Duty to Co-operate

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1697

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation:

No agreement has been reached on how any housing 'overspill' from Sheffield might best be accommodated. Although the exact amount of overspill and likely geographical focus is currently unknown, we consider that a strategic review of Green Belt across SCR (including in NED) should be undertaken in accordance with the agreed SCR common approach. In the absence of a firm commitment to undertake a Green Belt review, the Initial Draft does not give Sheffield City Council the comfort that appropriate mechanisms are in place to address any future requests from SCC to accommodate unmet housing needs. We would also recommend that, as far as possible, plan periods across SCR are aligned as new plans are produced in each district.

Full text:

The local authorities within Sheffield City Region (SCR) have been working together on a number of pieces of work which will help to develop a shared evidence base to inform strategic priorities across boundaries. In particular, we note that a common approach on Green Belt review has been agreed and work is progressing on developing a series of 'policy-on' demographic scenarios linked to the jobs growth target in the SCR Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). Our concern, at this stage, is that no agreement has been reached on how any housing 'overspill' from Sheffield might best be accommodated. It is unlikely that Sheffield will be able to accommodate all its own housing needs and this has obvious implications for the levels of growth that might need to be planned for the NED Local Plan (and the other districts within SCR, especially Barnsley, Rotherham and Chesterfield). The exact amount of overspill and the likely geographical focus is not currently known, and will be informed by the work taking place at SCR. However, to help inform discussions between authorities on the distribution of growth, we consider that a strategic review of Green Belt across SCR (including in NED) should be undertaken in accordance with the agreed SCR common approach.

In the absence of any firm commitment to undertake a Green Belt review, the timing of such a review and the circumstances that would trigger a review, the NED Local Plan as currently drafted does not give Sheffield City Council (SCC) the necessary comfort that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to effectively and expediently address any future request from SCC for NEDDC to accommodate Sheffield's unmet housing needs and/or any additional housing that may be required to serve the growth aspirations of the wider SCR.

We consider that our concerns may be addressed by a combination of a signed memorandum of understanding between the two Councils outlining how these issues will be addressed (i.e. by undertaking a timely review of the Green Belt and a subsequent review of the Local Plan as necessary); and changes to the Local Plan text to reflect these commitments.

We would also recommend that, as far as possible, plan periods across SCR are aligned as new plans are produced in each district. We note that the NED Local Plan is likely to be adopted in 2017 and will look ahead to 2031. For housing, this is less than the 15 year time frame recommended ('where possible') by the NPPF (paragraph 47). The new Sheffield Local Plan is scheduled for adoption in 2018 and is likely to look to at least 2034/35. It would be helpful if the NED Local Plan adopted the same end date.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1741

Received: 27/03/2015

Respondent: Tracey Marsden, Nicola Shepherdson & Mark Woodhead

Agent: Spawforths

Representation:

The Council considers that North East Derbyshire forms a self-contained HMA with Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield. However in its Housing Topic Paper it acknowledges that "it should be recognised that there are economic links more widely across the Sheffield City Region" (Paragraph 2.2.3) and that "overall evidence does point towards a set of relationships towards the larger economic centres to the north such as Sheffield" (Paragraph 2.2.8). These functional relationships with Sheffield must be taken into account in: defining the extent of the HMA; in concluding on North East Derbyshire's objectively assessed housing needs; and on its housing requirement during the plan period.

The Council will also "need to consider the Sheffield City Region and unmet needs of other areas" (Paragraph 1.12 SHMA Final Report 2013).

Before the Local Plan is submitted for Examination a Duty to Co-operate Statement should be prepared setting out the Council's compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes of collaborative working with all of its neighbouring local authorities.

Full text:

Spawforths have been instructed by Tracey Marsden, Nicola Shepherdson & Mark Woodhead to submit representations to the North East Derbyshire - Part 1 Initial Draft, 2015.
The landowners own land off Camdale Rise, Ridgeway, Sheffield, identified on the plan supplementing these representations.

2. National Planning Policy Context and Tests of Soundness
The Government's core objectives as established through the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are sustainable development and growth. Paragraph 14 of the Framework stresses the need for Local Plans to meet the objectively assessed needs of an area. The core planning principles are set out at paragraph 17. These include that planning should be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, find creative ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives, and proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, businesses and thriving local places that the country needs.
In relation to Local Plan formulation, paragraph 150 of the Framework states that Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development which reflects the vision and aspirations of local community. The Framework indicates that Local Plans must be consistent with the Framework and should set out the opportunities for development and provide clear policies on what will and will not be permitted and where.
In relation to the examination of Local Plans, paragraph 182 of the Framework sets out the tests of soundness and establishes that:
The Local Plan will be examined by an independent Inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is sound. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is "sound" - namely that it is:
* Positively prepared - the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
* Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;
* Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and
* Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

This submission considers the content of the North East Derbyshire - Part 1 Initial Draft Local Plan on behalf of the landowners of the site located off Camdale Rise, Ridgeway, Sheffield, having regard to this planning policy context.

3. North East Derbyshire - Part 1 Initial Draft Local Plan Representations
The following comments relate to specific policies and/or sections of the Initial Draft Local Plan - Part 1. In each case, observations are set out with reference to the provisions of the Framework and where necessary, amendments are suggested to ensure that the Local Plan is made sound.
3.1. Duty to Cooperate
North East Derbyshire is bounded by five neighbouring local authorities (Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, Amber Valley and Bolsover).
The Council considers that North East Derbyshire forms a self-contained Housing Market Area (HMA) with Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield. However in its Housing Topic Paper it acknowledges that "it should be recognised that there are economic links more widely across the Sheffield City Region" (Paragraph 2.2.3) and that "overall evidence does point towards a set of relationships towards the larger economic centres to the north such as Sheffield" (Paragraph 2.2.8). These functional relationships with Sheffield must be taken into account in: defining the extent of the HMA; in concluding on North East Derbyshire's objectively assessed housing needs; and on its housing requirement during the plan period.
Proposed Changes
In addition, the Council will also "need to consider the Sheffield City Region and unmet needs of other areas" (Paragraph 1.12 North Derbyshire & Bassetlaw SHMA Final Report 2013).
Before the North East Derbyshire Local Plan is submitted for Examination a Duty to Co-operate Statement should be prepared setting out the Council's compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes of collaborative working with all of its neighbouring local authorities.
3.2. Housing Needs (Policy LP2)
Policy LP2 - Spatial Strategy proposes a minimum housing requirement of 6,000 dwellings (300 dwellings per annum) over the plan period of 2011 - 2031.
NPPG confirms that household projections produced by DCLG are just the starting point for determining a local authority's objectively assessed need (ID 2a-015-20140306). The latest household projections are based on past trends experienced at a time when household formation was severely constrained by poor economic conditions.
We remain to be convinced that Policy LP2 is consistent with the Government's overall growth agenda and, particularly with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirement under Paragraph 47 "to boost significantly housing supply". Previously, the adopted East Midland Regional Spatial Strategy set a higher housing target (26 per cent above the currently proposed requirement) of 380 dwellings per annum for North East Derbyshire.
Proposed Change
Significantly, to ensure the Plan is sound the housing requirement must be adequate not only to meet the Council's housing needs but also to facilitate planned economic growth and to deliver affordable housing in the District. Consequently, the Council should give further consideration to its expressed housing requirement.
3.3. Housing Supply (Policies LP7, LP8, LP10, LP12)
The Council is proposing a two part Local Plan with only strategic policies and strategic site allocations included in the Part 1 Plan. This is intended to be sufficient to maintain a five year housing land supply until the Part 2 Plan is prepared and adopted.
The Council's Annual Monitoring Report confirms that there is no five year supply of available housing land. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF "relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites". Hence, unless there is reasonable certainty that the Council will have a five year housing land supply, the Local Plan will not be sound as it would be neither effective nor consistent with national policy.
According to the draft plan, settlement limits will not be reviewed until the Part 2 Local Plan. Then under Policy LP7 - North East Derbyshire Green Belt existing boundaries will be re-confirmed after the Green Belt review has been undertaken with Sheffield City Council.
The NPPF envisages that "each Local Planning Authority should produce a Local Plan for its area" (Paragraph 153). NPPG confirms this approach stating "the NPPF makes clear that the Government's preferred approach is for each local planning authority to prepare a single Local Plan for its area". The Council has not provided any justification for the proposed Part 2 Local Plan.
Policy LP10 - the policy attempts to deal with small settlements and countryside as a single entity rather than two separate tiers of the settlement hierarchy. The Council should re-consider this policy.
The Council should confirm that the proposed distribution of housing is going to satisfy the housing needs of the District, especially in rural areas as set out in Paragraphs 17 and 55 of the NPPF. The Council should be mindful that when identifying locations for growth and site allocations to meet its housing needs the widest variety of sites by size, location and market type should be considered to enable the house building industry to maximise housing delivery.
Policy LP8 - The Council should re-consider whether or not the level of proposed protection on Settlement Gaps is warranted.
Policy LP12 - Paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF require whole plan viability testing to inform affordable housing policies. Consequently, we recommend that the Council commissions the required viability study before the Local Plan is submitted for examination. The reference to Building for Life is unnecessary and should be deleted.

4. Conclusion
These representations have been made by Spawforths on behalf of Tracey Marsden, Nicola Shepherdson & Mark Woodhead who own land off Camdale Rise, Ridgeway, Sheffield.
On the basis of the representations set out above, we consider that the plan is not considered to be justified or consistent with national policy and is therefore unsound. This is therefore not the most appropriate strategy to meet the identified and future needs. Comments and suggestions have been made as to how these issues could be addressed.
We trust that you will give due consideration to these comments and we request that you confirm receipt of this representation.
We welcome the opportunity for further engagement and the opportunity to appear at the Examination in Public to debate these matters in further detail.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1802

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Representation:

Duty to Co-operate
Important wider inter relationships should be taken into account in both defining the relevant HMA and the objective assessment of housing needs (OAHN).
At this time the Council has not produced a Duty to Co-operate Statement.
Before the North East Derbyshire Local Plan is submitted for Examination a Duty to Co-operate Statement should be prepared setting out the Council's compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes of collaborative working without which the Local Plan should not be found sound.

Full text:

Dear Sir / Madam
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DRAFT LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
Introduction

Thank you for consulting with the Home Builders Federation (HBF) on the above mentioned consultation. The HBF is the principal representative body of the house-building industry in England and Wales. Our representations reflect the views of our membership, which includes multi-national PLC's, regional developers and small, local builders. In any one year, our members account for over 80% of all new "for sale" market housing built in England and Wales as well as a large proportion of newly built affordable housing. We would like to submit the following representations and in due course attend the Examination Hearing Sessions to debate these matters in greater detail.
Duty to Co-operate
North East Derbyshire has five neighbouring authorities namely Sheffield City Council, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, Amber Valley and Bolsover District Councils as well as forming part of the Peak District National Park. There are also two Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) for the Sheffield City Region and Derbyshire & Nottinghamshire D2N2.
The Council considers that North East Derbyshire forms a Housing Market Area (HMA) together with Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield. However in the Housing Topic Paper dated 2015 it is acknowledged that "it should be recognised that there are economic links more widely across the Sheffield City Region" (Paragraph 2.2.3) and "overall evidence does point towards a set of relationships towards the larger economic centres to the north such as Sheffield" (Paragraph 2.2.8). These important wider inter relationships should be taken into account in both defining the relevant HMA and the objective assessment of housing needs (OAHN).
At this time the Council has not produced a Duty to Co-operate Statement but it has confirmed working in partnership with Bolsover District Council on a new growth strategy with particular regard to the Coalite Regeneration Area which straddles the administrative boundaries of the two LPAs. Last year the Bolsover Local Plan failed the Duty to Co-operate because of a lack of joint working on this strategic matter. Therefore before the North East Derbyshire Local Plan is submitted for Examination a Duty to Co-operate Statement should be prepared setting out the Council's compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes of collaborative working without which the Local Plan should not be found sound.
Housing Needs
Policy LP2 - Spatial Strategy proposes a minimum housing requirement of 6,000 dwellings (300 dwellings per annum) over the plan period of 2011 - 2031. This housing requirement is stated to meet OAHN, economic growth and deliver affordable housing.
The Council's OAHN is set out in two documents comprising North Derbyshire & Bassetlaw SHMA Final Report dated November 2013 by G L Hearn and North Derbyshire & Bassetlaw SHMA Sensitivity Testing Analysis dated March 2014 by G L Hearn. These reports are now somewhat dated so no doubt before the submission of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan for Examination the Council will be commissioning an up-date taking into account the recently published 2012 based household projections.
As set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) household projections produced by DCLG are just the starting point for OAHN (ID 2a-015-20140306). It should be stressed that the official household projections are projections of past trends and not forecasts as such these projections reflect past influences on household formation. Housing shortages over the last two decades, and poor housing affordability, have restricted the ability of many young people to form independent households. In addition, household formation has been adversely hit by poor economic, housing and mortgage market conditions since 2008. Therefore the 2012-based projections should be treated as under-estimates of true future requirements as these projections build into future housing provision the adverse impacts on household formation of past undersupply and very weak economic and market conditions between 2008 and 2012.
There are a number of observations to be made about the Council's OAHN and its housing requirement as set out in the documents referenced above.
It is overly reliant on demographic projections. The range of OAHN identified in the original SHMA of 270 - 310 dwellings per annum represents at the bottom end of this range a household formation rate (HFR) midway between 2008 and 2011 household projections whilst at the top end higher population growth and / or HFR. In the Housing Topic Paper 2015 (Table 1) the OAHN range is reduced to 268 - 285 dwellings per annum based on the Sensitivity Testing Analysis Report. This over reliance on demographic projections alone is confirmed in Paragraph 3.52 of the Housing Topic Paper 2015 which states
"meeting the assessment of need represented by a figure at the top end of the range of demographic projections".
The NPPG identifies that plan makers should also assess employment trends (ID 2a-018-20140306) which may necessitate an upward adjustment above demographic projections. This is acknowledged in the original SHMA (Paragraph 1.11) stating "higher provision might be considered in order to support economic growth". Indeed the Sensitivity Testing Analysis identified an OAHN of 312 dwellings per annum based on residents in employment model. However this calculation may be unduly low because of assumptions about changing commuting patterns and economic participation rates. Furthermore the original SHMA uses only an Experian economic forecast rather than a range of economic forecasts and even when a comparison is made to an Oxford Economics forecast data from 2007 is used (Paragraph 4.4.2 Housing Topic Paper 2015).
The NPPG states that market signals such as land prices, house prices, rents, affordability, rates of development and overcrowding should be considered in OAHN (ID 2a-019-20140306). A worsening trend in any of these market signals will require an upward adjustment to planned housing numbers compared to ones based solely on household projections (ID 2a-020-20140306). However the Council considers no such adjustments are necessary.
The NPPG advises that Councils should estimate the number of existing and future households without their own home or living in unsuitable accommodation, who cannot afford to meet their housing needs in the open market (ID 2a-022-20140306). This total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments. An increase in the total housing figures included in the Local Plan should be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes (ID 2a-029-20140306). The more significant the affordability constraints and the stronger other indicators of high demand, the larger the improvement in affordability needed and therefore the larger the additional supply response should be (ID 2a-020-20140306). An affordable housing need of 482 dwellings per annum is identified. The Council considers that it is unrealistic to expect this level of affordable housing to be delivered and any shortfall will be met by the private rented sector.
Such an assumption is unacceptable as set out in the recently published Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Examination Inspector's Preliminary Conclusions on Housing Needs and Supply and Economic Growth dated November 2014 in which Mr Emerson wrote "there is no justification in the Framework or Guidance for reducing the identified need for affordable housing by the assumed continued role of the private rented sector with local housing allowance (housing benefit). This category of housing does not come within the definition of affordable housing in the Framework ... the Framework requires planning authorities to meet the housing needs of its area including affordable housing needs ... I recognise that I and other Inspectors elsewhere have previously accepted an on-going role for the PRS with LHA to discount the assessment of affordable housing needs, but I am no longer persuaded
that this approach is justified ... the failure of the Council to recognise the true scale of need for affordable housing and therefore the consequential failure to consider how it might be addressed is a serious shortcoming" (Paragraphs 29, 30 and 33).
In conclusion the question arises as to whether or not a housing requirement of 6,000 dwellings (300 dwellings per annum) is a sufficient response to the Government's overall growth agenda and more specifically the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirement under Paragraph 47 "to boost significantly housing supply". Previously the adopted East Midland Regional Spatial Strategy set a housing target of 380 dwellings per annum for North East Derbyshire. Under the Duty to Co-operate the Council will also "need to consider the Sheffield City Region and unmet needs of other areas" (Paragraph 1.12 North Derbyshire & Bassetlaw SHMA Final Report 2013). Therefore before submission of the Local Plan for Examination the Council should give further consideration to its OAHN and the housing requirement set out in Policy LP1.
Housing Supply
As the Council is proposing a two part Local Plan only strategic policies and strategic site allocations are included in the Part 1 Plan, which are intended to be sufficient to maintain a 5 years housing land supply (YHLS) until the Part 2 Plan adopted. Similarly settlement limits will not be reviewed until the Part 2 Local Plan and under Policy LP7 - North East Derbyshire Green Belt existing boundaries will be re-confirmed after the Green Belt review to be carried out with Sheffield City Council.
The NPPF envisages that "each Local Planning Authority should produce a Local Plan for its area" (Paragraph 153). The NPPG confirms this approach stating "the NPPF makes clear that the Government's preferred approach is for each local planning authority to prepare a single Local Plan for its area". Although other Development Plan Documents (DPD) may be produced such DPDs must be justified. The Council has not provided any justification for the proposed Part 2 Local Plan.
Under Policy LP2 - Spatial Strategy recommended housing growth is distributed according to a defined settlement hierarchy. In this settlement hierarchy Dronfield and Clay Cross are defined as principal towns whilst Eckington and Killamarsh are defined as secondary towns. There are sixteen named large settlements, twenty two named small settlements and eight named very small villages & hamlets. Elsewhere is defined as countryside.
The total growth of 6,000 dwelling is broadly distributed across the District as:-
* The North : 1,000 dwellings ;
* The South : 3,000 - 3,400 dwellings ;
* The East : 600 - 900 dwellings ;
* The West : 700 - 900 dwellings.
In the main towns and secondary towns numbers of dwellings are proposed as :-
* Policy LP20 - Dronfield : at least 285 dwellings ;
* Policy LP21 - Clay Cross : 735 dwellings ;
* Policy LP22 - Eckington : 260 dwellings ;
* Policy LP23 - Killamarsh : at least 153 dwellings.

The strategic site allocations are included in :-
* Policy LP3 - The Avenue an allocation of 1,100 dwellings of which 700 dwellings will be delivered in the plan period ;
* Policy LP4 - Former Biwaters an allocation for minimum 800 dwellings.

Policy LP6 - The Coalite Regeneration Area is safeguarded for future development beyond the plan period. This site straddles the administrative boundary with Bolsover District Council so its regeneration will be subject to a comprehensive master plan as determined by both Councils working together.
With regard to Policy LP24 - Large & Small Settlements the Council should re-consider whether this policy is appropriate given that large and small settlements are separate tiers in the settlement hierarchy.
There are no housing requirements or site allocations specified for the very small villages & hamlets. Any future development in these locations is determined by Policy LP9 - Development on unallocated land within settlement development limits and Policy LP10 - Development on unallocated land in the Countryside. Policy LP10 is confusing as it attempts to deal with small settlements and countryside as one entity rather than two separate tiers of the settlement hierarchy. The Council should re-consider this policy.
The Council should confirm that the proposed distribution of housing is going to satisfy the housing needs of the District especially in the rural areas as set out in Paragraphs 17 and 55 of the NPPF. The Council should be mindful that when identifying locations for growth and site allocations to meet OAHN the widest variety of sites by size, location and market type should be considered to enable the house building industry to maximise housing delivery.
The prioritising of previously developed land as described in the supporting text (Paragraph 5.22) is inappropriate. This proposed prioritising of previously developed land is contrary to the NPPF. The core planning principle set out in Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is to "encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)" such encouragement is not setting out a principle of prioritising brownfield before greenfield land. Similarly Paragraph 111 of the NPPF states that "Local Planning Authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land" again there is no reference to prioritising the use of brownfield land. The Council's proposal to
prioritisation relates back to previous national policies which are now inconsistent with current national policy. In Paragraph 17 of his determination of the Planning Appeal at Burgess Farm in Worsley Manchester (APP/U4230/A/11/215743) dated July 2012 (4 months after the introduction of the NPPF) the Secretary of State confirms that "national planning policy in the Framework encourages the use of previously developed land but does not promote a sequential approach to land use. It stresses the importance of achieving sustainable development to meet identified needs".
As confirmed by the Council's Annual Monitoring Report there is no 5 years housing land supply (YHLS) calculated on a 20% buffer because of past under delivery. The Council's decision to produce a two part Local Plan will only exacerbate this position. If there is not reasonable certainty that the Council has a 5 YHLS the Local Plan is not be sound as it would be neither effective nor consistent with national policy as set out in Paragraph 47 of the NPPF. Moreover if the North East Derbyshire Local Plan is not to be out of date on adoption it is critical that the land supply requirement is achieved as under Paragraph 49 of the NPPF "relevant policies for the supply of housing will not be considered up to date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites".
In conclusion the Council should give further consideration to 5 YHLS before submission of the Local Plan for Examination.
Other Policies
Policy LP8 - Local Settlement Gaps the Council should re-consider whether or not the level of protection proposed is justified.
In Policy LP10 there is a conflict with the House of Commons Written Statement (HCWS50) Support for Small Scale Developers, Custom and Self-builders concerning commuted sums which the Council should correct.
Policy LP12 - Housing Need, Range & Choice misinterprets the House of Commons Written Statement (HCWS50) Support for Small Scale Developers, Custom and Self-builders therefore the threshold should be 11 units not 10 units. The reference to Building for Life in Policy LP12 is unnecessary and superfluous. This reference should be deleted.
Policy LP12 requires 40% affordable housing provision in the North and West sub areas and 30% affordable housing provision in the South and East sub areas. However it is noted that the Council's viability assessment is dated 2011 which pre dates the NPPF requirement for whole plan viability testing as set out in Paragraphs 173 and 174. It is recommended that the Council commissions a new study before the Local Plan is submitted for examination.
It is suggested that Policy LP14 - Type & Mix of Housing is reviewed by the Council when the final outcomes of the Government's Housing Standards Review consultation are known in particular the reference to Lifetime Homes. Similarly it is unlikely that Bullet Point (a) of Policy LP25 - Sustainable
Design & Construction will comply with the outcomes of the Housing Standards Review (when known) and a modification will be necessary.
The Council should also consider reviewing Bullet Point (h) of Policy LP25 - Sustainable Design & Construction on public art with particular reference to Paragraph 204 of the NPPF, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010) and in particular the NPPG (ID 23b-004-20140306) which states that "planning obligations should not be sought - on for instance, public art - which are clearly not necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms".
Likewise Policy LP29 - Renewable & Low Carbon Energy should be re-consider for compliance with recent consultations such as "Next Steps to Zero Carbon Homes - Allowable Solutions" and "Next Steps to Zero Carbon Homes - Small Sites Exemptions".
In Policy LP37 - Developer Contributions the reference to the District Valuer should be replaced with a reference to an independent assessor as agreed by the parties.
Conclusions
For the North East Derbyshire Local Plan to be found sound under the four tests of soundness defined by Paragraph 182 of the NPPF, the Local Plan positively prepared, justified, effective and compliant with national policy. At present the Draft Local Plan is unsound because of a number of unresolved issues which in summary include :-
* OAHN and the housing requirement ;
* no 5 YHLS ;
* out of date viability assessment ;
* missing evidence such as Duty to Co-operate Statement ;
* non-compliance with national policy re affordable housing and Housing Standards Review.

Therefore the Local Plan has not been positively prepared or justified so it will not be effective or compliant with national policy.
It is hoped that these comments are helpful to the Council in informing the next stages of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan. In the meantime if any further assistance or information is required please contact the undersigned.
Yours faithfully
for and on behalf of HBF
Susan E Green

Planning Manager - Local Plans

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1834

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

There is little evidence that a number of these organisations have been engaged in plan preparation. This is particularly relevant in the case of the wider LEPs.

There are noted migration and commuting links between the North Derbyshire HMA authorities and the regions and areas mentioned above, which indicate that a policy response may be required to address the additional demand for growth which may be generated.

Given economic drivers in Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham and HS2, the plan's aspirations for growth should be considered in line with wider regional aspirations.

Further evidence is needed on the Duty to Cooperate

Full text:

See Attatched

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2297

Received: 30/03/2015

Respondent: Rippon Homes

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Representation:

Paragraph 1.13 of the plan refers to the legal requirement of the Duty to Co-operate. Notwithstanding this the document does not set out how the requirement is being addressed in terms of co-operation with the five neighbouring authorities of Amber Valley, Bolsolver District, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales and Sheffield City. Therefore the Council will need to prepare a Duty to Co-operate Statement setting out compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes of collaborative working with neighbouring authorities, without which the Local Plan should not be found sound.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2366

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Representation:

Paragraph 1.13 of the consultation document refers to the legal requirement of the Duty to Co-operate. Notwithstanding this the document does not set out how the requirement is being addressed in terms of co-operation with the five neighbouring authorities of Amber Valley, Bolsolver District, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales and Sheffield City.
Therefore the Council will need to prepare a Duty to Co-operate Statement setting out compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes of collaborative working with neighbouring authorities, without which the Local Plan should not be found sound.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2386

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: DLP (Planning) Ltd - Sheffield office

Representation:

the Duty to Cooperate has not be appropriately discharged (Appendix 1: Objectively Assessed Needs report);

Full text:

See attached