Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
EiP document ref.
EBC/4/1
Eastleigh Borough Local Plan
Examination
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions
November 2014:
Section 1, Statutory and regulatory
matters.
Eastleigh Borough Council’s response
28 October 2014
1
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
This page is intentionally blank
2
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
1.1 Has the Plan been prepared in accordance with the Local Development
Scheme (LDS) and have the relevant details in the LDS been met in respect of
the role, rationale and scope of the Plan?
EBC1.1 Yes. The Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July
2014 (hereafter the Submitted Local Plan)1 was prepared in accordance
with the Local Development Scheme (LDS) adopted in September 2013
(EBC/Subn.10)2. In Appendix 2 at page 11 of this LDS, there is a
schedule of development plan documents being prepared. The first line
of the schedule refers to the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029,
and the second column sets out the role and content of the Local Plan.
The Submitted Local Plan accords fully with the role and content
described. Columns 4 and 5 set out the programme for preparation of
the Local Plan in terms of the relevant regulations. Preparation and
publication of the Local Plan has proceeded largely in accordance with
this programme, although for a variety of reasons submission took
place in July rather than June 2014.
EBC1.2 A revised LDS was adopted in June 2014 (EBC/Subn.9). The reason for
this update was to incorporate provisions for early review and roll
forward of the Local Plan. The schedule in Appendix 2 to this
document, again commencing at page 11, now includes a further line
referring to the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review 2016 – 2036 (page
12).
1.2 Has the Plan been prepared in compliance with the Statement of
Community Involvement (SCI)?
EBC1.3 Yes. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
(EBC/Subn.8) was revised in 2013 to bring it into line with changes to
legislation and plan preparation processes. Preparation of, and
consultation on the Local Plan complied fully with the measures set out
in the 2013 SCI. Chapter 5 of the SCI sets out the steps to be taken at
each regulatory stage of local plan/development plan document (DPD)
preparation – see paragraphs 5.2 – 5.5. All these steps have been
followed as set out in the Council’s Statement of Consultations
1
Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014, (the Submitted Local Plan)
comprises i) Revised Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, published February
2014 and ii) Schedule of Proposed Minor Changes, submitted to the Secretary of State in July 2014
2
This version of the LDS was amended in September 2013 to include provision to prepare a
separate Travelling Communities Development Plan document.
3
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
(EBC/Subn. 3), where paragraphs 4.16 – 4.17 (pages 19 – 22) and
related appendices explain the consultation processes undertaken in
relation to the Revised Draft Local Plan of October 2013 and the
Revised Pre-submission Local Plan of February 2014.
1.3 Did preparation of the Plan comply with the relevant Regulations in relation
to the publication of documents, advertising and notification?
EBC1.4 Yes. The relevant regulations are the Town and Country Planning
(Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended. The way in
which the Borough Council has interpreted these requirements is set
out in the SCI (EBC/Subn.8) and the Statement of Consultations
(EBC/Subn.3).
EBC1.5 Regulation 18 specifies who should be consulted on the preparation of a
local plan. Paragraphs 2.2 - 2.3 and Appendix B of the SCI explain who
the Council has consulted in relation to this regulation. The Statement
of Consultations (EBC/Subn.3) paragraphs 4.16 - 4.17 (pages 19 - 22)
and related appendices also set out who was consulted and how the
consultation was undertaken including publication of notices.
EBC1.6 Regulations 19 and 35 set out the requirements for making a local plan
and related documents available. Chapter 4 of the SCI explains the
consultation methods employed by the Council and Chapter 5 sets out
how these methods are used in relation to the regulatory stages of
preparation and publication of the Local Plan (see paragraphs 5.2 5.3). The Statement of Consultations also includes details of how
consultation was carried out at each stage, including who was
consulted, by what means and how documents were made available –
see paragraphs 4.16 - 4.17 (pages 19 - 22) and related appendices
which refer to the Revised Draft Local Plan of October 2013 and the
Revised Pre-submission Local Plan of February 2014.
EBC1.7 The regulatory requirements are regarded as minimum requirements
and the Council has exceeded these through the use of the measures
set out in Chapter 4 of the SCI and documented in the Statement of
Consultation, including the placing of formal advertisements and other
methods of publicising consultations.
1.4 Has there been sufficient regard given to the Sustainable Community
Strategy (SCS)?
EBC1.8 Yes. The Sustainable Community Strategy for Eastleigh Borough is the
Eastleigh Borough Community Plan 2009 – 2013. This forms part of the
evidence base for the Local Plan (EBC/G1). Initial work on the Local
4
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
Plan (in the form of preparation of a core strategy) was carried out
jointly with a review of the Community Plan that was finalised in
September 2009. The core strategy work has been carried forward into
the Submitted Local Plan and the priorities set out in the Community
Plan’s Action Plan form the basis for the Local Plan’s vision and
objectives and inform its policies. Elements of the Community Plan’s
Action Plan are referenced throughout the strategic and development
management policies of the Submitted Local Plan by inclusion in the
lists of ‘Related local and national strategies/ policies’ that precede each
policy or related group of policies.
1.5 Have the requirements of the HRA been satisfied?
EBC1.9 Yes. The Council believes that the requirements of the Habitats
Regulations have been satisfied via the Habitats Regulations
Assessment Screening Reports which have been prepared at each stage
of the Local Plan. These have examined the implications of the plan in
combination with other plans and projects, identified mitigation
measures for ensuring no likely significant effect and take into account
consultation on the assessment and such measures with Natural
England. Independent evidence of the appropriate discharging of the
requirements of the Habitats Regulations is demonstrated by Natural
England’s consultation responses to the Revised Pre-submission Local
Plan (see respondent no. 6251, references to Habitats Regulations
Assessment February 2014 in letters of 24 March, page 4 and 14 May
2014, page 4).
a) The Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report (EBC/GI10) July
2014 has taken into account mitigation measures in screening out potential
significant effects which might arise from various allocations (see 4.6.5/4.6.6
and 5.6.9-5.6.13). The Plan requires a further HRA at the planning application
stage for these allocations. Should the Plan set out explicitly the mitigation
measures relied on in the HRA Screening Report? Does the reliance on further
application-level HRA undermine the conclusions of the Screening Report?
Alternatively, does reliance on further application-level HRAs increase
uncertainty about the delivery of the allocations concerned?
EBC1.10 It would be possible for the Local Plan to set out the mitigation
measures discussed for each policy, however it would not remove the
need for a further, application-level, HRA which would set out detail
that would not be appropriate for a strategic level document. For
example:
5
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
-
Step 1: The Local Plan HRA of a site allocation policy says likely
significant effect can be avoided by utilisation of standard pollution
control guidance;
-
Step 2: Application-level HRA cites the Construction Environmental
Management Plan which shows the detail of how the standard
pollution control guidance is being met, for example, in the location
of fuel storage on site.
EBC1.11 The reliance on further application-level HRA does not undermine the
conclusions of the Screening Report. Any impacts that could arise from
the proposals of the Local Plan through well-established practices are
not insurmountable. The exact combination of mitigation measures
would depend on detailed site work beyond the scope of a strategic
document such as a Local Plan and its associated HRA report.
EBC1.12 Reliance on further application-level HRAs should not unduly increase
uncertainty regarding the deliverability of sites. The scale of the
mitigation measures required (for example, utilisation of standard
pollution control guidance e.g. the storage of chemicals and fuel away
from a watercourse, preventing polluted run-off from entering water
course etc.) is such that it is reasonable to consider that deliverability is
unlikely to be significantly impacted. These sorts of considerations are
part and parcel of the implementation process and the Council has a
good track record of working with applicants to successfully find
solutions (for example regarding the planning application received and
determined in relation to policy BO1, Boorley Green, among others).
b) Are there adequate proposals with sufficient certainty to mitigate potential
adverse effects on the New Forest SAC/SPA? (Representors previously concerned
with this point should note the additions made to the HRA Screening Report July
2014 EBC/GI10 at 8.4.6, 8.4.7 and 8.6.1.)
EBC1.13 Yes. The potential adverse effects resulting from proposed
development in the Local Plan are very minor and the provisions made
through proposals to improve existing green infrastructure, plus the
potential of the Forest Park, are sufficient. The New Forest National
Park Recreation Management Strategy 2010 – 2039 was published in
May 20103. It identifies that (as part of the package of wider works to
be delivered around, and by, the New Forest National Park Authority)
the provision of new areas of green infrastructure can be expected to
play a part in absorbing anticipated growth in levels of recreational
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20016/our_work/3/recreation_management_stra
tegy
3
6
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
demand from new housing and increased populations in adjacent urban
areas. The provision of green infrastructure would not by itself be a
total solution to recreational pressure in the New Forest arising from all
surrounding authorities. However for those parts of the catchment that
would make a marginal contribution (such as Eastleigh borough) it
would be a proportionate measure to reduce visits to the SPA. The
Council’s Local Plan HRA has been undertaken in consultation with
Natural England throughout, who have confirmed that it is content with
the conclusion of no likely significant effects.
c) In relation to the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project is reference in
policy S11 a) to the borough’s coast too narrow, given that the designated areas
extend inland up the tidal Hamble river? (Representors previously concerned
with this point should note the addition made to the HRA Screening Report July
2014 EBC/GI10 in Appendix 1, 10.1.1.)
EBC1.14 No. The term ‘coast’ is defined in the Local Plan in policy S10 and
includes the tidal area of the Hamble river.
d) Does the text in 4.63 of the plan referring to the local (my emphasis)
mitigation project need updating to reflect the Council’s support for the wider
Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project, with the local project being an interim
solution which will be subsumed in due course in the wider scheme (as explained
in EBC/2, Appendix 1)? I invite the Council to include in its statement some
updated text to reflect the full position.
EBC1.15 The details of the local interim mitigation project are set out in
Appendix 1 of the Council’s Green Infrastructure Background Paper
(EBC/GI1).
EBC1.16 Paragraph 4.63 of the Revised Pre-submission Local Plan is proposed to
be updated in the Schedule of Proposed Changes (EBC/Subn2, page
13). To provide greater clarity on the matter the Council now suggests
further changes. These further changes are shown as underlined italics
and strikethrough with the original text, and alterations as previously
proposed in EBC/Subn2 in italics and strikethrough shown below:
“4.63 The borough contains … ways in which they might be mitigated.
Based on the project’s findings, the Council has developed the
local Southampton Water and Hamble Estuary Disturbance and
Mitigation Project which sets out measures to mitigate
recreational disturbance on the coast within the borough, and
is working with other PUSH authorities as part of the Solent
Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP) to agree measures to
be implemented mitigation measures jointly across south
7
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
Hampshire. as a joint project across south Hampshire. Prior to
the initiation of the SRMP and based on the findings of the
SDMP, the Council had identified measures to mitigate
recreational disturbance on the coast within the borough
arising from specific developments and it will implement those
which will not form part of the SRMP’s proposals. The Council
will contribute as required to the implementation of the SRMP’s
proposals, and will also implement any measures identified as
part of its own interim project proposals which are not
incorporated into the wider SRMP scheme.
1.6 Has the Plan been subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA)?
EBC1.17 Yes. The plan has been developed alongside the SA from the outset,
with Interim SA Reports published alongside earlier draft versions of the
plan in 2012 and 2013, and the SA Report published alongside the
Revised Pre-submission Local Plan (February 2014) as required by the
Regulations. The SA Report was then subsequently updated for
submission, with changes made to the report clearly highlighted.
EBC1.18 The SA Report (EBC/G2) is structured in four parts, with Part 2
answering the question: ‘What has plan-making/SA involved up to this
point?’ This explains how:

early work was undertaken which informed the development of
alternative spatial strategies. As part of this there is a discussion of
early work that focused on the appraisal of growth quantum
alternatives and site options;

alternative spatial strategies were subjected to appraisal; and

the preferred approach was developed in the light of appraisal
findings.
EBC1.19 For details in relation to the above bullet points, see EBC/G2, Section
10.2.
1.7 Has the Duty to Co-Operate been met? (The Council’s Statement of
Compliance with the Duty to Co-Operate is EBC/Subn 5 and does not need to be
repeated.)
EBC1.20 Yes. The Council believes that in arriving at estimates of development
requirements for the borough and the distribution of new development
it has cooperated fully with all the local authorities in south Hampshire,
Hampshire County Council (HCC) and other authorities, statutory
agencies, utilities providers and organisations as set out in EBC/Subn.5.
8
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
The duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree and there is one issue (the
Botley bypass proposal) where it has not been possible for the Council
to agree with a neighbouring authority and(Winchester City Council)
and Hampshire County Council. In respect of the rest of the Local Plan,
however, agreement has been reached with all those with whom the
Council has cooperated.
a) Does the PUSH South Hampshire Strategy (2012) and the intention of PUSH
to publish a revised strategy by 2016 ensure effective co-operation relation to
strategic housing and economic matters?
EBC1.21 Yes. Local plans produced within south Hampshire, including the
Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029, all reflect the agreement
reached in relation to housing numbers and employment floorspace
through the cooperative processes of PUSH as expressed in the form of
the PUSH South Hampshire Strategy.
EBC1.22 It is only through cooperation at this level that it is possible to address
the objectively assessed needs in the housing market area for market
and affordable housing requirement, as required by paragraph 47 of the
National Planning Policy Framework. The PUSH authorities cooperated
in commissioning a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA),
published in January 2014 (EBC/H4A). They have also jointly
commissioned a roll-forward of the South Hampshire Strategy to
incorporate the findings of the new SHMA and work on this is currently
in progress and due to be completed in 2016. This will again inform
updates of constituent authorities’ local plans and will therefore be
similarly effective in securing cooperation across the sub-region.
EBC1.23 With regard to economic development, PUSH’s primary focus and the
original reason for its existence is the promotion of economic growth
across the sub-region. Since its inception it has commissioned the
preparation and review of an Economic Development Strategy for south
Hampshire and it is now working actively with the Solent Local
Enterprise Partnership (Solent LEP) which covers the same geographic
area. This provides an effective means for the local planning
authorities in the area to engage with the LEP and secures a
coordinated approach to economic matters across south Hampshire.
1.8 Has the Public Sector Equality Duty been met by the Council progressing
this Plan without including allocations to meet all the needs of Gypsies and
Travellers? The Council has already set out its response to this question in
EBC/2, section 3.
EBC1.24 Yes. See EBC/2 section 3.
9
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
The Council is publishing a draft of its Travelling Communities DPD in November/
December this year. The next review of the Local Plan will incorporate this DPD
within it.
10
Inspector’s pre-hearing questions November 2014: Section 1, Statutory and regulatory matters
Eastleigh Borough Council response
11