Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for J & J Design search

New search New search

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

E5 Development outside town centres

Representation ID: 630

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: J & J Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

We respectfully submit that there is no justification for requiring sequential testing for all non town centre development, including future community provision and new places of worship.

A change of title for the policy is requested.

Full text:

Representation on behalf of Brackley Fox Lane Gospel Hall Trust.

This policy appears to be written with secondary retail development in mind. As drafted the policy will require all potential out-of-town retail development will be required to consider the sequential test set out in national policy (NPPF paragraphs 24-27). The policy criteria are all retail related, with the exception of criteria h) and i).

It is considered to be unreasonable and unjustified for all forms of development outside town centres to undergo sequential testing. National policy excludes proposals for small scale rural offices or other small scale development. We respectfully submit that there is no justification for requiring sequential testing for all non town centre development, including future community provision and new places of worship.

A change of title for the policy is requested.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

T5 Vehicle Parking

Representation ID: 635

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: J & J Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The NPPF (paragraph 174) advises that local planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the Local Plan.

Full text:

Representation on behalf of Brackley Fox Lane Gospel Hall Trust.

The NPPF advises that any additional development plan documents should only be used where clearly justified. Supplementary planning documents should be used where they can help applicants make successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery, and should not be used to add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development. SPD is not subject to independent examination. The NPPF (paragraph 174) also advises that local planning authorities should set out their policy on local standards in the Local Plan. At the recent Canterbury Local Plan Examination the Inspector drew attention to the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of March 2015 (copy attached) which indicates that local planning authorities should only impose local parking standards for residential and non-residential development where there is clear and compelling justification that it is necessary to manage their local road network. The Canterbury Local Plan was modified with a new appendix containing the appropriate advisory standards. The Inspector concluded that Canterbury City Council had not shown that there was a case to impose standards across the District that met the WMS tests.

We submit that the WMS advice has been reinforced by the recent case of William Davis Ltd v Charnwood Borough Council [2017] EWHC 3006 (admin), where the Council sought to promote a Housing SPD, which the court found to be a significant departure from the policies of the NPPF. We attach a copy of the caselaw report.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S5 Infrastructure

Representation ID: 641

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: J & J Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The policy is unsound and incompatible with NPPF paragraph 204 in that the Council are seeking to have regard to existing deficiencies in services and infrastructure provision, whereas NPPF paragraph 204 indicates that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the relevant tests.

Full text:

Representation on behalf of Brackley Fox Lane Gospel Hall Trust.

The Trust supports Policy S5 in principle. However, the policy should clarify the term "All development", and in particular whether this means all new housing or includes employment and/or community provision. Furthermore, the trust welcomes the recognition that infrastructure deficiencies should be taken into account, but would respectfully question how such deficiencies can be taken into account by new development other than in the light of the tests at NPPF paragraph 204.

The policy and supporting text should recognise that:

a. Voluntary sector organisations including faith communities may be willing and able to make community infrastructure investments without developer funding;
b. Charitable organisations will be CIL exempt for development required in furtherance of charity objectives;
c. Notwithstanding funding issues, adequate land allocations will be required to meet known infrastructure needs and/or deficiencies.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

11.16

Representation ID: 645

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: J & J Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Brackley Fox Lane Gospel Hall Trust object to the policy vacuum for community facilities which are not associated with new residential development, including a draft policy amendment.
The Trust also object to the Definition of Community Facilities in the Glossary, which are not limited to 'multi-purpose'.

Full text:

Representation on behalf of Brackley Fox Lane Gospel Hall Trust.

The Trust object to the policy vacuum for community facilities which are not associated with new residential development. A draft policy amendment is suggested, together with amended text in the Glossary.

Paragraph 11.16 provides a summary of the NPPF in respect of healthy inclusive communities and explicitly includes places of worship.

Paragraph 11.17 indicates that the Council will resist the loss of community facilities unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no long-term requirement for their retention.

Paragraph 11.18 acknowledges the need for additional community facilities to support new development.

Paragraph 11.19 refers to assets of community value (ACV), which are subject to additional protection from redevelopment. ACV status is a material consideration when dealing with planning applications that affect an asset. It should be noted that a recent First-Tier Tribunal decision has established that it is inappropriate to register a church as an ACV, see General Conference of the New Church v Bristol City Council [2015] UKFTT CR 2014 0013 (GRC) - copy attached.

The policy includes a requirement for residential applications to either include new community facilities or to secure financial contributions towards new community facilities, reasonably related to the scale and kind of development proposed.

However, the policy gives no guidance or support for new 'free standing' community facilities. Despite the policy title there is also no reference to ACV status.

The Trust also object to the Definition of Community Facilities in the Glossary, which should not be limited to 'multi-purpose'. This has been considered in a number of planning appeals. We would refer to the following appeal decisions:

a. APP/P0119/A/06/2011716 Armstrong Way Yate Bristol BS37 5NG paragraph 18;
b. APP/E2530/W/16/3147751 62 High Street Carlby Lincolnshire PE9 4LX paragraph 29.

Copies of these appeal decisions are attached.

Neither the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 nor the NPPF support the limitation to 'multi-purpose' uses in order to qualify as 'Community Facilities'. This issue was raised as a 'soundness' test at Dacorum Core Strategy Examination and the relevant policy CS23 was subject to Main Modification (MM18).

'Faith Groups and the Planning System - Policy Briefing' - AHRC Faith and Place network : 2015 provides an overview of the good practice for faith groups and local authorities, including advice on the definition of community and the different geographies of faith communities together with the need for local planning authorities to gain a wider understanding of the needs of faith communities.

In the case of the respondents, any new facility would be required to be dedicated to a single user for public worship and religious instruction, but excluding social and recreational uses. This would be a Class D1 facility and would not include multiple secular community uses. The trust seeks a Local Plan Policy which includes adequate flexibility to support and guide future development of this character which is expected to be required in Buckingham or its dependent village during the Local Plan period.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.