Summary of Representations Received for Regulation 16 of the Breadsall Neighbourhood Plan

Derbyshire County Council

  • Welcomes the inclusion of Policies DS1 and EN2 (but see further comments on this)
  • Breadsall Parish today: update text to say ‘111 pupils on roll in 2019/2020 academic year’
  • Local Green Spaces: DCC suggest that the publication ‘The Landscape Character of Derbyshire’ should be used to identify the various landscape characteristics.
  • Green Belt: Reiterated comments made on the pre-submission version. Reiterates concern it raised about the inclusion of a proposal under GBA as this would be difficult to apply and implement in practice.
  • Sustainable energy: Welcomes inclusion of this section
  • Policy EN1: Does not include requirements listed in sustainable energy, nor does it require new buildings to incorporate low carbon infrastructure.
  • Policy EN2: DCC suggest that walking and cycling are classified as low emission transport.
  • Add the word ‘appropriate’ to the second part of the policy
  • Transport and road safety: Reiterate comments in response to pre-submission.
  • Policy T&RS1: DCC suggest that the phrase ‘including school drop off traffic’ should be removed from the policy
  • Proposal PTA: DCC Suggest the proposal should read ‘the Parish Council will work with public transport operators and DCC to continue to provide a viable bus service for residents of Breadsall’
  •  Housing provision and distribution: Welcomes that DCCs comments on the pre submission version have been addressed.

Environment Agency

  • Policy NP/HD1: Given the requirements of policy NP/FR1, reducing flood risk, it may be beneficial to add a bullet point within this section highlighting that any infill development will also need to adhere with the requirements of Policy NP/FR1.
  • Policy NP/FR1: Welcome that no development is to be allowed within the flood zones area. It would be beneficial to include a caveat to the flood zones shown in Figure 19 as these could be updated throughout the lifetime of the neighbourhood plan
  • Policy NP/B & NC1: Welcome the inclusion of this policy to ensure net gain is incorporated within new developments within the parish NP area

Highways England

Considering the limited level of growth proposed across the NP area, we do not expect that there will be any material impact on the operation of the Strategic Road Network

Historic England

Sent a response to Reg 14 on 10th December 2018 and do not have any further comments to add.

National Grid

No specific comments

Natural England

No specific comments

Nottinghamshire County Council

No strategic Policy comments to make

Severn Trent

  • Policy HD1 Housing: Appreciate the conscious linkage from this policy pointing towards the consideration of flood risk and policy FR1.
  • Policy GBA Green Belt: Acknowledge the SHLAA site, land to the North of Croft Lane, however as this is within the green belt buffer, we understand it is unlikely to come forward for development without a formal green belt review
  • Policy FR1 Reducing Flood Risk: Supportive of policy however it could be enhanced by specifically mentioning the importance of new development adhering to a drainage hierarchy with regards to surface water management. See Rep for more info.

The Coal Authority

No specific comments

Erewash Borough Council

  • Difficult to reconcile the Neighbourhood Plan’s (NP) stance on restricting development with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.
  • The NPs assertion that sufficient new homes have already been provided is invalid given this view has been based on performance against out-of-date housing policies from EBC’s adopted Core Strategy.
  • Some of the NPs policies are at odds with the need for new housing in the NP area.
  • Of the view that the NPs when taken as a whole are not in conformity with the NPPFs presumption in favour of sustainable development.
  • A number of comments relating to detailed policy comments were made. These are addressed in turn below:
  • Policy C1: concerns over the compatibility of NP policies with national guidance over an over-protection approach to the management of Conservation Areas.
  • Policy LV1: raised issues over the practicality of assessing development proposals against each of the 23 identified vistas making policy unworkable and unimplementable.
  • Policy GB A: inappropriate for the NP to control future reviews of the Green Belt.
  • Policy B & NC1: A number of deletions to text were recommended to provide clarity and legibility to the policy, introduce an appropriate scope and result in a clearer guide in its implementation.
  • Policy DS1: Overreaches in its scope with a number of unintended consequences so supports the removal of part of the policy.
  • Policy EN1: Conflicts with NPPF, so modification of policy necessary by removing part.
  • Policy EN2: Unreasonably expects community and commercial development to provide charging facilities and also unrealistic expectation for all residential development to have off-road charging facilities.
  • Policy TR & RS1: Recommends deletion as planning system cannot be expected to control what the policy seeks to do. The policy’s approach to managing on-street parking is unduly restrictive.
  • Policy HD1: Requires a widening of scope to include sources of new housing from conversions and sub-divisions. Inconsistent over where windfall development and new housing will be supported. No justification for imposing a maximum of 10 homes in a scheme so this element of the policy should be removed.
  • Policy HD2: Policy underpinned by a lack of evidence around local housing needs, so it cannot be used as a basis to deliver a particular mix on all housing development proposals of all sizes.
  • Policy HD3: Overly prescriptive in expecting new development to mimic surrounding housing so recommend deletion as contrary to NPPF guidance.
  • Policy HD4: A restriction is recommended in what forms of development the policy applies to. A sizeable amount of cross-referencing should be deleted.
  • Policy HD5: Should be deleted as it fails to conform with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 which establishes the legal framework for contributions.
  • Policy E1: Unduly restrictive to redundant buildings throughout the NP area which could support commercial uses – potentially contrary to NPPF guidance concerning Green Belt, so criterion of policy should be deleted. Policy also restricts operations outside of B1 uses (some of which are synonymous with the rural economy) which is contrary to the NPPF. Other aspects of the policy regarding farm diversification, working from home and broadband connectivity all have unworkable aspects with modifications or deletion required.
  • Policy CF1: Modifications necessary to make policy more realistic in its implementation to protect community facilities.
  • Policy FR1: Lack of evidence by way of a Flood Risk Assessment means much of the policy’s requirements cannot be justified. The policy also fails to take account of the various instruments of guidance connected to the matter in the NPPF (sequential test, flood risk matrix and exceptions test). Some of the policy requirements do not conform to Acts and are subject to other legislation and therefore should not form part of the final NP.