Archived decisions

Contact: Antony Payne, ext 6766/Jon Foley, ext 7559

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the Berkshire Unitary Authorities be advised that the action taken by the County Planning Officer and County Surveyor on the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 Deposit Draft be confirmed.

2. Reason

2.1 To confirm the officer response which was required by 26 April 2002 to meet the deposit period for comments.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to offer a response.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Introduction

7.1 The Berkshire Unitary Authorities have prepared a Deposit Draft Joint Structure Plan for the county. It was made available for public consultation until 26 April 2002.

8. Background

8.1 The six unitary authorities in Berkshire have, through a Joint Strategic Planning Unit, produced a Deposit copy of a new Structure Plan for the county that will, when adopted, replace the current Plan. The new Plan provides a strategic framework for planning the Berkshire area over the period to 2016 and has a traditional format based on topic by chapter.

8.2 The overall vision for Berkshire, as the authorities would like to see it by 2016, is one based on sustainable development and the creation of sustainable communities. To these ends the Plan contains policies applying the `sequential test' for development: promoting the use of brownfield rather than greenfield sites, reducing car mileage and promoting alternative modes of travel.

9. Matters of Interest to Hampshire

9.1 Blackwater Valley - is recognised as a sub-region and the Plan states that the Berkshire local authorities will work closely with neighbouring authorities to provide a coordinated land use, transportation and environmental strategy for the area.

9.2 Housing - the overall provision is just under 41,000 dwellings - broadly in line with current Regional Planning Guidance. The Plan allocates numbers of dwellings to each unitary area but leaves it to individual authorities, through their local plan, to identify sites or processes for bringing enough land forward to meet their share of the county allocation.

9.3 The numbers and distribution of dwellings for the period 2011-2016 is the same as for 2006-2011. These will be reviewed following the publication of new regional guidance.

9.4 Employment - the Plan states that a continuation of current rates of employment growth and labour supply would not be sustainable in the longer term. Major employment development will therefore only be acceptable if it mitigates its impact on the demand for housing, labour and skills, is of a high quality and would be compatible with the local transport infrastructure. Developers may be required to make contributions towards not only public transport and public open space but also training and childcare facilities.

9.5 Shopping and Leisure - the Plan considers that opportunities exist in Bracknell for significant retail redevelopment that could be of benefit not only to its immediate catchment but also to other parts of the Blackwater Valley. It also considers that there is scope for further retail and leisure growth in Newbury town centre.

9.6 Transport - Berkshire is currently the subject of four multi-modal transport studies which cover nearly all strategic inter-urban movements as well as inter-regional movements. These should all have reported by spring 2003 and it will be primarily through the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority to take on any recommendations in their capital programmes. The Plan does list improvements to the primary route network, including M4 junctions 11 (with A33) and 13 (with A34).

9.7 The Plan proposes maximum car parking standards to help bring about a decrease in the proportion of trips undertaken by car. Although it is left to local plans to set maximum standards for broad classes of development, the Structure Plan has set a standard for major developments for Class B1 uses. Three of the local authorities have taken issue with this standard, expressed in a Minority Report: two of the authorities (Bracknell Forest and West Berkshire) seek one space per 35 square metres of floorspace as the lower end of the range of maximum parking standards instead of the 1:30 proposed in the draft Plan, while the third (Slough) wants 1:40. The standards should be set to avoid the diversion of development from one area to another, by ensuring compatibility of policy between the Berkshire authorities and adjoining areas.

9.8 Minerals - the current Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire already develops the key principles of the new Structure Plan.

9.9 Waste - although general policies are set out in the Plan, it is left to Berkshire's Waste Local Plan to give detailed expression, including the identification of preferred areas for future waste management facilities.

9.10 Minority Report - there are aspects of the Plan with which individual councils disagreed. Rather than allowing this to delay the progress of the entire Plan these points have been set out in a Minority Report. This enables the general public to become aware of the issues and to add its comments to the debate. The Minority Report does not form part of the deposited proposals. The issue of maximum parking standards is the only one of concern to more than one authority.

10. County Planning Officer's Comments

10.1 Although the Berkshire Structure Plan broadly meets the terms of Regional Planning Guidance, it is somewhat thin on detail. The document sets out a skeletal planning framework and leaves individual unitary authorities to determine both strategic and local choices on the nature and location of new development. In addition, although the Plan purports to cover the period to 2016, there is very little of any substance for the period after 2011.

10.2 In terms of implications for strategic planning in Hampshire, the lack of detail at the strategic level makes in difficult to respond with anything other than general observations. The approach adopted by Berkshire will, however, necessitate a closer inspection of forthcoming local plans, including those for waste and minerals produced by the unitary authorities that border the county.

10.3 Hart District Council has raised concerns as to how the Plan could impact on the potential Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The County Council should request that the Berkshire local authorities consider and resolve this issue to the satisfaction of English Nature.

10.4 Policy E1 - the Plan envisages Berkshire as a place where sustainable economic growth of national and international significance continues to take place, including inward investment, existing firms and new start-ups, yet nowhere does it appear that the demand for sites and premises arising from this growth has been quantified. It would be helpful if it could be clearly demonstrated (on the basis of past development rates if nothing else) that the employment land supply already in the pipeline is sufficient to meet anticipated demand.

10.5 Policy E2 - if the proposed `Employment Impact Statements' are to be effective they should be required for all major employment developments. The content and implementation of such Statements should also be clearly spelled out, with particular reference to transport, skills and affordable housing.

10.6 Policy E3 - this seeks to ensure the provision of adequate supplies of space for small and medium sized enterprises and maintain economic diversity. This is highly commendable but may not be easy to sustain, particularly in the face of increasing land values. The County Council should support its inclusion in the Plan and encourage the Berkshire authorities to implement it rigorously.

11. County Surveyor's Comments

11.1 The guiding principles for the transport aspects of the Plan are welcomed, particularly in relation to reducing the need to travel. The local authorities concerned are asked to take the following points into consideration which have also been reflected in a separate officer response to the consultation.

11.2 In terms of the potential strategic impact of cross boundary transport movements, clarification is sought on the extent to which travel impacts of the locational policies for specific land uses have been or will be taken into account. Policy T5 `Travel Impacts' might benefit from strengthening to reflect the requirement for a transport assessment of development proposals, together with workplace travel plans where appropriate. Policy T6 `Car Parking' is essentially a parking standards policy which does not appear to reflect more general parking strategy issues, such as the availability of public car parking. It should be noted that the proposed parking standard for Class B1 Uses proposed in Berkshire's Structure Plan (one space per 35-100 square metres) is more onerous than both PPG13 and those recently adopted by Hampshire (one space per 30-100 square metres). In terms of standards for other land uses, which the Structure Plan leaves to local plans to determine, Policy T6 could be strengthened to ensure that, when setting local standards, the local authorities take into account those in relevant planning guidance (including PPG13 and the Regional Planning Guidance) and those of neighbouring local authorities with whom they should also consult. A copy of Hampshire's Car Parking Standards has been sent to the local authorities concerned for information.

11.3 In relation to Policy T3 `Primary Route Network' and proposals for improvements to the Primary Road Network the local authorities concerned are urged to acknowledge the potential for joint working with Hampshire in relation to the development of a route strategy for the A33. It should also be recognised that the County Council will be keen to see further investigations of the impacts in Hampshire of the proposed improvements of the A34 Chieveley/M4 Junction 13, particularly in the context of proposals for Dibden Bay and the detrunking of other routes.

11.4 On a number of points of detail the Key Diagram or lower case text should acknowledge that the status of a number of trunk roads in the area is currently the subject of a review by the Highways Agency. In addition, progress with a number of projects (eg multi-modal studies) has changed since the drafting of the document and requires updating. Policy T1(i) should acknowledge that management of car parking and road space are two examples of how the rate of traffic growth might be reduced.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The deadline for responses on the Deposit Draft Berkshire Structure Plan has fallen between meetings with the Executive Member for Environment. A response was sent within the deadline, based on sections 10 and 11 above, indicating that additional comments may be forwarded following consideration by the Executive Member for Environment.

7134/AP/JF