Bolney Neighbourhood Development Plan 2015-2031 Independent Examiner’s Report By Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) Dip Mgmt (Open) PGC(TLHE)(Open) MRTPI FRSA AoU

19 June 2016

2

Contents

Summary

3

1.0 Introduction

4

2.0 Theroleoftheindependentexaminer

4

3.0

Theexaminationprocess

6

4.0 Compliancewithmattersotherthanthebasicconditions

7

5.0 Consultation

8

6.0 ThebasicconditionsNationalpolicyandadviceSustainabledevelopmentThedevelopmentplanEuropeanUnion(EU)obligationsStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentHabitatsRegulationsAssessmentEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)

99

101011111212

7.0 DetailedcommentsonthePlananditspolicies

Introduction,AboutBolneyToday,TheVisionandObjectivesforBolneyNeighbourhoodPlanStrategyPoliciesforBolney–Built-upArea(PolicyBOLBB1)EnvironmentandHeritage(PoliciesBOLE1,BOLE2)Design(PolicyBOLD1)Housing(PoliciesBOLH1,BOLH2,BOLH3,BOLH4a,4b,4c)ParishAssets(PoliciesBOLA1,BOLA2,BOLA3,BOLA4,BOLA5)Business(PoliciesBOLB1,BOLB2,BOLB3)TravelandParking(PoliciesBOLT1,BOLT2,BOLT3)MonitoringandReviewProposalsMapAppendices

1213131414151617242729303031

8.0 ConclusionsandRecommendations 31

AppendixListofDocumentsAppendixExaminer’sNoteAppendixExaminer’sNote2

323335

3

SummaryIhavebeenappointedastheindependentexamineroftheBolneyNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan.Bolneyvillageliessome13milesnorthofBrightonandsome16milessouthofGatwickAirport.TherearetwoConservationAreaswhichshowtheimportanceofthelinearformofthevillage,itsheritageanditsunusualnarrowsunkenlanesandsurroundingruralcharacter.ThePlanispresentedandwrittenwellandseekstotakeapositiveapproachtosustainabledevelopmentwhilstrespectingthevillage’sdistinctivecharacter.Ithasbeendevelopedoveralongperiodoftimeinconsultationwiththecommunityandastrongsenseofcommunityshinesthrough.FurthertoconsiderationofthepoliciesinthePlanIhaverecommendedanumberofmodificationsthatareintendedtoensurethatthebasicconditionsaremetsatisfactorilyandthatthePlanisclearandconsistent.Subjecttothosemodifications,IhaveconcludedthatthePlandoesmeetthebasicconditionsandalltheotherrequirementsIamobligedtoexamine.IamthereforedelightedtorecommendtoMidSussexDistrictCouncilthattheBolneyNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlangoforwardtoareferendum.InconsideringwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheNeighbourhoodPlanareaIseenoreasontoalterorextendthisareaforthepurposeofholdingareferendum.AnnSkippersMRTPIAnnSkippersPlanning19June2016

4

1.0 IntroductionThisisthereportoftheindependentexaminerintotheBolneyNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan(thePlan).TheLocalismAct2011providesanopportunityforcommunitiestoshapethefutureoftheplaceswheretheyliveandworkandtodeliverthesustainabledevelopmenttheyneed.Onewayofachievingthisisthroughtheproductionofaneighbourhoodplan.IhavebeenappointedbyMidSussexDistrictCouncil(MSDC)withtheagreementofBolneyParishCounciltoundertakethisindependentexamination.IhavebeenappointedthroughtheNeighbourhoodPlanningIndependentExaminerReferralService(NPIERS).Iamindependentofthequalifyingbodyandthelocalauthority.IhavenointerestinanylandthatmaybeaffectedbythePlan.Iamacharteredtownplannerwithovertwenty-fiveyearsexperienceinplanningandhaveworkedinthepublic,privateandacademicsectorsandhaveexaminedanumberofneighbourhoodplans.Ithereforehavetheappropriatequalificationsandexperiencetocarryoutthisindependentexamination.2.0 TheroleoftheindependentexaminerTheexaminerisrequiredtocheck1whethertheneighbourhoodplan:

! Hasbeenpreparedandsubmittedforexaminationbyaqualifyingbody! Hasbeenpreparedforanareathathasbeenproperlydesignatedforsuchplan

preparation! Meetstherequirementstoi)specifytheperiodtowhichithaseffect;ii)not

includeprovisionaboutexcludeddevelopment;andiii)notrelatetomorethanoneneighbourhoodareaandthat

! Itspoliciesrelatetothedevelopmentanduseoflandforadesignatedneighbourhoodarea.

Theexaminermustassesswhetheraneighbourhoodplanmeetsthebasicconditionsandothermatterssetoutinparagraph8ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended).1Setoutinparagraph8(1)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)

5

Thebasicconditions2are:

! HavingregardtonationalpoliciesandadvicecontainedinguidanceissuedbytheSecretaryofState,itisappropriatetomaketheneighbourhoodplan

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciescontainedinthedevelopmentplanforthearea

! Themakingoftheneighbourhoodplandoesnotbreach,andisotherwisecompatiblewith,EuropeanUnion(EU)obligations

! Prescribedconditionsaremetinrelationtotheneighbourhoodplanandprescribedmattershavebeencompliedwithinconnectionwiththeproposalfortheneighbourhoodplan.

Regulations32and33oftheNeighbourhoodPlanning(General)Regulations2012(asamended)setouttwobasicconditionsinadditiontothosesetoutinprimarylegislationandreferredtointheparagraphabove.Theseare:

! ThemakingoftheneighbourhoodplanisnotlikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansite3oraEuropeanoffshoremarinesite4eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,and

! Havingregardtoallmaterialconsiderations,itisappropriatethattheneighbourhooddevelopmentorderismadewherethedevelopmentdescribedinanorderproposalisEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentdevelopment(thisisnotapplicabletothisexaminationasitreferstoorders).

ImustalsoconsiderwhetherthedraftneighbourhoodplaniscompatiblewithConventionrights.5Theexaminermustthenmakeoneofthefollowingrecommendations:

! Theneighbourhoodplancanproceedtoareferendumonthebasisitmeetsallthenecessarylegalrequirements

! Theneighbourhoodplancanproceedtoareferendumsubjecttomodificationsor

! Theneighbourhoodplanshouldnotproceedtoareferendumonthebasisitdoesnotmeetthenecessarylegalrequirements.

Iftheplancanproceedtoareferendumwithorwithoutmodifications,theexaminermustalsoconsiderwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheneighbourhoodplanareatowhichitrelates.

2Setoutinparagraph8(2)ofSchedule4BoftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990(asamended)3AsdefinedintheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations20124AsdefinedintheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations20075ThecombinedeffectoftheTownandCountryPlanningActSchedule4Bpara8(6)andpara10(3)(b)andtheHumanRightsAct1998

6

Iftheplangoesforwardtoreferendumandmorethan50%ofthosevotingvoteinfavouroftheplanthenitismadebytherelevantlocalauthority,inthiscaseMidSussexDistrictCouncil.Theplanthenbecomespartofthe‘developmentplan’fortheareaandastatutoryconsiderationinguidingfuturedevelopmentandinthedeterminationofplanningapplicationswithintheplanarea.3.0TheexaminationprocessItisusefultobearinmindthattheexaminationofaneighbourhoodplanisverydifferenttotheexaminationofalocalplan.IamnotexaminingthePlanagainstthetestsofsoundnessusedforLocalPlans,6butratherwhetherthesubmittedPlanmeetsthebasicconditions,Conventionrightsandtheotherstatutoryrequirements.Ihavesetoutthisroleinsomedetailintheprevioussection.Thegeneralruleofthumbisthattheexaminationwilltaketheformofwrittenrepresentations.7However,therearetwocircumstanceswhenanexaminermayconsideritnecessarytoholdahearing.Thesearewheretheexaminerconsidersthatitisnecessarytoensureadequateexaminationofanissueortoensureapersonhasafairchancetoputacase.Afterconsiderationofthedocumentationandalltherepresentations,Idecidedthatneithercircumstanceappliedandthereforeitwasnotnecessarytoholdahearing.Submission(Regulation16)consultationwascarriedoutbetween29Octoberand10December2015.ThisattractedanumberofrepresentationswhichIhavecarefullyconsideredandtakenintoaccountinpreparingmyreport.OnoccasionIrefertoaspecificrepresentation,butIhavenotfeltitnecessarytocommentoneachofthem.InaccordancewiththestatutoryrequirementsIhavefocusedongivingreasonsforanyrecommendationsImake.Duringthecourseoftheexaminationitwasnecessarytoclarifytwomatters.Isentanotedated9April2016toMSDCregardingthesematters;thefirstwasaletterfromGLHearndated4April2016whichwasreceivedaftertheRegulation16consultationperiodhadendedandthesecondwasinrelationtothelatestpositionontheemergingLocalPlan.TheGLHearncorrespondencedrewmyattentiontochangestoMSDC’shousingstrategy,aCourtcase,SuffolkCoastalDCvHopkinsHomesLtd&SSCLGandRichboroughEstatesvCheshireEastBC&SSCLG[2016]EWCACiv168,andnationalpolicyandguidance.IthensentasecondnotetoMSDCdated29April2016inrelationtotherepresentationandfurthercorrespondencereceivedfromGLHearninresponsetothelettersentby

6NPPFpara1827Schedule4B(9)oftheTownandCountryPlanningAct1990

7

MSDC.MynoteconfirmedthatIwouldtaketheoriginalrepresentationof4April2016fromGLHearnintoaccount,butthatintheinterestsoffairnesstoothersmakingrepresentationsatRegulation16stage,thereshouldbeaperiodofadditionalconsultationenablingotherstoputforwardtheirviewsonthepointsraisedbyGLHearn.Thisadditionalconsultationperiodendedon26May2016.Thisalsoattractedafurther26representationswhichIhavetakenintoaccount.ThecorrespondencebetweenGLHearnandMSDCandasummaryoftherepresentationsmadeintheadditionalconsultationperiodtogetherwiththeupdateontheemergingLocalPlanareavailableonMSDC’swebsite.MynotestoMSDCareappendedtothisreport.Iundertookanunaccompaniedsitevisittotheneighbourhoodplanareaon22March2016.4.0CompliancewithmattersotherthanthebasicconditionsInowcheckthevariousmatterssetoutaboveinsection2.0ofthisreport.QualifyingbodyBolneyParishCouncilisthequalifyingbodyabletoleadpreparationofaneighbourhoodplan.ThisisalsoconfirmedintheBasicConditionsStatement.Thisrequirementismet.PlanareaThePlanareaiscoterminouswithBolneyParishCounciladministrativeboundary.MidSussexDistrictCouncilapprovedthedesignationoftheareaon9July2013.ThePlanrelatestothisareaanddoesnotrelatetomorethanoneneighbourhoodareaandthereforecomplieswiththeserequirements.PlanperiodThefrontcoverofthePlanindicatesthetimeperiodforthePlanis2015to2031.ThisisalsoconfirmedwithinthePlanitselfandtheBasicConditionsStatement.ExcludeddevelopmentThePlandoesnotincludepoliciesthatrelatetoanyofthecategoriesofexcludeddevelopmentandthereforemeetsthisrequirement.ThisisalsoconfirmedintheBasicConditionsStatement.

8

DevelopmentanduseoflandPoliciesinneighbourhoodplansmustrelatetothedevelopmentanduseofland.Sometimesneighbourhoodplanscontainaspirationalpoliciesorprojectsthatsignalthecommunity’sprioritiesforthefutureoftheirlocalarea,butarenotrelatedtothedevelopmentanduseofland.WhereIconsiderapolicyorproposaltofallwithinthiscategory,IhaverecommendeditbeclearlyidentifiableormovedtoaseparatesectionorannexofthePlanorcontainedinaseparatedocument.Thisisbecausewidercommunityaspirationsthanthoserelatingtodevelopmentanduseoflandcanbeincludedinaneighbourhoodplan,butnon-landusemattersshouldbeclearlyidentifiable.8Subjecttoanysuchrecommendations,thisrequirementcanbesatisfactorilymet.5.0ConsultationAConsultationStatementhasbeensubmittedandprovidesdetailsofavastarrayofengagementthathastakenplacesincetheinitialdecisiontoembarkonaneighbourhoodplanwastakeninMarch2013.Itisclearthatcarefulthoughtwasgiventohowtoreachdifferentgroupsofpeoplewithinthecommunitysuchasolderpeople,youngerpeopleandcommuters.Aswellasasurveytoresidentsandbusinesses,itisapparentthatbyholdingstallsateventssuchastheVillageDayorbypiggybackingontootherevents,effortwasmadetoengageasmanypeopleaspossible.Theuseofawebsite,emailsandfacebookalsosupplementedthemoretraditionalfacetofaceandParishmagazinemethodsofengagement.TheConsultationStatement9includesaveryusefultimelineoftheactivitycarriedout.Whatparticularlystrikesmeistheamountofeffortthathasgoneintoensuringthatthecommunityhasreceivedfeedbackon,forexample,theresidents’surveyandspecificmeetingsheldtoforexamplediscussthehousingneedsassessmentandsiteselectionprocess.Pre-submission(Regulation14)consultationwasheldbetween14May2015and26June2015.Aswellasthemorecommondirectemail,copiesofthedraftPlanavailableinvariouslocationsaroundtheParishandwebsite,fouropensessionsduringthissixweekperiodwereheldtoenablestakeholderstomeetwithmembersofthePlanteam.AsIhavealreadymentioned,submission(Regulation16)consultationwascarriedoutbetween29Octoberand10December2015.Atotalof125representationswerereceived.

8PPGpara004refid41-004-201403069ConsultationStatementpage6

9

Anadditionalperiodofconsultationwasheldbetween4and26May2016.Fromtheevidencepresentedtome,thePlanhasevolvedasaresultofseeking,andtakingintoaccount,awiderangeofviewsfromthecommunityandotherbodies.IconsidertheconsultationprocesshascompliedwiththerequirementsoftheRegulations.6.0ThebasicconditionsRegardtonationalpolicyandadviceThemaindocumentthatsetsoutnationalplanningpolicyistheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(NPPF)publishedin2012.InparticularitexplainsthattheapplicationofthepresumptioninfavourofsustainabledevelopmentwillmeanthatneighbourhoodplansshouldsupportthestrategicdevelopmentneedssetoutinLocalPlans,planpositivelytosupportlocaldevelopment,shapinganddirectingdevelopmentthatisoutsidethestrategicelementsoftheLocalPlanandidentifyopportunitiestouseNeighbourhoodDevelopmentOrderstoenabledevelopmentsthatareconsistentwiththeneighbourhoodplantoproceed.10TheNPPFalsomakesitclearthatneighbourhoodplansshouldbealignedwiththestrategicneedsandprioritiesofthewiderlocalarea.InotherwordsneighbourhoodplansmustbeingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesoftheLocalPlan.TheycannotpromotelessdevelopmentthanthatsetoutintheLocalPlanorundermineitsstrategicpolicies.11On6March2014,theGovernmentpublishedasuiteofplanningguidance.ThisisanonlineresourceknownasPlanningPracticeGuidance(PPG).PPGcontainsawealthofinformationrelatingtoneighbourhoodplanningandIhavehadregardtothisinpreparingthisreport.TheNPPFindicatesthatplansshouldprovideapracticalframeworkwithinwhichdecisionsonplanningapplicationscanbemadewithahighdegreeofpredictabilityandefficiency.12PPGindicatesthatapolicyshouldbeclearandunambiguous13toenableadecisionmakertoapplyitconsistentlyandwithconfidencewhendeterminingplanningapplications.Theguidanceadvisesthatpoliciesshouldbeconcise,preciseandsupportedbyappropriateevidence,reflectingandrespondingtoboththecontextandthecharacteristicsofthearea.14

10NPPFparas14,1611Ibidpara18412Ibidpara1713PPGpara041refid41-041-2014030614Ibid

10

PPGstatesthereisno‘tickbox’listofevidencerequired,butproportionate,robustevidenceshouldsupportthechoicesmadeandtheapproachtaken.15Itcontinuesthattheevidenceshouldbedrawnupontoexplainsuccinctlytheintentionandrationaleofthepolicies.16TheBasicConditionsStatementsetsouthowthePlanhasrespondedtonationalpolicyandguidance.ContributetotheachievementofsustainabledevelopmentAqualifyingbodymustdemonstratehowaneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.TheNPPFasawhole17constitutestheGovernment’sviewofwhatsustainabledevelopmentmeansinpracticeforplanning.TheFrameworkexplainsthattherearethreedimensionstosustainabledevelopment:economic,socialandenvironmental.18TheBasicConditionsStatementcontainsashortexplanationofhowtheobjectivesofthePlanrelatetosustainabledevelopmentasdefinedintheNPPFandaSustainabilityAppraisalhasalsobeenprepared.GeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesinthedevelopmentplanThedevelopmentplanrelevanttothisexaminationconsistsofthesavedpoliciesoftheMidSussexLocalPlanadoptedin2004(LP2004).WorkhasbegunonanewDistrictPlan.ThiswassubmittedtotheSecretaryofStateinJuly2013,butlaterwithdrawnfollowinganinitialhearinginMay2014.ConsultationonarevisedPre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlantookplacebetweenJuneandJuly2015.MSDCadvisemethatonthe19November2015,FocusedAmendmentstothePre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlanwerepublishedandconsulteduponbetween19November2015and15January2016.ThetimetablefortheDistrictPlananticipatesthatitwillbesubmittedforexaminationinSummer2016.GiventhattheLP2004wasadoptedin2004andpreparedaconsiderableamountoftimebeforecurrentnationalpolicyintheformoftheNPPF,theemergingDistrictPlanpotentiallyprovidesamoreuptodatecontextfortheneighbourhoodplanthantheLP2004.TheBasicConditionsStatement(datedOctober2015)referstotheLP2004andtheemergingPre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlanofJune2015.SomerepresentationsindicatecorrectlythatthisisnotthelatestemergingdocumentatMSDClevel.However,itwasthelatestdocumentavailableatthetimethePlanwassubmittedandatsomepointacutoffforthepreparationoftheaccompanyingdocumentsneedstobemade.InanycasethisexaminationcannotconsiderthePlanagainsttheemerging

15PPGpara040refid41-040-2016021116Ibid17NPPFpara6whichindicatesparas18–219oftheFrameworkconstitutetheGovernment’sviewofwhatsustainabledevelopmentmeansinpractice18Ibidpara7

11

DistrictPlanpoliciesastherelevantbasicconditionisthePlan’sgeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesofthedevelopmentplanfortheareai.e.theLP2004.ForthisreasontheBasicConditionsStatementcouldhavebeensilentontheemergingDistrictPlanplanningcontext.ItisoftencontendedthatneighbourhoodplansshouldnotproceedorbeadopteduntilthereisanuptodateadopteddevelopmentplanonwhichthePlancanbebasedortestedagainstorthatitshouldatleastbeassessedagainstorconformtothemostrecentemergingDistrictPlan.BasedonadviceinPPG19andajudgmenthandeddowninajudicialreview,20itiswidelyacceptedthataneighbourhoodplancanbedevelopedbeforeoratthesametimeastheproductionofalocalplan.EuropeanUnionObligationsAneighbourhoodplanmustbecompatiblewithEuropeanUnion(EU)obligations,asincorporatedintoUnitedKingdomlaw,inordertobelegallycompliant.AnumberofEUobligationsmaybeofrelevanceincludingDirectives2001/42/EC(StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment),2011/92/EU(EnvironmentalImpactAssessment),92/43/EEC(Habitats),2009/147/EC(WildBirds),2008/98/EC(Waste),2008/50/EC(AirQuality)and2000/60/EC(Water).StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentDirective2001/42/EContheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainplansandprogrammesontheenvironmentisrelevant.Itspurposeistoprovideahighlevelofprotectionoftheenvironmentbyincorporatingenvironmentalconsiderationsintotheprocessofpreparingplansandprogrammes.ThisDirectiveiscommonlyreferredtoastheStrategicEnvironmentAssessment(SEA)Directive.TheDirectiveistransposedintoUKlawthroughtheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammesRegulations2004.MSDCconfirmedinJune2013thataSEAwouldberequiredandencouragedtheParishCounciltoundertakeaSustainabilityAppraisal(SA).AlthoughthereisnolegalrequirementtoundertakeaSAitisrecognisedthatthiscanbeausefulwayofdemonstratinghowthePlancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.21TheSAincorporatingSEAhasbeenprepared.Itisawell-writtendocumentthathasbeenpreparedwithsufficientdetailandwhichisproportionateandappropriateforthecontentandlevelofdetailinthePlan.ItmeetstherequirementsoftheRegulations.PPGconfirmsthatitisthelocalplanningauthority’sresponsibilitytoensurethattheSEArequirementshavebeenmetinordertoprogressthePlanwhendecidingwhetherthePlanshouldproceedtoreferendumandwhetherornottomakethePlan.22

19PPGpara009refid41-009-2016021120GladmanDevelopmentsLtdvAylesburyValeDistrictCouncil[2014]EWHC4323(Admin)21PPGpara072refid41-072-2014030622Ibidpara031refid11-031-20150209

12

Arepresentation23pointsoutthattheSAatparagraph4.6indicatesthattheAONBboundary“comesrightuptothesettlementboundary”.TheSAinthisrespectisnotaccurateasthereisagap.However,thegapisacknowledgedintheassessmentofsiteallocationsintheSAandsoIconsiderthatthefindingsoftheSAarenotinvalidatedbytheearliererrorinthedocument.HabitatsRegulationsAssessmentDirective92/43/EEContheconservationofnaturalhabitats,commonlyreferredtoastheHabitatsDirective,isalsoofrelevancetothisexamination.AHabitatsRegulationsAssessment(HRA)identifiedwhetheraplanislikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansite,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects.24TheassessmentdetermineswhethersignificanteffectsonaEuropeansitecanberuledoutonthebasisofobjectiveinformation.MSDCscreenedthepre-submissionPlanandconcludedthatpolicieswereunlikelytohaveasignificanteffectonanyEuropeansites.25IamnotawareofanyotherEuropeanDirectiveswhichapplydirectlytothisparticularneighbourhoodplanandintheabsenceofanysubstantiveevidencetothecontrary,IamsatisfiedthatthePlaniscompatiblewithEUobligations.EuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)TheBasicConditionsStatementcontainsashortstatementthatthePlanhashadregardtofundamentalrightsandfreedomsguaranteedundertheECHRandcomplieswiththeHumanRightsAct1998.ThereisnothinginthePlanthatleadsmetoconcludethereisanybreachoftheConventionorthatthePlanisotherwiseincompatiblewithit.7.0DetailedcommentsonthePlananditspoliciesInthissectionIconsiderthePlananditspoliciesagainstthebasicconditions.WhereIrecommendmodificationsinthisreporttheyappearasbulletpointsinboldtext.WhereIhavesuggestedspecificchangestothewordingofthepoliciestheyappearinbolditalics.ThePlanisclearlyandattractivelypresented.IthasahelpfulcontentspageatthestartofthePlan.Policiesarereadilydistinguishablefromthesupportingtextandappearincolouredboxes.23RepresentationfromGLHearndated10December201524PPGpara047refid11-047-2015020925MSDCHabitatsRegulationsAssessmentScreeningReportdated27October2015

13

IntroductionThissectionhelpfullysetsthesceneforthePlan.Itcontainsanumberofsubsectionswhichcontainawealthofinformationincludingconfirmationof,andamapshowing,thePlanareaandthetimeperiodofthePlan.Page6ofthePlanincludesthestatementsthat“individualdevelopmentsshouldbeofascaleappropriatetothevillage”and“largehousingestatestackedontotheedgeofBolneyarenotconsideredappropriate”;Iregardthesestatementstoreflecttheresultsofthequestionnairereferredtointhesameparagraphratherthanasanystatementofpolicy.Section1:AboutBolneyTodayThissectioncontainsinterestinginformationabouttheParishandthePlan’sfivethemesofenvironmentandheritage,housing,assets,businessandtransport.Itfocusesonthemainissuesforeachthemebasedoncommunityengagementandresearch.ItdoessoinaninterestingandproportionatewayandIfoundithelpfulinunderstandingthekeyissuesthePlanthengoesontoaddress.Section2:TheVisionandObjectivesforBolneyThesuccinctandclearlyarticulatedvisionstates:

“OurvisionistodeliverthesustainabledevelopmentofBolneyparish,atascaleandformthatpreservesitsdistinctiveruralcharacter,landscapeandcommunityethos.”

Thevisionisthenunderpinnedbyavarietyofobjectivesrelatingtotheenvironment,economy,communityandhealthylifestyles.Whilstthetableonpage21ofthePlanindicateshowthePlan’sobjectivesalignwiththestrategicobjectivesofMSDC’semergingDistrictPlanandthesemaybesubjecttochange,allofthePlan’sobjectivesstandontheirowntwofeetandinthemselvesarewordedclearly,relatetothedevelopmentanduseoflandandwillhelptoachievethefuturethecommunityseeksforBolney.Section3:NeighbourhoodPlanStrategyThissectionexplainsthatanewbuilt-upareaisdefinedforBolney.Developmentwillbefocusedwithinthatarea,whichincludessiteallocationsproposedinthePlanandthecountrysidearounditprotectedandenhanced.Alongsidethisthereissupportforthesocialandeconomichubs.

14

InformationabouthowthePlanrelatestotheemergingDistrictPlanisgenerallyhelpful,butwiththepassageoftimerequiressomeupdating.

! UpdatereferencestotheemergingDistrictPlancontextonpages24and25ofthePlanasnecessary

Section4:PoliciesforBolneyBuilt-upAreaPolicyBOLBB1Built-upAreaBoundaryThispolicydefinesabuilt-upareaandseekstofocusdevelopmentwithinthatboundary.TheboundaryhasbeendrawntoincludethethreesiteallocationswhicharesubjectoflaterpoliciesinthePlan.Itrecognisesthatoutsidethebuilt-upareaboundarysomedevelopmentcanbesupportedinvariouscircumstances.Thebuilt-upareaboundaryisshownontheProposalsMapwhichistobefoundneartheendofthePlan.TheMapseekstoshowmanydifferentelementsandasaresultIfoundtheboundaryquitedifficulttodiscern.Giventhatthereneedstobeclarity,Isuggestthatalargerscalemapofthebuilt-upareaisincludedandinsertedafterthepolicy.ThepolicyisclearlywordedanditsapproachreflectsBolney’slocationandthecharacterofthesurroundingcountryside.However,Irecommendamodificationtomakesurethepolicytakesaccountof(other)nationalandlocalpolicyinrelationtodevelopmentoutsidethebuilt-upareaboundarynotonlytheotherpoliciesinthePlan.Thesupportingtexttothepolicyreferstothedetailsofanemergingpolicyinadocumentthathasnotyetbeenadopted.Thisisinappropriateastheemergingpolicymaybesubjecttochange.

! Insertalargerscalemapofthebuilt-upareaboundaryandconvenientlylocateitforeaseofreferencealongsidethepolicy

! Add“ortheproposalisinaccordancewithotherplanningpoliciesapplyingto

theParish”after“…elsewhereintheNeighbourhoodPlan”inthefirstcriterioninthepartofthepolicywhichdealswithdevelopmentoutsidethebuilt-upareaboundary

! Deleteparagraph4.3onpage26ofthePlan

15

EnvironmentandHeritageThesupportingtextexplainstheaimsofthePlan’spoliciesandgivesfurtherinformationandexplanationaboutthelandscapearoundthevillage.Paragraph4.14containsthestatementthat“locallythereisnoneedtoallocatelandfordevelopmentwithinthisarea”referringtotheHighWealdAreaofOutstandingNaturalBeauty(AONB).ThisstatementcontradictsPolicyBOLE2whichIdiscussbelow.AsaresultthisstatementshouldbedeletedintheinterestsofthePlan’sclarity,certaintyandconsistency.

! Deletethesentence“Locallythereisnoneedtoallocatelandfordevelopmentwithinthisarea.”fromparagraph4.14

PolicyBOLE1ProtectandEnhanceBiodiversityNationalpolicyisclearthattheplanningsystemshouldcontributetoandenhancethenaturalandlocalenvironment,minimisingimpactsonbiodiversityandprovidingnetgainswhereverpossible.26TheNPPFalsomakesitclearthatadistinctionshouldbemadebetweenthehierarchyofinternational,nationalandlocallydesignatedsitestoensurethatprotectionis“commensurate”withtheirstatus.27Whilstthepolicydoesnotdothisexplicitly,italsowouldnotpreventthisapproachfromoccurring.TheNPPFdoeshoweverindicatethatpermissionshouldberefusedfordevelopmentwhichresultsinthelossordeteriorationofirreplaceablehabitatssuchasancientwoodlandunlesstheneedfor,andbenefitsof,thedevelopmentinthatlocationclearlyoutweightheloss.28Thismoreflexiblestanceshouldbereflectedinthewordingofthepolicy.OtherwisethepolicyisclearlywordedandreflectsPoliciesC5andC6oftheLP2004andwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.

! Insertattheendofthesecondcriterionofthepolicythewords:“…andinthecaseoflossordeteriorationofirreplaceablehabitatspermissionwillberefusedunlesstheneedfor,andthebenefitsof,thedevelopmentinthatlocationclearlyoutweightheloss;and…”

PolicyBOLE2ProtectandEnhancetheCountrysideThispolicyaddressesdevelopmentfirstlyoutsidethebuiltupareaboundaryandsecondlyintheAONB.Thefirstparagraphrequiresanydevelopmenttodemonstratethatitdoesnothaveaharmfulimpactonthelandscapeandthatitmeetsthe

26NPPFpara10927Ibidpara11328Ibidpara118

16

requirementsofPolicyBOLD1.PolicyBOLD1isapositivelywordedpolicythatgrantspermissionsubjecttovariousdesignandothercriteria.ThesecondparagraphofthepolicyreferstodevelopmentwithintheAONB.TheNPPFgivesgreatweighttoconservinglandscapeandscenicbeautyinAONBswhich,togetherwithNationalParksandtheBroads,havethehigheststatusofprotectioninrelationtolandscapeandscenicbeauty.29Thepolicyimportsthepolicycontainedinparagraph116oftheNPPF.However,thisparagraphintheNPPFrelatesto“majordevelopments”ratherthantheallencompassing“anydevelopment”foundinthepolicyandsothepolicygoesbeyondnationalpolicy.Coupledwiththis,paragraph4.20introducesathresholdforthepolicywhichisnotrepeatedinthepolicyandseemstomeratherbizarreinitsassumptionthatoneortwodwellingsorsmallercommercialproposalswill,bydefault,alwayshaveanacceptableimpactonlandscape.WhilstIunderstandthedesirenottooverburdenapplicantsthisseemstoberatheranoddapproachthatdoesnottakesufficientaccountofnationalpolicyandguidanceorhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.ThepolicyalsothenreferstoLP2004PolicyC4.Thereisnoneedtocross-referenceDistrictlevelpoliciesastheyformpartofthedevelopmentplanandgivenitislikelyanewDistrictlevelplanwillbeadoptedduringthelifetimeofthisPlan,itwouldbepreferable,intheinterestsofprovidingapracticalframework,forthispolicytostandonitsowntwofeet.Thereforeinordertomeetthebasicconditionsanumberofmodificationsareneeded:

! Replacetheword“any”inthesecondparagraphofthepolicywith“Major”

! Delete“(asrequiredbynationalplanningpolicy)”fromthesecondparagraphofthepolicy

! Deletethewords“…andthatitfulfillstherequirementsofMidSussexDistrict

PlanPolicyC4.”fromthepolicy

! Deleteparagraph4.20initsentiretyDesignPolicyBOLD1DesignofNewDevelopmentandConservationThispolicysetsoutthequalityofdevelopmentexpectedacrossthePlanarea.IndoingsoitreflectsthecharacteristicsandlocaldistinctivenessofBolney,setsoutclearlythoseissueswhichdevelopersmusttakeintoaccountandaddressandencourages

29NPPFpara115

17

connectivityandaccessibility.Itisawellcraftedandrobustpolicythattakesaccountofnationalpolicyandguidance,LPPolicyB1andwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.Itmeetsthebasicconditionsandnomodificationsarerecommended.HousingAsthePlanrecognises,theemergingDistrictPlanpotentiallyprovidesamoreuptodatecontextonhousingprovisionthantheLP2004whichwaspreparedlongbeforecurrentnationalpolicyandguidance.However,thelegislationrequiresthatthePlanbeingeneralconformitywiththestrategicpoliciesofthedevelopmentplanandthisreferstotheLP2004astheemergingDistrictPlandoesnotyethavedevelopmentplanstatus.PPG30confirmsthisandexplainsthatthereasoningandevidenceinformingtheLocalPlanprocessislikelytoberelevant.Itparticularlystatesthatuptodatehousingneedsevidenceisrelevanttowhetherahousingsupplypolicyinaneighbourhoodplancontributestotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.Itexplainsthatneighbourhoodplansdonothavetoaddressalltypesofdevelopment,butwheretheyincludepoliciesonhousingsupply,thesepoliciesshouldtakeaccountofthelatestanduptodateevidenceofhousingneed.31ThePlanreferstotherevisedPre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlanconsulteduponinJuneandJuly2015.MSDCthenpublishedFocusedAmendmentstothePre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlanon19November2015.Consultationtookplacebetween19November2015and15January2016.Amongstotherthings,thesechangesincludedanincreaseintheobjectivelyassessedhousingneedfigurefrom656to695dwellingsperannumandanincreaseinhousingprovisionfiguresfrom650to800newhomesperyearenablingtheCounciltomakeacontributiontomeetingthehousingneedsofneighbouringauthoritiesandtheidentificationofanewstrategicsitefor600housesatPeasePottage.ThissitedoesnotfallwithintheParisharea,butdoesfallwiththeHighWealdAONB.AsmanyrepresentationspointoutthePlantakesaccountoftheJune2015Pre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlan,butnotthelatestavailableinformationonhousingneedpublishedinNovember2015.InthefaceofconsiderableandcontinuinguncertaintyofhousingneedatDistrictlevel,acutoffdatefortheproductionofthePlanandtheevidenceitconsideredwasmade.GiventhatnationalpolicyisclearthataneighbourhoodplancanbebroughtforwardbeforeanuptodateLocalPlanisinplace,32andthishasbeenconfirmedbytheCourts,33thissituationisnotunusual.BasedontheinformationbeforemethereisevidencetoshowthatthePlantookaccountoftheemergingDistrictPlanandthelatestavailableevidenceonhousingneed

30PPGpara009refid41-009-2016021131Ibidpara040refid41-040-2016021132PPGpara009refid41-009-2016021133GladmanDevelopmentsLtdvAylesburyValeDC[2014]EWHC4323(Admin)

18

andthatMSDCandtheParishCouncilhaveworkedcollaborativelyonthisasPPGadvises.34IalsorecognisethattheemergingDistrictPlanplacessomeemphasisonthedeliveryofsomeofthehousingneedthroughneighbourhoodplansandMSDChascommittedtoproducingasiteallocationsdocumentby2021toensurethatafiveyearlandsupplycanbemaintained.Itisthereforeamatteroftiming,inmyview,thathasledtothesituationwenowfindourselvesin;thePlantookaccountofthelatestevidenceinJune2015andwassubmittedinOctober2015.InNovember2015,MSDCpublishedtheFocusedAmendmentsduringtheSubmissionconsultationperiodforthisPlan.MSDCbriefedtheParishCouncilconfidentiallyinOctoberontheproposedchangesconfirmingthat800dwellingsperannumcouldstillbeachievedwithouttheneedtoalterfiguresinneighbourhoodplans.However,itwouldhavebeenverydifficultgiventhestagethePlanhadreachedand,inmyview,nighonimpossibletoexpecttheParishCounciltoconstantlyreviewandreviseitsdraftpoliciestotakeaccountofaconstantlymovingfeastatDistrictlevel.GiventhatnationalpolicyisclearthataneighbourhoodplancanbebroughtforwardbeforeanuptodateLocalPlanisinplace,35astheRegulation16periodofconsultationhadalreadybegun,toabortthis,oneofthelatterstagesintheneighbourhoodplanmakingprocess,andexpecttheParishCounciltoreviewitshousingsupplypolicieswouldhavebeenunreasonable.Indeedifsuchanapproachwastobetakenitwouldbelikelytobringtheentireplan-makingsystemtoaneffectivehalt.MSDCadvisemethattheFocusedAmendmentsindicatesthatthereisnoneedforthe“currentgenerationofneighbourhoodplanstoincreasetheirhousingnumbers”.TherearealsochangestoPPGsincethesubmissionofthePlanwhichexplainhowplanningapplicationsshouldbedeterminedwherethereisanemergingormadeneighbourhoodplan,butnofiveyearsupplyofland.36Representationssupporttheallocationofdifferentoradditionalsites.Inaddition,anumberofrepresentationshavereferredtotheproposedstrategicdevelopmentareaatPeasePottage.However,myroleislimitedtothatsetoutearlierinthisreport.GLHearnalsorefermetoPPGonhousingforolderpeople.37PPGexplainsthatlocalplanningauthoritiesshouldcounthousingforolderpeopleincludingUseClassD2(residentialinstitutions)againsttheirhousingrequirement.IhavetakenaccountoftheadviceinPPGthatneighbourhoodplansarenotobligedtocontainpoliciesaddressingalltypesofdevelopment,butwheretheydocontainpolicies

34PPGpara009refid41-009-20160211andpara040refid41-040-2016021135Ibidpara009refid41-009-2016021136Ibidparas082refid41-082-20160211and083refid41-083-2016021137Ibidpara037refid3-037-20150320

19

relevanttohousingsupply,thesepoliciesshouldtakeaccountofthelatestanduptodateevidenceofhousingneed.38IndeeditismyviewthatthePlanwaspositivelypreparedandtookintoaccountthelatestevidenceavailabletotheplanmakersatthetime.Aftercarefulconsideration,giventheuncertaintyandthemovingfeastatDistrictlevelabouthousingneed,IhavereachedtheconclusionthatthehousingsupplypoliciesinthePlantookaccountofthereasoningandevidenceavailableatDistrictlevelasfarasthatinformationwasavailableatthetimeofsubmissionandwillcontributetotheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.WiththebenefitofhindsightandchangestoPPG,thePlancouldperhapshaveconsideredincorporatingdeliverytimescalesandtheallocationofreservesites39inthelightoftheuncertaintyatDistrictlevel.Ihavealsoconsideredtherequeststosuspendorholdtheexaminationuntilsuchtimethereisgreatercertainty.Iplacegreatweightontheemphasisinnationalpolicyandguidanceonboostinghousingsupplyandtheachievementofsustainabledevelopment.TodeletethepoliciesfromthePlanortohaltitsprogresswouldnothelptoboostthesupplyofhousingorachievesustainabledevelopment;bothofwhicharekeyfacetsoftheNPPF.Itwouldalsogoagainstthegrainoflocalism.ThehousingsupplypoliciesinthePlanandtheproposedsiteallocationshavebeenpreparedwiththeaimofachievingsustainabledevelopmentandareanexpressionofthecommunity’spreferencesforthetypeandlocationofdevelopmentaftersignificantpublicconsultation.Theywillhelptoprovidesomecertaintyforthedevelopmentindustryandmakeavaluablecontributiontothehousingthatisrequired.InthemselvesthesiteallocationshavebeenassessedandselectedthroughaprocessthatincludedconsultationonthesiteassessmentcriteriaandaseparateassessmentaspartoftheSAaccompanyingthePlan.ThepoliciesinthemselvesandtakingthePlanasawholewouldnotpreventothersustainabledevelopmentcomingforward.ThePlan’shousingsupplypolicies(basedontheCourtsinterpretationofwhatmightconstituteahousingsupplypolicy)40maybecomeoutofdate.TheoptionofanearlyreviewandupdateofthePlanmaythereforebeattractivetotheParishCouncil.PolicyBOLH1ResidentialDevelopmentMixTheNPPFsupportsthedeliveryofawidechoiceofhighqualityhomesandthecreationofsustainable,inclusiveandmixedcommunities.41Thispolicyseekstosupportthataimbyreflectingtrends,needsandlocaldemandprovidingevidencetoshowthehousingmixissupportedbylocalopinion.However,thepolicyisprescriptiveanddoesnottakeintoaccountviabilityalthoughthisflexibilityisreferredtointhesupportingtext.To

38PPGpara040refid41-040-2016021139Ibidpara009refid41-009-2016021140SuffolkCoastalDCvHopkinsHomesLtd&SSCLGandRichboroughEstatesvCheshireEastBC&SSCLG[2016]EWCACiv168referredtoinGLHearn’srepresentation41NPPFpara50

20

ensurethatthepolicytakesaccountofnationalpolicyandguidanceandwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment,thepolicyrequiresmodification.

! Addthewords“subjecttoviabilityconsiderations”attheendofthefirstsentenceofthepolicy

! Rewordthelastsentenceofthepolicytoread:“Analternativemixofdwelling

sizeprovisionwillonlybepermittedifarobustjustificationisprovidedtothesatisfactionofthelocalplanningauthoritythattheschemeasawholewouldreflectthemostuptodatehousingneedsevidenceavailabletakingintoaccountviabilityconsiderations.”

PolicyBOLH2InfillandBacklandDevelopmentThesupportingtextgivesdetailsabouthistoricalwindfallsitesbuildratesandmakesareasonableassumptionaboutexpectationsinthefuture.Itsetsoutanumberofissuestotakeintoaccountonpages36and37ofthePlanincludingmatterssuchasplotwidthandbuildingheight.Alltheissuesareclearlyarticulatedandwillhelptoachievepositiveplanningandahighstandardofdevelopment.Althoughtheydonotappearinthepolicyitself,theywillstillofferusefulguidanceassupportingtextandrepresentprinciplesofgoodplanning.Thepolicyitselfisrathermoregenerallywordedandseekstocoverbothdesignandamenityissues.Onephrasegivesmesomeconcern;“…reinforcetheuniformityofthestreetbyreflectingthescale,mass,heightandformofitsneighbours…”.Giventheprecedingissueswhichaddressplotwidthandheight,visualseparationandsoon,Isuspectitwastheintentionofthepolicytoensurethatexistingcharacteristicsandfeaturesweresuitablyrespected.Thisisdifferenttoseekingtoreplicatewhatisthereandwouldpotentiallystifleinnovativedesign.Thiswouldnotaccordwithnationalpolicywhichwhilstpromotingandreinforcinglocaldistinctiveness,alsoseekstoensurethatinnovation,originalityandinitiativearenotdiscouraged.42Ithereforerecommendamodificationtoaddressthis.Asecondmodificationisrecommendedtoimprovetheclarityofthecriterionthatdealswithdaylightandsunlight.

! Delete“…theuniformityofthestreet...”andreplacewith“thecharacteristicsandfeaturesofthestreet”inthefirstparagraphofthepolicy

42NPPFSection7

21

! Inthefourthbulletpointofthepolicyreplacetheword“seriously”withtheword“materially”;andaddtheword“materially”before“…obstructingthepathofdirectsunlight…”;anddeletethewords“oncesunny”

PolicyBOLH3AffordableHousingThesupportingtexttothepolicyreferstothedetailsofanemergingpolicyinadocumentthathasnotyetbeenadopted.Thisisinappropriateastheemergingpolicymaybesubjecttochange.ThepolicyseeksalevelofaffordablehousingprovisioninlinewithwhateveristheprevailingpolicyatMSDClevel.ThisseemstobeariskyapproachgiventhatitislikelytheMSDCpolicywillchangeoverthelifetimeofthePlanandinanycaseifwhatisbeingsoughtissimplythesameaswhatisbeingsoughtatDistrictlevelthispartofthepolicyisunnecessary.Thepolicythenrequiresschemestodemonstratethatlocalneedsareaddressedandencouragespre-applicationdiscussionwithMSDC.ThislatterelementplacesanadditionalburdenonMSDC.Thelastelementofthepolicyseeksthecreationofinclusivedevelopmentswhichisinlinewithnationalpolicyandguidance.Fortheavoidanceofanydoubtthislastparagraphcanberetainedinitsentirety.Thereforethesupportingtextandpolicyrequirethefollowingmodificationtoensureitmeetsthebasicconditions:

! Deleteparagraph4.41onpage39ofthePlan

! Deletethefirstsentenceofthepolicythatreads:“TheproportionofresidentialprovisionthatisaffordablehousingshouldbeinlinewiththerequirementintheMSDCDistrictPlan.”

! Rewordthe(existing)secondparagraphofthepolicytoread:“Thetypeof

affordableprovisiononanyparticularsiteshouldseektoaddresslocalneedsasidentifiedinthemostuptodatehousingneedsevidenceavailabletakingintoaccountviabilityconsiderations.ApplicantsareencouragedtodiscusstheprovisionofaffordablehousingwithMidSussexDistrictCouncilbeforesubmittingaplanningapplication.”

22

PoliciesBOLH4a,BOLH4bandBOLH4cHousingAllocationsThreesiteallocationsareproposedyieldingapproximately41–45dwellings.ThePlanexplainsthattogetherwithexistingcommitmentsandwindfallsitisanticipatedthattheoverallhousingfigurecouldreachbetween71–75unitsoverthePlanperiod.Althoughsomerepresentationsquerythewisdomofincludingwindfallsinthefigure,itisgenerallyacceptedthatanallowancemaybemadeforwindfallsifthereisevidencetheyhavebecomeconsistentlyavailableandwillcontinuetobeareliablesourceofsupply.43InanycasethePlandoesnotseektolimitoverallhousingfigures.AnexplanationofhowsiteshavebeenselectedisgiveninthePlan.AswellasidentifyingsitesthroughMSDC’sStrategicHousingLandAvailabilityAssessment,therewasa‘callforsites’.Therewasalsoanopportunitytocommentonthecriteriausedtoassessthesiteswhichwereconsideredinrelationtoavailability,suitabilityandachievability.Aswellasthissiteassessmentandselectionprocess,eachofthesiteshasbeenassessedaspartoftheSA.Itisnotunusualforotheroradditionalsitestobeproposedinrepresentationsorforthesiteassessmentandselectionprocesstobequeried.OverallIconsiderthat,basedontheinformationbeforeme,thesiteassessmentandselectionprocesshasbeensufficientlyrobust.Allthreesiteallocationsareshownclearlyonmapstobefoundonpages42,45and47ofthePlan,butthepoliciesdonotcross-referencethemaps.Thereforeintheinterestsofclaritythemapsshouldbenumberedandcross-referencesinsertedintothepolicies.Takingeachsiteallocationinturn,thefirstsiteislandoppositetheformerQueensHeadPublicHouse.Coveringsometwohectares,PolicyBOLH4aallocatesthesiteforabout30dwellings.Thereisnoneed,andthephraseisnothelpful,tosaythatpermissionwill“ordinarily”begranted;thisiscommonacrossthethreesiteallocationpolicies.Thecriteria-basedpolicythencontainsanumberofrequirementsincludingtencarparkingspacesfortheschoolandnewfootpathlinks.Whilsttheothercriteriaarereasonablesubjecttoenhancedflexibility,thereisnoexplanationforthespecifiednumberofcarparkingspacesforpublicuseandtheschoolandsowhilstIagreeeveryopportunityshouldbetakentoprovidemorespaces,thisrequiresadditionalflexibilitytoensureitdoesnotpreventthedevelopmentfromgoingahead.SouthernWaterrequestaminorwordingchangetoPolicyBOLH4aandthisisrecommendedintheinterestsofclarityandaccuracy.Thesecondsiteallocation,PolicyBOLH4b,isG&WMotorssite,LondonRoad.ThesitewasallocatedintheMSDCLocalPlan2004forapproximatelysixunits.PolicyBOLH4b

43NPPFpara48

23

suggestsarangeofbetween8–10dwellings.Recognisingthatthesiteiscurrentlyincommercialuse,thetextexplainsthatthelandownerhasindicatedthesitewillbecomeavailableoverthePlanperiod.Thepolicyisclearlywrittenandsetsoutthewayinwhichthesiteshouldbedevelopedincludingtheprovisionofanappropriateaccessandlandscaping.Thethirdsiteallocation,PolicyBOLH4c,isBolneyHouseGardens.Situatedatthesouthernendofthebuiltuparea,thesiteisadjacenttotheConservationArea.Thepolicyclearlysetsouthowthesiteshouldbedevelopedforapproximately3–5dwellings.Subjecttothemodificationscommontoallthreesiteallocationpolicies,inadditionthereisaminorwordchangetobetterreflectnationalpolicyandguidanceonConservationAreas.

! Numberallthemapswhichshowtheallocatedsitesandinsertareferencetyingthepolicytothatlandineachofthethreesiteallocationpoliciesbyaddingthewords“asshownonMapXX”afterthesiteaddress

! Deletetheword“ordinarily”fromPoliciesBOLH4a,BOLH4bandBOLH4c

! InPolicyBOLH4aaddthewords“subjecttoviabilityconsiderations”attheendofthecriterionthatreads“theprovisionofaminimumof10publicparkingspacestoserveBolneyC.E.P.School;and”

! InPolicyBOLH4achangethefifthcriteriontoread:“Takeeveryavailable

opportunitytoprovidealinktotheexistingfootpathtothewestofthesiteprovidingaccessontoTheStreetandtoprovidepedestrianlinkstotheschool;and”

! InPolicyBOLH4achangethesixthcriteriontoread:“Incorporategreenspace

withinthesitetointegratethedevelopmentandtakeaccountofitscontextandthelandlevelswithinthesite;and”

! Replacethephrase“wastewaterauthorities”inthelastbulletpointofPolicy

BOLH4awith“wastewaterprovider”

! InthethirdcriterionofPolicyBOLH4creplacethephrase“…andensuresthatthesettingoftheConservationAreaismaintained”withthewords“andensuresthatthecharacterorappearanceoftheConservationAreaispreservedorenhanced;”

24

ParishAssetsPolicyBOLA1ProtectandEnhanceOpenSpacesinthevillageThispolicyseekstoallocatetwoopenspacesasLocalGreenSpaces(LGS).ThesupportingtextreferstotheNPPFinthisrespectandinparticularparagraph77oftheNPPFwhichreferstothesedesignationsintroducedintheNPPF.TheNPPF44isclearthatlocalcommunitieshavetheopportunityofdesignatingLGS,butthatsuchadesignationwillnotbeappropriateformostgreenareasoropenspace.TheprotectionthatthisdesignationoffersissimilartoGreenBelt.TheNPPFlistsanumberofcriteriathatsuchadesignationneedstomeet.Itfurtherstatesthatidentifyinglandshouldbeconsistentwithlocalplanningofsustainabledevelopment.IhavethereforeconsideredwhetherthetwospacesmeettherequirementssetoutintheNPPF.GlebeFieldisnotanextensivetractoflandandisconvenientforthevillage.ThePlanexplainsthatthesiteisbyanumberofsportsclubsandtheschoolaswellasthegeneralpublic.AswellasaffordingsomelongdistanceviewsoftheSouthDowns,itisclosetothelistedChurchandboastsmaturetrees.Isawatmysitevisitthatthisareawaswellcontainedandclearlyusedforrecreationalpurposesincludingcricketandbydogwalkers.Batchelor’sFieldcontainsthenewvillagehall,aplayareaandsportsarea.Thisareoflargelyflatopenlandcontainedafootballpitch,playareasandwasatthetimeofmyvisitmuchused.BothspacesmeetthecriteriaintheNPPF.Thepolicydesignatesbothspacesandindicatestherangeofdevelopmentthatwillbeacceptable.ThetypesandamountofdevelopmentgobeyondthosenormallyacceptableunderGreenBeltpolicywhichtheNPPFindicatesLGSwillofferasimilarprotection.Yetthecategoriesofdevelopmentandthewayinwhichthepolicyiswordedarenotincompatiblewiththecurrentusesofthesiteswhichhasleadtothembeingofspecialimportancetothecommunityandforthisreason,thepolicytakessufficientaccountofnationalpolicyandguidance.Itwillhelptoachievesustainabledevelopment.ItmeetsthebasicconditionsandnomodificationsaresuggestedotherthantodeletethereferencetoAppendix4asthisdoesnotseemtoexist.TheproposalsmapdoesnotshowtheLGSswithsufficientclarity.ItissuggestedthattwomapsshowingtheareasareinsertedtobereadalongsidePolicyBOLA1andthatthepolicyshouldrefertothose(new)maps.

44NPPFparas76,77,78

25

Inaddition,althoughitisnotamodificationIneedtomaketoensurethepolicymeetsthebasicconditions,itseemstomethatthetitleofthepolicygoesbeyondwhatthepolicyactuallycoversandthereforetheParishCouncilmightliketoconsideranalternativetitlefortheLGSs.

! Deletethewords“…theProposalsMapinAppendix4…”fromthepolicy

! InsertlargerscalemapsofthetwoLGSintothePlanandensurethatthepolicyreferstothemapsbyinsertingthephrase“MapXXandMapXX”after“Thefollowingareasasshownon…”

PolicyBOLA2ExtensionofBatchelor’sFieldAnextensiontoBatchelor’sFieldforadditionalrecreationalusesissupportedbythispolicy.ThisreplicatesPolicyBO3oftheLP2004whichalsoproposesanextensiontotherecreationground.TheclearlywordedpolicyseekstoensurethatanysuchuseswillbeappropriategiventheopensettingofthesiteanditsproximitytoBatchelor’sField.Onceagaintheproposalsmapdoesnotshowtheextensionwithsufficientclarity.IrecommendthatanewmapispreparedandinsertedintothePlanandthatthepolicycross-referencesthatmap.

! InsertanewmapofthelandsubjectofthispolicyintothePlanandensurethatthepolicyreferstothatmapbyinsertingthephrase“…asshownonMapXX…”afterthefirstreferenceof“Batchelor’sField”inthepolicy

PolicyBOLA3NewSchoolBuildingsThispolicysupportstheprovisionofnewbuildingsatthetwoschoolswithintheParish.ThepolicywordingsupportsadditionalbuildingsandIconsiderthatthismayleadtosomeconfusioninitsapplication,particularlyincircumstanceswhentheschoolmightwishtoreplaceabuildingoranexistingbuildingneedstobedemolishedtoenableanewbuildingtobeconstructedforexample.Thereforetohelpwithclarityandtheapplicationofthepolicy,Isuggestamodificationtoaddressmyconcern.Thepolicythenresiststhelossofplayingfieldsunlesstheyarereplaced.OperationallyIfeelthismightresultinanonerousrequirementontheschools.However,theintentiontoretainplayingfieldsissupportedintheNPPF,45butsubjecttoanassessmentoftheneed.IthereforeproposeamodificationtotakeaccountofthestanceintheNPPF.Themodificationsareshownonthenextpage.

45NPPFpara74

26

! Changetheword“additional”inthepolicyto“new”

! Replacethesecondparagraphofthepolicywith“Thelossofplayingfieldswillberesistedunlessitisclearlydemonstratedthatthelandissurplustorequirementsorthattheplayingfieldsarereplacedbyequivalentorbetterprovisioninasuitablelocationaccessibletopupilsonfoot.”

PolicyBOLA4SecuringInfrastructureThisisasimplywordedpolicythatseekstoensurethatanyinfrastructure–social,physicalorgreen–neededforadevelopmentwillbeprovided.Thepolicythensupportsdevelopmentthatcontributestoanumberofinfrastructureprojectslistedonpage54ofthePlan.Thepolicysendsoutaclearsignalastowhatthecommunityseeks.GiventhatthepolicysupportsanydevelopmentthatmakessuchacontributionandthiscouldbeinterpretedasdevelopmentthatmightnotmeettherequirementsofotherpoliciesinthedevelopmentplanorencourageotherwiseinappropriatedevelopmentwhichIfeelsureisnottheintentionofthepolicy,amodificationisneededintheinterestsoftheoperationofthepolicy.LastlyWestSussexCountyCouncilrecommendsomechangestothedetailintwoofthebulletpointsinparagraph4.87andthesearerecommendedbelowintheinterestsofaccuracyandclarity.

! Changethesecondparagraphofthepolicytoread“DevelopmentwhichisotherwiseacceptablethatprovidescontributionstotheBolneyNeighbourhoodPlaninfrastructureprojectslistedinparagraph4.87willbestronglysupported.”

! Replace“WSCC”inbulletpointthreeofparagraph4.87with“Highways

England”

! Replace“HighwaysEngland”inbulletpointfiveofparagraph4.87with“WSCC”

PolicyBOLA5HighSpeedBroadbandThispolicyseekstoensurethatnewbuildings,includingdwellingsontheallocatedsites,shouldbeservedbyhighspeedbroadband.Thewordingofthepolicyisarguablycomplexdealingwith“properties”and“newbuildings”anditseemsoddthatthepolicyonlyrelatestonewresidentialdevelopmentontheallocatedsites.Itseemstomethattheintentionofthepolicyistosupporthighqualitycommunicationsinfrastructurein

27

linewiththeNPPF.46AsaresultIsuggestthatthepolicyismodifiedtoensurethereisclarityandflexibilityandthatitappliestoalldevelopment.

! RewordPolicyBOLA5toread:“Allnewdevelopmentmustbedesignedtoenableconnectiontohighqualitycommunicationsinfrastructureincludingsuper-fastbroadband.Wherethiswouldnotbepossible,practicaloreconomicallyviableCommunityInfrastructureLevymaybeusedforthispurposeoraplanningcontributionmaybesought.”

BusinessPolicyBOLB1ProtectionofExistingCommercialPremisesThePlanexplainsthecontextforthispolicy.Itstrikesattheheartoftheeconomicaspectsofsustainabledevelopmentaimingtoretainemploymentuses,butensuringthatfuturedevelopmentisnotstifledwhentheuseisnolongerviable.Thewordingofthefirstparagraphofthepolicyisunclearanddoesnotseemtoachievetheintentionsoutlinedinthesupportingtextandsoforthisreasonamodificationissuggested.Fortheavoidanceofanydoubtthesecondparagraphanditstwocriteriaareretained.ThesupportingtextreferstoaproposalintheemergingDistrictPlan.Giventhatthismaybesubjecttochange,itisrecommendedthatthisreferenceberemoved.

! Replacethefirstparagraphofthepolicywith:“Thechangeofusetootheremployment,commercialorbusinessuses,ortheextensionof,buildingsinemployment,commercialorbusinessuseslocatedinthebuiltupareaofBolneywillbesupported.”

! DeletethereferencetotheproposalintheemergingDistrictPlanfrom

paragraph4.90PolicyBOLB2ExpansionofCommercialActivityatBolneyGrangeBusinessParkPage58referstoBOLB2and“DevelopmentwithinBusinessEstates”.PolicyBOLB2onlyreferstotheBolneyGrangeBusinessParkandsotoavoidanyconfusionarisingthereferenceonpage58shouldreflectthesubsequentpolicy.ThepolicysupportsanextensionoftheBolneyGrangeBusinessParksubjecttotransportrelatedanddrainageissuesbeingsatisfactorytogetherwiththeretentionof

46NPPFSection5

28

animportanttreeline.AnumberofrepresentationsexpressconcernaboutthesuitabilityofaccessandinparticularinrelationtoStairbridgeLane.However,thepolicywouldprovidenewemploymentopportunitieslocallywiththeappropriatesafeguards.Itdoeshoweverrequiresomesharpeningupofthewordingtoensureitprovidesthepracticalframeworkrequiredbynationalpolicyandguidance.Arepresentationsupportingthepolicyhasbeensubmittedonbehalfofthelandowner.Atransportassessmenthasalsohelpfullybeensubmittedtohelpaddressconcernsovertrafficimpact.Therepresentationalsoseeksallocationofafurtherareaofland,butmyremitislimitedtoassessingwhatisbeforemeinrelationtothebasicconditions.Amaponpage59ofthePlanrelatestothelandinquestion.Themapshouldbenumberedandatitleaddedtogetherwithacross-referencetoitinthepolicy.Thereisalsononeedtorepeat“BolneyGrangeBusinessPark”atthestartofthepolicyasthetitleensuresthatthepolicyappliestothatarea.ThesupportingtextreferstoanobjectiveoftheemergingDistrictPlan.Giventhatthismaybesubjecttochange,itisrecommendedthatthisreferenceberemoved.

! Revisetitleandtextonpage58sothatittiesupwithPolicyBOLB2

! Numberandtitlethemaponpage59andinsertacross-referencetoitinthepolicyitselfbyaddingthewords“asshownonMapXX”after“…BolneyGrangeBusinessPark...”

! Deletethewords“BolneyGrangeBusinessPark”atthestartofthepolicy

! Rewordthesecondcriterionofthepolicytoread:“itisdemonstratedthat

thereissatisfactorydrainage;and”

! DeletethereferencetotheobjectiveintheemergingDistrictPlanfromparagraph4.102

PolicyBOLB3ProvisionofaCommunityShopBolneyhasatrackrecordwithacaférunbythecommunityandasaresultoftheneighbourhoodplanningjourneyhasidentifiedthattheprovisionofacommunityshopwouldservethecommunitywell.Thisistobecommended.Thepolicylendssupporttoanyproposaltochangetheuseofanexistingbuildingtoaretailfacilitycapableofservingthelocalcommunity.This,tomymind,wouldsupportanyapplicationforachangeofusetoretailasitcouldbereadilyarguedthatanysuchfacilitywouldbecapableofservingtheneedsofthecommunity.Giventhataplanningpermissionwouldnotdistinguishbetweentheoccupationormanagementofaretailunit,providedtheParishCouncilarecomfortablewiththepolicywhichdespiteitstitle,

29

effectivelysupportsanychangeofusetoanyretailfacilityanywhereintheParish(asthepolicyisnotlocationallyspecific),thenthispolicywouldmeetthebasicconditionsasitwouldpromotelocalservices.IftheParishCouncildidnotintendthepolicytobesowidelyapplicable,Isuggestthattheaspirationforacommunityshopisplacedinaseparate‘communityaspirations’elementorappendixofthePlanasacommunityactionandthepolicyanditssupportingtextdeletedfromthePlan.TravelandParkingPoliciesPolicyBOLT1TransportImpactofDevelopmentThepolicyseekstoensurethatnewdevelopmentwillhavesafeaccessandanacceptableimpactonthelocalhighwaynetwork.Inadditionwalkingandcyclingroutesaresought.Thesupportingtexttothepolicyoutlinestheissueswell.InordertoensurethatthepolicyisclearlywordedanddealswithdevelopmentwithintheParishandsomeetsthebasicconditions,Isuggestanumberofmodifications.

! Deletetheword“ordinarily”fromthepolicy

! Changecriteriona)toread:“ThatanyadditionaltrafficgeneratedbytheproposalhasanacceptableimpactontheParish’spedestrians,cyclists,roadsafetyandwillnotleadtoincreasedcongestion;and”

! Replacecriterionc)with;“Anyavailableopportunitiesaretakentoprovide

safepedestrianorcycleroutesfromthedevelopmenttokeyfacilitiesinBolneyvillage.”

! ExplainandlistwhatthekeyfacilitiesinBolneyvillageareinthesupporting

textPolicyBOLT2ParkingintheVillageParkingisclearlyanissueofconcerninthevillage.Thispolicyseekstoensurethatthereisnonetlossofparkingspacesfromcarparksandsupportsnewcarparkssubjecttohighwaysafetyandotherconsiderations.Thisreflectslocalcircumstancesandtakesapragmaticviewtotheredevelopmentofcarparksgiventhosecircumstances.Thepolicyisclearlyworded,buttherecouldbesomeambiguityabouttherequirementforanyreplacementcarparktobein“closeproximitytothesite”.ThecarparksthepolicyrelatestoareshownontheproposalsmapalthoughIhadtroubleidentifyingeachoneclearly.Subjecttotwochangestoaddresstheseconcernsshownoverleaf,thepolicymeetsthebasicconditions.

30

! Includealarge(r)scalemapwhichshowstheexistingcarparksthatthepolicyappliestoandcross-referencethismapinthepolicyitself

! Deletethewords“…elsewhereincloseproximitytothesite.”fromthefirst

paragraphofthepolicyandreplacewiththewords“…byequivalentorbetterprovisioninasuitablelocation.”

PolicyBOLT3Off-streetParkingProvisionforNewResidentialDevelopmentThesupportingtexttothepolicyexplainstheneedforparkingstandardsintheParishbyreferringtolocalcircumstancesandmorewidelyapplicabledata.InprincipleitislocallydistinctiveandappropriategiventhosecircumstancesthePlanoutlines.However,thepolicyincludestworequirementsthatIconsiderareonerousandonesthatwouldbedifficulttoenforce.Thesearetheneedfordevelopmentnottocontributetoon-streetparkingandnotuseexistingoff-streetspaces.Mostdevelopmentislikelytocontributesomeadditionalparkingneedsandwherepeopleparkisdifficulttomanage;inanycaseevenifthiswasaplanningissue,Iamunsureastowhatthesanctionmightbe.ThereforeIfeelthemostthispolicycanachieveistoensurethatnewdevelopmentprovidesanadequateamountofparkingandthisinitselfwillhelptoachievethosetwootheraspirations.Inordertomeetthebasicconditions,amodificationisthereforerecommendedtogetherwithasecondthatarisesasaconsequenceofthefirst.

! Delete“thedevelopmentwillnotcontributetoon-streetparking,andthedevelopmentwillnotuseexistingoff-streetparkingspaces,and”fromthepolicy

! Replacethefirstsentenceofthepolicyandtheremainingsentence(afterthe

abovemodification)sothatthepolicyreads:“Newresidentialdevelopmentwillbeexpectedtoprovidethefollowingoff-streetparkingprovisionasaminimum:…”[retainlistandreferencetovisitorparking]

Section5:MonitoringandReviewItistobewelcomedthatthePlanwillbereviewedregularlyandthatacomprehensivelistoftargetsandmonitoringindicatorsistobefoundinAppendixB.ProposalsMapIhavemadeanumberofreferencestotheProposalsMapthroughoutmyreport.Theconceptofitsinclusionistobewelcomed,butIfounditrelativelyhardtodecipherandgivenitsimportancetoanumberofpoliciesinthePlan,Ihavesuggestedmodificationstoensurethattheinformationisclearandinsertedclosetothepolicyitsitsalongside.

31

Intheinterestsofbrevity,Idonotrepeatthosemodificationshere,butsimplyflagtheissueup.AppendicesAppendixAcontainsahelpfullistofinformationcontainedintheevidencebase.AppendixBisthemonitoringindicatorsreferredtoinsection5ofthePlan.Someoftheindicatorsandtargetsdonotrelatetodevelopmentanduseoflandmattersforexampletrafficaccidentfrequency.However,giventhatthePlandoesnothavetoincludeanyinformationonmonitoringalthoughIregarditasgoodpracticethatitdoes,thereislittledoubtinmymindthatthelistasawholewillassisttheParishCouncilinensuringthatthePlaniseffective.AppendixCoutlinesthebasicconditionsandarguablyasthePlanproceedsitisnotessentialtoincludethis,butIregardthisasamatterfortheParishCouncil.8.0ConclusionsandRecommendationsIamsatisfiedthattheBolneyNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlan,subjecttothemodificationsIhaverecommended,meetsthebasicconditionsandtheotherstatutoryrequirementsoutlinedearlierinthisreport.IamthereforedelightedtorecommendtoMidSussexDistrictCouncilthat,subjecttothemodificationsproposedinthisreport,theBolneyNeighbourhoodDevelopmentPlanshouldproceedtoareferendum.Followingonfromthat,IamrequiredtoconsiderwhetherthereferendumareashouldbeextendedbeyondtheBolneyNeighbourhoodPlanarea.IseenoreasontoalterorextendthePlanareaforthepurposeofholdingareferendumandnorepresentationshavebeenmadethatwouldleadmetoreachadifferentconclusion.IthereforeconsiderthatthePlanshouldproceedtoareferendumbasedontheBolneyNeighbourhoodPlanareaasapprovedbyMidSussexDistrictCouncilon9July2013.Ann Skippers MRTPI AnnSkippersPlanning19June2016

32

AppendixListofKeyDocumentsspecifictothisExaminationBolneySubmissionNeighbourhoodPlan2015-2031(Regulation16)October2015BasicConditionsStatementOctober2015ConsultationStatementOctober2015SustainabilityAssessmentincorporatingStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentSeptember2015SustainabilityAssessmentincorporatingStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentNonTechnicalSummaryOctober2015HabitatsRegulationsAssessmentScreeningReport(Regulation16)dated27October2015MidSussexLocalPlan2004TheemergingMidSussexDistrictLocalPlan2014–2031andvariousotherrelateddocumentsincludingtheFocusedAmendmentstothePre-SubmissionDraftDistrictPlanofNovember2015andtheHousingandEconomicDevelopmentNeedsAssessmentFebruary2015andUpdateNovember2015VariousevidencedocumentsandotherinformationonbackgroundtotheBolneyNeighbourhoodPlanontheGroup’swebsiteListends

33

AppendixNoteof9April2016Note to Mid Sussex District Council from Ann Skippers, Independent Examiner A number of matters have arisen as a result of my initial review of the Neighbourhood Plan, its supporting documents and the representations. 1. A representation has been received from GL Hearn dated 4 April 2016; this was

sent direct to me via email on 5 April and then to my postal address. It is addressed to me as Examiner and, amongst other points, requests that I suspend the examination.

As a general rule of thumb I will usually not accept late or additional representations. The only time when I will consider accepting a representation submitted after the consultation period ends is in those cases where there has been a material change in circumstances since the six-week consultation period has ended. For example national planning policy changes. In these circumstances anyone wishing to introduce new evidence should fully justify why and in the case of substantial documents indicate which parts of the document are relevant and why. I also consider it important that any correspondence is managed by the LPA and that the Examiner, in order to retain independence and in the interests of openness and transparency, does not enter into correspondence with an individual party. Having read GL Hearn’s representation alongside their original representation submitted during the Regulation 16 consultation period, there are references to the Court of Appeal judgement in relation to the Suffolk Coastal DC and Hopkins Homes Ltd and SSCLG and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and Cheshire East BC and SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 168 and changes to Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). I am aware of both these changes as any Examiner would be as part of their general practice. Other matters seem to relate more to the promotion of the site in question and their representations to the LPA in relation to the emerging Local Plan. Nevertheless it is important that GL Hearn’s letter is dealt with appropriately. Therefore may I please request that the LPA responds to GL Hearn? Firstly it should be confirmed that I have received the letter and that I have made this request that the LPA responds on my behalf. Secondly, that late representations are not usually accepted unless there has been a material change in circumstances since the six-week period of consultation has ended. Thirdly, should GL Hearn wish their letter to be accepted, it would be most helpful if they could outline what material change in circumstance has occurred since the six-week period has expired that they wish to introduce and fully justify why any

34

new evidence is relevant and in the case of substantial documents indicate which part of the document are relevant and why. Of course this applies to the relevance to the Neighbourhood Plan examination and not the situation at Local Plan level or in relation to any pre-application or planning application they may be pursuing and they should be reminded of this. In addition it could usefully be indicated that if any such justification is forthcoming, it would be helpful to the Examiner to keep this as succinct, clear and brief as possible. Fourthly, it could be stressed that I as Examiner will carefully consider any issue of relevance to the examination including up to date national policy or guidance and any judgements handed down from the Courts as a matter of course in my examination as I will be aware of these matters as a planning professional. In addition the need for any action in relation to the examination process including its suspension, will form part of my deliberations. Having received this comfort, they could be invited to withdraw their letter. Fifthly, it should be pointed out that if they wish to submit a further letter justifying any new evidence they wish to submit, then that letter and their one of 4 April will be a matter of public record if accepted and may cause the Examiner to seek views from other representators, the LPA or the Parish Council on the matters they raise in the interests of fairness. Finally, they should be given a reasonable deadline to respond to you please so that the examination is not unduly delayed; I do not think it necessary to give more than a week. Should you find it useful for me to cast an eye over your response before you sent it to GL Hearn I would be pleased to do this. You may also wish to seek your own advice on this matter.

2. As a separate matter, I would find it useful for the LPA and the Parish Council to

provide me with a brief factual agreed update or ‘position statement’ on the status and progress of the emerging Local Plan and any material changes to the emerging Local Plan of relevance so that I am up to date with the latest position at MSDC level.

Please may I caution both parties to restrict this note to containing matters of fact only and not to stray into giving me views on any effects on the Neighbourhood Plan or to include any evidence or opinion on whether the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions.

3. Pending the response from GL Hearn and yourselves and the Parish Council on the

position statement, I will continue with the examination. With many thanks in anticipation of your kind assistance on these matters. If there are any queries, please let me know. Ann Skippers 9 April 2016

35

AppendixNote2of29April2016Note 2 to Mid Sussex District Council from Ann Skippers, Independent Examiner Representations from GL Hearn. 4. A representation was received from GL Hearn dated 4 April 2016; the LPA at my

request wrote to GL Hearn on 15 April 2016 to ask them to specify the material change(s) in circumstance that has occurred since the six-week period expired that they wished to introduce and to fully justify why any new evidence was relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan examination. The letter offered reassurance that I would as a matter of course take into account the latest national guidance and any judgements handed down from the Courts of relevance to the examination and invited them to withdraw their representation on this basis.

5. GL Hearn responded promptly to that letter on 20 April 2016 and confirmed they

do not wish to withdrawn the letter and reiterated the issues they consider to be material changes in circumstances and material to the examination.

6. Whilst I remain of the view that these are matters which I would take into account

anyway during the normal course of my examination, I consider it prudent to accept both letters from GL Hearn.

7. The implications of taking this course of action are that others who made

representations at Regulation 16 stage (the LPA’s publicity period) should also be given an opportunity to comment on those matters raised by GL Hearn together with an opportunity for the LPA and the Parish Council to likewise comment.

8. I consider then it would be prudent for the LPA to write to GL Hearn and confirm I

will accept their letters of 4 and 20 April 2016, indicating that in the interests of fairness all other representators at Regulation 16 stage will be asked for their views on the matters raised by GL Hearn and be given 21 days to respond and that the LPA will endeavour to put this correspondence and any replies received on the LPA website one week after the close of the 21 day period and that the Examiner does not intend to accept any further representations unless exceptional circumstances arise.

9. The LPA then should, in my view, put the GL Hearn letter of 4 April, the LPA letter

in response and the GL Hearn letter of 20 April on the LPA’s website, individually contact all the Regulation 16 representators drawing their attention to the three letters.

10. The letter from the LPA to all those who have submitted representations on the

Regulation 16 consultation and the Parish Council, in my judgement, should briefly explain the specific matters raised by GL Hearn using the language GL Hearn have used and then say something along the lines of:

36

“I am aware that you have submitted representations as part of the Regulation 16 consultation on the Bolney Neighbourhood Plan. As requested by the Examiner, I am now therefore writing to you to ask whether you wish to amend your representation in the light of the points made by GL Hearn. It is important to note that further comments are not being invited on any other matters. Any responses should be made to XXXX by XXXX [insert date after 21 days] and this response should include any amendments that you wish to make. It is important to note that the Examiner does not intend to accept any further representations on any other issues unless exceptional circumstances arise and considers it important for all parties that she is able to progress the examination in a timely manner.”

11. Should you find it useful for me to cast an eye over the two draft letters I would be pleased to do so and the suggestions above are given in order to be helpful to you.

12. After the 21 day period has ended and any amended representations have been

passed to me, I will continue with the examination. With many thanks in anticipation of your kind assistance. If there are any queries, please let me know. Ann Skippers 29 April 2016