflict with the objective of encouraging land management that sustains the special qualities of the Park.

10.2 Paragraph 52 of Circular 01/2006 states that in nationally designated

landscapes such as National Parks, planning permission for gypsy and traveller sites should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation will not be compromised. With the recent revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategy, there is no current development plan requirement for additional pitch provision in the Park.

10.3 The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation

Assessment (2006) [Core Document 332] concluded that there was a need for one transit site covering the west of the county (Test Valley / Eastleigh / New Forest) – paragraph 1.6.5; and new permanent pitch provision for 17 pitches in the west area (Southampton / Test Valley / Eastleigh / New Forest), of which the need in ‘the New Forest’ amounts to 3 pitches. The Travelling Showpeople Assessment (March 2008) [Core Document 333] noted that there is one current site in the National Park, and concluded that there is a need for 13 new sites across the county.

10.4 Neither assessment provides a National Park specific breakdown of the

need. Earlier consultation undertaken by SEERA (2008) proposed a requirement for New Forest District (including the National Park). However, following the recent revocation of the regional plan, the Secretary of State has confirmed that, “…the abolition of regional strategies means that local authorities will be responsible for determining the right level of site provision. Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment have been undertaken by all local authorities and if local authorities decide to review the levels of provision in their Core Strategies these assessments will form a good starting point.”

10.5 The requirements for ‘the New Forest’ – the District and the National

Park – will be progressed by the two planning authorities. Circular 01/2006 confirms that co-operation between neighbouring planning authorities is particularly important where an authority has strict planning constraints across its area. Any allocations for sites within the Park will be addressed in the Authority’s Sites and Allocations Development Plan Document. This approach is consistent with that

18


taken by section 7.4 and policy CS16 in the New Forest (outside the National Park) Core Strategy (October 2009) [Core Document 303] which confirms that the District Council will work with the National Park Authority and other partners to ensure the identified need is met.

10.6 There remains a need for the Authority to have a criteria-based policy

for gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople in the Core Strategy. The criteria in CP13 reflect the guidance in Annex C (Good Practice – Criteria) of the Circular which confirms that policy criteria should be fair, reasonable, realistic and effective, and written in a positive manner that offers some certainty that where the criteria are met permission will be granted (paragraph 1). Policy CP13 does this by stating that proposals, “…will be supported within the National Park where…”

10.7 The Circular (Annex C and paragraphs 64 – 66) also confirms that the

list of criteria adopted by the local planning authority should not be overly long and that the following factors should be considered: (i) vehicular access and convenient access to the road network; (ii) provision for parking, turning and serving; (iii) landscaping and planting; (iv) access to health and educational facilities; and (v) integrated co-existence between the site and the local community.

10.8 The Authority believes that policy CP13 accords with this Government

guidance. The policy is written in a positive manner and sets out a reasonable list of criteria which reflect the guidance from the Circular, but also the local New Forest circumstances through references to landscape character and impacts on the local Forest road network.

10.9 In terms of the relationship between policy CP13 (Gypsies, Travellers

and Travelling Showpeople) and the objectives of policy CP17 (The Land-based Economy), the ‘Sustainable Local Economy’ section of the Core Strategy acknowledges that farming, forestry and commoning play a vital role in conserving the landscape character of the Park. Policy CP17 continues the existing planning policy approach of seeking to maintain the supply of land available for back-up grazing land. The Authority does not consider there to be an inherent conflict between the policies as any proposals for gypsy, traveller or travelling showpeople sites that would affect back up grazing land would be considered against the Core Strategy policies as a whole.

10.10 The Authority is also aware that the Verderers of the New Forest have

raised concerns regarding policy CP13 and the need for it to be amended so that gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople sites are not located on general commonable land within the Park boundary. The Verderers powers, granted under the various New Forest Acts, extend to the commonable lands of the New Forest. Therefore any proposals for permanent or transit accommodation on commonable land would require the consent from the Verderers and the Authority is therefore of the view that there is no conflict between CP13 and CP17.

19


Issue 11: What provisions exist for dealing with an increase in the elderly population? (Effectiveness)

11.1 The Authority considers that the Core Strategy contains suitable

provisions to support an increase in the elderly population. The Spatial Strategy is based around reducing the need to travel and through the policy requirements for new residential development to be adaptable to need changing needs; the protection of open spaces and community facilities; and the promotion of safer access and more sustainable travel within the Park, the Authority is confident that the needs of the Forest’s elderly community will be met.

11.2 The proportion of the National Park’s population aged 60 and over

increased from 30.8%% in 2001, to 34.2% in 2007 (based on the ONS mid year National Park population estimates). This increase in the proportion of people aged 60 and over is forecast to increase further over the next twenty years (based on the Hampshire County Council Environment Department long term population projections).

11.3 Policy CC5 (Supporting an Ageing Population) of the recently revoked

Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East [Core Document 200] stated that to reflect a significant increase in the proportion of older people over the plan period to 2026, local planning authorities should plan for the social needs that will arise. This included the need to make provision in new housing developments to support older people living independent lives in their own homes; the provision of reasonable access to services; and the provision of leisure, recreational and community facilities.

11.4 Although this policy no longer forms part of the statutory ‘development

plan’ for the National Park, the Core Strategy had regard to this guidance. The Spatial Strategy is based around reducing the need to travel, with development focused in the most sustainable settlements, which will benefit the local population (including the elderly population). Within the context of the low levels of development proposed, the Core Strategy contains a number of provisions to support an increase in the elderly population. These include:

Policy DP3 (Open Space): The protection of existing open spaces

and the requirement for new development to either (a) provide for on-site open space provision or (b) enhance existing open spaces, will provide recreational facilities for older people.

Policy DP6 (Design Principles): The requirement for new residential development to take account of the lifetime homes principles will support the ageing population. This is expanded on in paragraph 6.10 of the Core Strategy (see below).

Policy CP9 (Defined Villages): Small-scale development is focused on the most sustainable settlements in the Park, where housing, community facilities and local services are provided close together.

20


Policy CP10 (Local Community Facilities): This policy supports the retention of existing community facilities and their development where there are clear benefits to the local community. This will help provide access to local community facilities for the elderly population in the New Forest.

Policy CP19 (Access): This policy seeks to promote safer access and more sustainable forms of transport in the Park. This will benefit the local communities, including the elderly population. Paragraph 9.20 confirms the need for a joined up network of routes for less mobile people, reflecting the forecast ageing population and the objectives of PPG13.

11.5 Paragraph 6.10 of the Core Strategy acknowledges the forecast

increase in the ageing population in the New Forest and confirms the Authority’s support for the ‘lifetime homes’ standards. These homes are adaptable to meet a lifetime’s changing needs and by 2013 it is the Government’s target that all private sector housing will be built to the standard. It will also be made a mandatory part of the Code for Sustainable Homes (supported through policy DP1 of the Core Strategy). These standards will make it easier for elderly people to remain independent in their homes.

21


Issue 12: Should the 30dph in policy DP9 be deleted and replaced with “the need to make efficient and effective use of land”? (Consistent with National Policy)

12.1 Although the national indicative minimum density figure no longer

exists, the Authority would still wish for policy DP9 to be retained. Although partially driven by density guidelines, the policy also emphasises the need for development to respond to local context and respect local character, and these aims remain relevant. DP9 should be reworded to reflect the need for new development to make efficient use of land while respecting the local character.

12.2 The submitted Core Strategy was prepared and consulted on prior to

the recent revisions to PPS3 (Housing) [Core Document 102] in June 2010. Consequently, one of the principal drivers to policy DP9 was the aim of ensuring that development respects local character, rather than merely responding to the national indicative density figure of 30 dwellings per hectare. This aim picked up on key themes in the Sustainable Community Strategies covering the Park.

12.3 The revisions to PPS3 in June 2010 removed the national indicative

minimum density figure (paragraph 47). However, although this minimum density no longer exists, the revised PPS3 still requires land to be used efficiently (paragraph 45).

12.4 The ‘defined villages’ are small in size and the Authority is keen to

ensure that the retention of defined village boundaries does not result in inappropriate development. While PPS3 confirms (paragraph 50) that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new development or require replication of existing style or form, residential densities within parts of the ‘defined villages’ are as low as 5 dwellings to the hectare (e.g. Pikes Hill, Lyndhurst) and development proposals should be informed by their local context.

12.5 In terms of the Inspector’s proposed wording, the Authority considers

that new development can achieve a more efficient use of land without compromising the character of the local area. The wording of policy DP9 clearly needs to be updated to reflect the recent changes in PPS3 and therefore the Authority suggests the following wording: (322 words)

Policy DP9: Residential Density in the Defined Villages To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the built heritage of the defined villages, development densities within the villages must be informed by consideration of the character of the local area. Within the local circumstances of the New Forest National Park, where the four defined villages are often characterised by spacious residential plots set within mature landscapes, the need to make efficient use of land must not compromise the character of the local area. development densities below the national indicative minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare will usually be justified.

22


Issue 13: Why is DP10 b) necessary and should “clear environmental benefits” be replaced with a test of “no harm”? (Justified)

13.1 Policy DP10 permits the replacement of existing dwellings subject to

amongst other matters, that the existing dwelling has not been abandoned (DP10 b). The Authority considers this to be an important qualifying criterion that makes it clear that the policy only applies to existing dwellings, so as to discourage proposals for new residential development on sites where it is plainly evident that the previous residential use has been abandoned. For further clarification, paragraph 7.35 explains the instances when abandonment is likely to have occurred for the purposes of applying this policy.

13.2 This approach is consistent with the current planning policy framework

contained within the New Forest District Local Plan (2005) (Policy NF-H4) and the Salisbury District Local Plan (2003) (Policy HA4), both of which make identical reference to the issue of abandonment. To remove this criterion from the policy is likely to cause confusion and create uncertainty, giving as it would the impression that new replacement dwellings could be built in lieu of buildings which could once claim a previous residential use and or buildings that had fallen into an extremely dilapidated state of repair.

13.3 Similarly, the preference for siting the replacement dwelling in the

same position as the existing dwelling takes a similar line to the current planning policy framework. Policy NF-H4 of the New Forest District Local Plan (2005) [Core Document 341] states that: “A replacement dwelling may be sited other than in the same position as the dwelling to be replaced, provided that there are overriding environmental benefits.”

13.4 Whilst Policy HA4 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (2003) requires that: “The siting of the dwelling is closely related to that of the existing.”

13.5 The reasons for encouraging replacement dwellings to be sited in the

same position as the existing dwelling are principally threefold. Firstly it helps to maintain historic and established settlement patterns, secondly it minimises any additional impacts on adjoining residential properties (for example re-siting a dwelling further back into a plot could cause overlooking problems to neighbouring gardens) and thirdly, in a very practical sense, it secures the removal of the former dwelling before the replacement can be built, thus obviating the potential for two dwellings to co-exist on a site where once there was one. The alternative is that a section 106 agreement or similar undertaking must be completed to secure the removal of the former dwelling upon completion and/or occupation of the replacement dwelling. There are though still inherent difficulties in this approach, especially in terms of

23


the time it might take to complete the new ‘replacement’ dwelling, which in the case of a very slow self build development could result in two buildings occupying the site for some considerable time, to the detriment of those living nearby and the wider amenities of the area.

13.6 Notwithstanding the above, Policy DP10 does provide a slightly more

flexible approach in considering alternative siting arrangements, referring to the need to show “clear” rather than “overriding” environmental benefits. However, for the reasons described above, the Authority would not support replacing “clear environmental benefits” with a test of ‘no harm’.

13.7 It is also worth noting that the Authority’s approach to replacement

dwellings is consistent with Policy 21 (Replacement Dwellings) of the recently adopted North York Moors National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (November 2008). This states that replacement dwellings will only be permitted where (1) residential use has not been abandoned; and (3) the replacement dwelling is in the same position and of similar floor area, volume and scale and with a similar curtilage as the existing dwelling.

24


Issue 14: What evidence exists to support the 30% restriction in policy DP11? (Justified)

14.1 As noted in Topic Paper 7 Cultural Heritage and the Built Environment

[Core Document 18] the New Forest is the most densely populated National Park in the UK and is subject to intense development pressures, from both within and outside the Park boundary. In response to these development pressures, and in order to safeguard the special character of the New Forest, successive and current local plans have sought to control and limit the scale of new development that takes place within New Forest.

14.2 The cumulative impact of proposals to extend dwellings, if not carefully

controlled, would lead in the long-term to the urbanisation and erosion of the character of the area. Also, as such proposals tend to increase the size of dwellings, they would also reduce the stock of smaller dwellings at the lower end of the market, creating an imbalance in the housing stock prejudicial to meeting local needs.

14.3 The Core Strategy therefore takes forward Policy NF-H3 of the New

Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (2005) [Core Document 341] in so far that proposed Policy DP11 seeks to limit extensions to existing dwellings to no more than 30% (except in the case of ‘small dwellings’ where the total floorspace is limited to 100 sq. metres). It is also worth noting that the supporting text (paragraph 8.10) to Policy HA4 of the Salisbury District Local Plan (2003) acknowledges that, “…an extension of more than 30% of the original dwelling is unlikely to be acceptable due to its impact on the character of the surrounding area.”

14.4 This ‘tried and tested’ policy of constraint has played an important role

in limiting the detrimental and suburbanising impacts of cumulative extensions to New Forest properties. It has been widely supported on appeal by Inspectors who have acknowledged the importance of applying a policy consistently for the wider public benefit, as evidenced by the various Inspectors’ comments cited below:

“I have taken all the other matters raised into account but overall I consider that I must support the NPA’s clearly stated and well understood policy of controlling the size of dwellings within the National Park.” (ref: APP/B9506/A/07/2054426 16 January 2008) “I agree with the NPA that such increases in living accommodation would be likely to result in further erosion of the character of the area, and this adds to my concerns about the scheme.” (ref: APP/B9506/A/08/2078469 12 November 2008) “Although this extension would not harm the character of the Forest, I recognise the importance of controlling the cumulative impact of successive extensions to prevent progressive urbanisation of the Forest…” (ref: APP/B9506/A/09/2107056 4 September 2009)

25


“…the proposal would lead to an unacceptably large dwelling that would contribute cumulatively to weaken the effect of policy NF-H3 throughout the National Park and would contribute to the erosion of the unique character and quality of the National Park.” (ref: APP/B9506/A/09/2103953 19 October 2009)

14.5 There is a significant risk that removal of the 30% limit after all this time would be seen as a ‘green light’ to extend properties exponentially, which is likely to result in average sized family dwellings becoming very large ones. The Authority would have lost a valuable and well understood planning tool in controlling the considerable development pressures that exist within the New Forest.

26


Issue 15: Should policy DP13 include reference to other occupational dwellings? (Justified and Consistent with National Policy)

15.1 Having re-considered the national planning policy guidance in PPS7

(Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, 2004) [Core Document 106], the Authority is of the view that policy DP13 should indeed include reference to ‘other occupational dwellings’ alongside agricultural or forestry workers dwellings. Annex A to PPS7 confirms that the assessment of applications for these dwellings should be the same that for agricultural or forestry workers, and therefore the details and aims of the policy do not need to be altered.

15.2 Policy DP13 (Dwellings for agricultural or forestry workers) is based on

a similar policy in the existing New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (2005) [Core Document 341]. This existing policy - NF-H6 - is similarly entitled ‘Dwellings for agricultural or forestry workers in the New Forest’.

15.3 The Authority has considered the guidance in Annex A (Agricultural,

Forestry and Other Occupational Dwellings) to PPS7. As the title of the Annex indicates, Government guidance is clear that one of the few circumstances in which isolated residential development may be justified in the countryside is when accommodation is required to enable agricultural, forestry and certain other full-time workers to live close to their place of work (paragraph 1).

15.4 This statement is expanded on in paragraph 15 of Annex A which

confirms that alongside agricultural and forestry dwellings, “…there may also be instances where special justification exists for new isolated dwellings associated with other rural based enterprises.” Paragraph 15 concludes that planning authorities should apply the same stringent levels of assessment to applications for such new occupational dwellings as they apply to applications for agricultural and forestry workers’ dwellings. To ensure consistency with national policy in PPS7, the Authority therefore agrees that policy DP13 should be reworded to include reference to other occupational dwellings.

27


Issue 16: Should the supporting text to policy DP14 include marketing for rent as well as sale? Justified and Effectiveness)

16.1 Paragraph 17 of Annex A to PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural

Areas, 2004) [Core Document 106], states that planning authorities should set out in local development documents their policy approach to the retention or removal of agricultural and other forms of occupancy conditions. The supporting text to Policy DP14 states that in order to demonstrate that the long term agricultural need for the dwelling has ceased the applicant will normally be expected to show that, “…appropriate steps have been taken to try to sell the property with the occupancy condition intact…” – paragraph 7.48.

16.2 In terms of the specific issue raised by the Inspector, the Authority

agrees that the supporting text to policy DP14 should be amended to include marketing for rent as well as sale. This amended wording would be consistent with the approach taken in Exmoor National Park, for example, where evidence is required demonstrating that “…appropriate steps have been taken to try to sell or lease the property with the occupancy condition at a price reflecting the condition and potential market…” before the Authority will consider removing an occupancy condition (paragraph 4.50, Exmoor National Park Local Plan 2001-2011).

28

New Forest National Park Authority - · PDF fileHS / New Forest National Park Authority / 3...

Documents

Transcript of New Forest National Park Authority - · PDF fileHS / New Forest National Park Authority / 3...