TIP04: Building For Life

The ambition of this policy to improve design of the built environment is supported.

However, as this policy only ‘encourages’ developers to design to Building for Life standards it is unenforceable, and therefore is of limited value.

This letter provides Gladman Developments Ltd (Gladman) representations in response to the submissiont version of the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan (TNP) under Regulation 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. Gladman has considerable experience in neighbourhood planning, having been involved in the process during the preparation of numerous plans across the country, it is from this experience that these representations are prepared.
Gladman are promoting land in the neighbourhood area, land off Barbrook Lane, Tiptree. Since the closure of the Regulation 14 consultation this site has been subject to appeal (reference: APP/A130/W/19/3223010) which was called in by the Secretary of State and approved on the 7th April 2020. This site now has outline planning permission for up to 200 dwellings (including 30% affordable housing), provision of 0.6ha of land safeguarded for school expansion, new car parking facility, introduction of structural planting and landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS), informal public open space and a children’s play area. Access will be achieved through demolition of 97 Barbrook Lane to form vehicular access from Barbrook Lane. We are therefore seeking for amendments to be made to the TNP to reflect this planning permission.
Legal Requirements
Before a neighbourhood plan can proceed to referendum it must be tested against a set of basic conditions set out in paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4b of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The basic conditions that the TNP must meet are as follows:
(a) Having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to make the order.
(d) The making of the order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.
(e) The making of the order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the
development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area).
(f) The making of the order does not breach, and is otherwise compatible with, EU obligations.
(g) The making of the neighbourhood plan does not breach the requirements of Chapter 8 of part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’ or ‘NPPF’) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In doing so it sets out the requirements for the preparation of neighbourhood plans to be in conformity with the strategic priorities for the wider area and the role they play in delivering sustainable development to meet development needs.
At the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden
thread running through plan-making and decision-taking. This means that plan makers should positively seek
opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with
sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. This requirement is applicable to neighbourhood plans.
The application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development will have implications for how communities
engage with neighbourhood planning. Paragraph 13 of the Framework makes clear that Qualifying Bodies preparing
neighbourhood plans should develop plans that support strategic development needs set out in Local Plans, including
policies for housing development and plan positively to support local development.
Paragraph 15 further makes clear that neighbourhood plans should set out a succinct and positive vision for the future of
the area. A neighbourhood plan should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications
can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency. Neighbourhood plans should seek to proactively drive
and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, jobs and thriving local places that the country
needs, whilst responding positively to the wider opportunities for growth.
Paragraph 29 of the Framework makes clear that a neighbourhood plan must be aligned with the strategic needs and
priorities of the wider area and plan positively to support the delivery of sustainable growth opportunities.
Planning Practice Guidance
Following the publication of the NPPF (2018), the Government published updates to its Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
on 13th September 2018 with further updates being made in the intervening period. The updated PPG provides further
clarity on how specific elements of the Framework should be interpreted when preparing neighbourhood plans.
Although a draft neighbourhood plan must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted
development plan, it is important for the neighbourhood plan to provide flexibility and consider the reasoning and
evidence informing the emerging Local Plan which will be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against
which a neighbourhood plan is tested against. For example, the neighbourhood planning body should take into
consideration up-to-date housing needs evidence as this will be relevant to the question of whether a housing supply
policy in a neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Where a neighbourhood plan
is being brought forward before an up-to-date Local Plan is in place, the qualifying body and local planning authority
should discuss and aim to agree the relationship between the policies in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, the emerging
Local Plan and the adopted Development Plan1. This should be undertaken through a positive and proactive approach
working collaboratively and based on shared evidence in order to minimise any potential conflicts which can arise and
ensure that policies contained in the neighbourhood plan are not ultimately overridden by a new Local Plan.
It is important the neighbourhood plan sets out a positive approach to development in their area by working in
partnership with local planning authorities, landowners and developers to identify their housing need figure and
identifying sufficient land to meet this requirement as a minimum. Furthermore, it is important that policies contained in
the neighbourhood plan do not seek to prevent or stifle the ability of sustainable growth opportunities from coming
forward.
Relationship to Local Plans
To meet the requirements of the Framework and the Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions, neighbourhood plans should
be prepared to conform to the strategic policy requirements set out in the adopted Development Plan.
1 PPG Reference ID: 41-009-20160211
The adopted Development Plan relevant to the preparation of the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan, and the Development
Plan which the TNP will be tested against, consists of the Colchester Local Plan DPD. This is made up of the Core Strategy,
Site Allocations DPD and Development Policies DPD. The Core Strategy was adopted in December 2008, with selected
policies having been revised in July 2014. The Core Strategy sets out the strategic planning policy framework for the
borough until 2021 and sets out an overall housing requirement of a minimum of 17,100 new homes between 2001 and
2021. This figure is derived from the East of England Plan. Within this plan Tiptree was identified as one of the key district
settlements that provides essential services and facilities to its rural hinterland.
Emerging Development Plan
To meet the requirements of the Framework, the Council has commenced work on a new Local Plan. Part 1 of the
emerging Local Plan has been prepared jointly with Braintree and Tendring Districts Councils and provides strategic
policies for the North Essex Area. Part 2 of the Local Plan deals specifically with local policies for Colchester Borough. The
Part 1 Plan has been subject to a lengthy examination with the Inspector, Mr Clewes provided Post Hearings Letter on the
15th May 2020 detailing his findings around the critical matters of the examination and a proposed way forward. He has
found that two of the three Garden Communities of the Plan are unsound and if removed, the plan would be capable of
progressing.
This will likely have significant implications for the examination of the individual Part 2 Local Plans which are yet to
commence. As such, given that the Plan is still undergoing formal examination, there remains considerable uncertainty
over what level of development that Tiptree may need to accommodate to assist the Council in meeting its OAN for
housing. Accordingly, the Plan will need to ensure that it allows for sufficient flexibility to ensure that it is able to react to
changes that may arise through the emerging Local Plan Examination.
Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan Policies
Gladman previously submitted detailed representations to the Regulation 14 consultation. Welcoming that some changes
have been made to the draft neighbourhood plan, a number of our concerns have not been addressed therefore much of
what has been submitted previously is reiterated in this response.
Objectives of the Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan
Gladman remain concerned with Objectives 12 and 14 of the Plan and how they appear to have pre-determined the
spatial strategy for the neighbourhood plan, with little evidence to support the need for these objectives. Since the
Regulation 14 consultation, development has been approved in the areas that these objectives are trying to protect. The
perceived issues identified in these objectives were considered in the recent approved appeal decision by Gladman, which
when considering the evidence, found development would be sustainable. Therefore, continuing to pursue these two
objectives, contrary to the findings of the recent appeal decision, is likely to prejudice against other landowners and
stakeholders with land in the listed areas in the neighbourhood area. In principle, we would not object to an objective
that seeks to avoid congestion on existing roads and junctions in and around Tiptree but references that seek to steer
where this development should take place without sufficient evidence are unsubstantiated and should be removed.
TIP01: Tiptree Settlement Boundaries
This policy seeks to amend the Tiptree settlement boundary to incorporate the draft allocations of the neighbourhood
plan yet excludes the recently approved planning permission at Brooks Lane. For consistency Gladman is seeking the
inclusion of the approved development at Brooks Lane within the settlement boundary. It is important that the TNP
settlement boundary reflects the most up to date position at the time of making the neighbourhood plan to ensure the
longevity of the boundary throughout the duration of neighbourhood plans lifespan.
Notwithstanding this position, Gladman object to the use of settlement boundaries in circumstances such as this where
they preclude otherwise sustainable development from coming forward or indeed already approved development. The
Framework is clear that development which is sustainable should go ahead without delay. The use of settlement limits to
arbitrarily restrict suitable development from coming forward on the edge of settlements does not accord with the
positive approach to growth required by the Framework.
Whilst Part B sets out the circumstances that development would be considered appropriate outside the settlement
boundaries these are considered to be drafted unclearly, likely to be applied inconsistently and could be used to restrict
sustainable development, conflicting with national policy.
Whilst the TNP is seeking to amend the current settlement boundary to incorporate the draft site allocations to meet the
draft requirement of the emerging plan this figure is yet to be tested through examination in public and due to the
identified issues with the Local Plan Part 1 is likely to change and should not be relied upon. Therefore, Gladman suggest
that this policy should be worded more flexibly in the interim to be in accordance with Paragraphs 11 and 16(b) of the
NPPF (2019) and the requirement for policies to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change and prepared positively.
In this regard, Gladman submit that sustainable development proposals adjacent to the development boundary that are
proportionate in size to Tiptree’s role as a settlement within the borough should be supported and wording should be
added to the policy to reflect this. Indeed, this approach was taken in the examination of the Godmanchester
Neighbourhood Plan. Paragraph 4.12 of the Examiner’s Report states:
“…Policy GMC1 should be modified to state that “Development …shall be focused within or adjoining the
settlement boundary as identified in the plan.” It should be made clear that any new development should be
either infill or of a minor or moderate scale, so that the local distinctiveness of the settlement is not compromised.
PM2 should be made to achieve this flexibility and ensure regard is had to the NPPF and the promotion of
sustainable development. PM2 is also needed to ensure that the GNP will be in general conformity with the aims
for new housing development in the Core Strategy and align with similar aims in the emerging Local Plan.”
TIP04: Building for Life
This policy reads more as an aspiration rather than a policy in encouraging development to meet Building for Life
standards. Therefore, it is considered that this should not form a policy itself and may be better located in the supporting
text to Policy TIP02: Good Quality Design in suggesting how applicants can meet design expectations.
TIP05: Dwelling Mix
Policy TIP05 attempts to guide housing mix and set requirements for Buildings Regulations in the neighbourhood plan
area. However, it is stated throughout Planning Practice Guidance that it is the role of the local planning authority through
housing needs assessments and other available datasets3, to determine whether further policy is required in Local Plans4
to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability in reference to Requirement M4(2) of the optional requirements in the
Building Regulations. Furthermore, the Local planning authority should also consider the impact of applying such
regulations as part of their Local Plan Viability Assessment, where these policy requirements can then be interrogated
robustly at examination in public.
The Government introduced these technical standards for housing in 2015. A Written Ministerial Statement2 (WMS) is
clear that the optional new technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address
a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the National
2 Written Ministerial Statement 25 March 2015 https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/writtenstatement/
Commons/2015-03-25/HCWS488/
Planning Policy Framework and Planning Guidance. Neighbourhood plans should not be used to apply the new national
technical standards. Therefore, this approach does not meet the basic conditions and should be deleted.
The aspirations for the setting of these standards has been removed from other neighbourhood plans. In the Botesdale
and Rickinghall Neighbourhood Plan Report3, the Examiner stated:
‘My understanding is that Part M of the Building Regulations requires all new dwellings to which Part M of the
Building Regulations applies should be designed to a minimum of M4(1) ‘visitable dwellings’ and that local
authorities can opt into, or ‘switch on’, requirements for M4(2) and M4(3) via Local Plan policy. However, it is
clear from the WMS that neighbourhood plans cannot set this standard.’
Site Allocations and Relationship with the SEA
Gladman included substantial commentary on the proposed approach to site allocations and the Strategic Environmental
Assessment in our previous submissions and do not wish to repeat much of what was previously submitted. Gladman
note that the assessment of sites has been updated following our submissions. However, we remain concerned with the
conclusions of the SEA and the assessment of Barbrook Lane. The assessment of the proposed sites remains inconsistent
with The Landscape Capacity of Settlement Fringes in Colchester Report being used to weigh against the proposal, yet
this report does not readily appear to have been a consideration of other proposed sites. The site is well screened with
little wider impact, a fact endorsed in the approved appeal decision. Gladman consider that if this site had been assessed
under these circumstances the outcome of the sites proposed for development may well have differed.
Conclusions
Neighbourhood Plans should be recognised as a key tool for local people to shape the development of their local
community. However, it is clear from national guidance that these must be consistent with national planning policy and
the strategic requirements for the wider authority area.
Gladman hopes you have found these representations helpful and constructive. If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me or one of the Gladman team.