€¦ · web viewinclusion of the word 'usually'. i recommend specific modifications to...

Report on Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan

2016 - 2029

An Examination undertaken for North Warwickshire Borough Council with the support of the Mancetter Parish Council on the October 2016 submission version of the Plan.

Independent Examiner: Mary O’Rourke BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Date of Report: 28 April 2017

ContentsPage

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 6NB Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 84

1

Main Findings - Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction and Background 3 Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan 2016 – 29 3 The Independent Examiner 4 The Scope of the Examination 4 The Basic Conditions 5

2. Approach to the Examination 5 Planning Policy Context 5 Submitted Documents 6 Site Visit 7 Written Representations or Public Hearing 7 Modifications 7

3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights 7 Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area 7 Plan Period 7 Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation 7 Development and Use of Land 8 Excluded Development 8 Human Rights 9

4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions 9 Main Issues 9 General issues of compliance 9 Specific Issues of compliance with the Plan’s

policies12

5. Conclusions 28 Summary 28 The Referendum and its Area 28

Appendix: Modifications 30


2

Main Findings - Executive Summary

From my examination of the Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan and its supporting documentation including the representations made, I have concluded that subject to the policy modifications set out in this report, the plan meets the Basic Conditions.

I have also concluded that:

- The plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by a qualifying body – the Mancetter Parish Council;

- The plan has been prepared for an area properly designated – the Neighbourhood Area corresponding to Mancetter Parish as shown on page 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan;

- The plan specifies the period to which it is to take effect – the 13 year period from 2016 to 2029 as set out in paragraph 1.7 of the Plan; and

- The policies relate to the development and use of land for a designated neighbourhood area.

I recommend that the plan, once modified, proceeds to Referendum on the basis that it has met all the relevant legal requirements.

I have considered whether the referendum area should extend beyond the designated area to which the plan relates and have concluded that it should not.

1. Introduction and Background Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan 2016- 2029

1.1 The parish of Mancetter generally lies to the south west of the A5 Watling Street, which runs between Nuneaton and Tamworth, and covers the rural area between Atherstone to the north west and Hartshill, to the south east. It includes the village of Mancetter which adjoins the market town of Atherstone and shares the same development boundary, and to the south the small settlement of Ridge Lane. Mancetter was a coal mining area and part lies within the current defined coalfield with a quarry operation in the centre of the Neighbourhood Plan area.

1.2 The Neighbourhood Plan relates to the whole parish and has been prepared

by a Steering Group made up of members of the community and Parish Councillors. Work on the Plan started in February 2015 with the formal application for designation of the Neighbourhood Area and Part 4 of the Plan helpfully sets out the stages of community engagement and consultation in the plan preparation process.

The Independent Examiner


3

1.3 The Plan has now reached the examination stage and I have been appointed as the examiner of the Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan by North Warwickshire Borough Council, with the agreement of the Mancetter Parish Council.

1.4 I am a chartered town planner with some 40 years of experience in the public and private sector, latterly as a government Planning Inspector, determining major planning appeals and examining development plans and major infrastructure projects. I am an independent examiner, and do not have an interest in any of the land that may be affected by the draft plan.

The Scope of the Examination

1.5 As the independent examiner I am required to produce this report and recommend either:(a) that the neighbourhood plan is submitted to a referendum without changes; or(b) that modifications are made and that the modified neighbourhood plan is submitted to a referendum; or(c) that the neighbourhood plan does not proceed to a referendum on the basis that it does not meet the necessary legal requirements.

1.6 The scope of the examination is set out in Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (‘the 1990 Act’). The examiner must consider:

Whether the plan meets the Basic Conditions;

Whether the plan complies with provisions under s.38A and s.38B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). These are:- it has been prepared and submitted for examination by a

qualifying body, for an area that has been properly designated by the Local Planning Authority;

- it sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land;

- it specifies the period during which it has effect;

- it does not include provisions and policies for ‘excluded development’;

- it is the only Neighbourhood Plan for the area and does not relate to land outside the designated neighbourhood area;

- whether the referendum boundary should be extended beyond the designated area, should the plan proceed to referendum; and


4

Such matters as prescribed in the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (‘the 2012 Regulations’).

1.7 I have considered only matters that fall within Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act, with one exception. That is the requirement that the Plan is compatible with the Human Rights Convention.

The Basic Conditions

1.8 The ‘Basic Conditions’ are set out in Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act. In order to meet the Basic Conditions, the neighbourhood plan must:

- Have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State;

- Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development;

- Be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area;

- Be compatible with and not breach European Union (EU) obligations; and

- Meet prescribed conditions and comply with prescribed matters.

1.9 Regulation 32 of the 2012 Regulations prescribes a further Basic Condition for a neighbourhood plan. This requires that the neighbourhood plan should not be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2012) or a European Offshore Marine Site (as defined in the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2007), either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

2. Approach to the Examination

Planning Policy Context

2.1 The Development Plan for this part of North Warwickshire Borough Council, not including documents relating to excluded minerals and waste development, is currently the Core Strategy 2014, and the saved policies of the 2006 Local Plan. Together they provide the relevant strategic background for assessing general conformity. In addition, the Borough Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan. It will bring together into one single plan the adopted Core Strategy and draft Site Allocations and Development Management documents, pre-submission versions of which were consulted on in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The August 2016 Draft Local Plan was published in November 2016 for consultation until the end of


5

March 2017 and it is not expected to be adopted until summer/autumn 2017. This is clearly a best-case scenario given the typical duration of local plan examinations.

2.2 The planning policy for England is set out principally in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) offers guidance on how this policy should be implemented. PPG makes clear that whilst a draft neighbourhood plan is not tested against the policies in an emerging Local Plan, the reasoning and evidence informing the Local Plan process is likely to be relevant to the consideration of the basic conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested. It cites, as an example, that up-to-date housing needs evidence is relevant to the question of whether the housing supply policy in a neighbourhood plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 184 of the NPPF also provides; ‘The ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area’. On this basis, I make reference to the emerging Local Plan in this report.

Submitted Documents

2.3 I have considered all policy, guidance and other reference documents I consider relevant to the examination, including those submitted which comprise:

the draft Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan 2016 -2029, [Submission Version October 2016];

the map on page 4 of the plan which identifies the area to which the proposed neighbourhood development plan relates;

the Consultation Statement, [October 2016]; the Basic Conditions Statement, [October 2016]; all the representations that have been made in accordance with the

Regulation 16 consultation; and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Screening Opinion1.

2.4 I have also had regard to the response of the Borough Council dated 4 April 2017 to my letter of 22 March 2017 which has been placed on its website.

Site Visit

2.5 I made an unaccompanied site visit to the Neighbourhood Plan Area on 18 March 2017 to familiarise myself with it, and I visited relevant sites and areas referenced in the plan and evidential documents.

Written Representations or Public Hearing

2.6 This examination has been dealt with written representations. I considered hearing sessions to be unnecessary as the consultation responses clearly

1 The Screening Opinion is set out at paragraph 6.3 of the Basic Conditions Statement October 2016.


6

articulated the objections to the plan, and presented arguments for and against the plan’s suitability to proceed to a referendum. No requests were made for such sessions.

Modifications

2.7 Where necessary, I have recommended modifications to the plan (PMs) in this report in order that it meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements. For ease of reference, I have listed these modifications separately in the Appendix.

3. Procedural Compliance and Human Rights Qualifying Body and Neighbourhood Plan Area

3.1 The Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared and submitted for examination by Mancetter Parish Council which is the qualifying body for an area equivalent to the whole parish that was designated by North Warwickshire Borough Council on 23 April 2015.

3.2 It is the only neighbourhood plan for Mancetter Parish, and does not relate to land outside the designated neighbourhood area.

Plan Period

3.3 The Plan specifies at paragraph 1.7 the period to which it is to take effect, which is from 2016 to 2029. In the interests of clarity, this should also be stated on the front cover. Proposed Modification PM1 would secure this alteration.

Neighbourhood Plan Preparation and Consultation

3.4 Part 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan and the submitted Consultation Statement (October 2016) provide detail of the public engagement that has taken place in the evolution of the Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council decided to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan and to establish a Steering Group to lead that process in 2014, applying for designation early in 2015. An initial consultation was undertaken in July 2015, with a stand at the Roman Day to engage with the public and raise awareness. A newsletter, explaining the neighbourhood planning process, and a questionnaire, were circulated to all households in the parish and 60 were completed and returned. Analysis of these was found to provide a good basis to identify issues to be covered by the plan, to devise options to address them and to draft a Vision and Objectives.

3.5 A second newsletter in February 2016 gave information on the Issues and Options Stage when there was further consultation with the local community, with local businesses, landowners and organisations also invited to have input into the plan. Roadshows were held early in March at Mancetter and Ridge Lane, attended by members of the Steering Group and their planning


7

adviser to hear people’s ideas and answer questions. A detailed questionnaire was circulated and a total of 94 were completed. These indicated a high level of support for the identified issues. A detailed breakdown of responses is provided in the Consultation Statement. In addition, an extensive range of local authorities, organisations and non-statutory local interests, including The Coal Authority, Network Rail, Canals and Rivers Trust, and Tarmac, operator of Mancetter Quarry, were contacted (the full list is at Appendix 5 of the Consultation Statement) and their comments are set out in the table at pages 14-24 of the Consultation Statement.

3.6 The Regulation 14 consultation on the emerging Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan was held from 4 July to 19 August 2016. Again, a newsletter was circulated and three exhibitions and meetings were held in Mancetter and Ridge Lane. Seventy-four completed questionnaires were received and the representations made are summarised at Table 1 of Section 6 of the Consultation Statement and are noted as indicating a high level of support for the objectives and policies of the draft Plan.

3.7 Consultation in accordance with Regulation 16, when the Plan was submitted to North Warwickshire Borough Council, was carried out between 12 January and 23 February 2017 and 9 responses were received. I am satisfied that a transparent, fair and inclusive consultation process has been followed for this Neighbourhood Plan, in accordance with the legal requirements.

Development and Use of Land

3.8 The Plan sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in accordance with s.38A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

Excluded Development

3.9 Section 61K of the 1990 Act sets out the meaning of ‘excluded development’ which includes at ‘(a) development that consists of a county matter ..’. County matters include proposals for mineral extraction and operations. The Neighbourhood Plan includes policy AB1 for Mancetter Quarry, which is a working mineral site. As the policy dealt with matters of excluded development, I have recommended the modification in paragraph 4.37 to delete that policy.

Human Rights

3.10 The Basic Conditions Statement states that the Neighbourhood Plan has had regard to and is compatible with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. Those commenting on the Neighbourhood Plan, including North Warwickshire Borough Council, have not alleged that it breaches Human Rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998). I have considered this issue independently and I see no reason to disagree.


8

4. Compliance with the Basic Conditions

Main Issues

4.1 Having considered whether the Plan complies with various procedural and legal requirements, I now turn to consider whether it complies with the Basic Conditions, particularly the regard it pays to national policy and guidance, the contribution it makes to sustainable development and whether the Plan is in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan. I have done this by considering:

General issues of compliance of the Plan as a whole; and Specific issues of compliance of the Plan’s policies.

General issues of compliance

Regard to national policy and advice

4.2 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities2. The PPG explains further how national policy should be applied.

4.3 The Plan contains policies under ten broad themes, covering settlement boundaries, housing, employment, the built and natural environment, transport, community facilities and open spaces, renewable energy and telecommunications and a specific area based policy. The Basic Conditions Statement provides more detail as to how these are aligned with national policy and the Plan at page 34 sets out links between the objectives, policies, development plan and the NPPF in tabular form.

4.4 In essence, the Plan sets out a positive framework for enabling small scale housing schemes within settlement boundaries, supporting sustainable economic growth while requiring good design and protecting the rural character of the area and the local natural environment. In all these respects, I find the Plan is consistent with national policy and guidance.

4.5 Subject to the detailed comments I make below about individual policies, I am satisfied that in terms of general compliance the Plan has had regard to national policy and advice.

Achievement of sustainable development

4.6 The NPPF is clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (paragraph 6) and there should

2 NPPF Introduction paragraph 1. Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1

6NB Registered in England and Wales. Company Reg. No. 10100118. VAT Reg. No. 237 7641 849

be a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14). Importantly, this means that neighbourhood plans should support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans and plan positively to support local development (paragraph 16). They should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan nor should they undermine its strategic policies (paragraph 184).

4.7 The Vision set out in the Plan is that by 2029, ‘the Parish of Mancetter will continue to be a good place to live, with a strong sense of community, good quality housing and access to employment. The Parish will strive to improve local services, whilst protecting and enhancing the character, quality and heritage value of the landscape’. This is consistent with the achievement of sustainable development.

4.8 Sustainable development is described in the NPPF as having three dimensions: economic, social and environmental3 and these are addressed in the Basic Conditions Statement. I am satisfied that the Plan provides for the economic dimension through the promotion of the local economy and support for local businesses and community facilities. By planning positively for new housing and ensuring new development meets local needs and respects local character, the Plan supports a strong and healthy community in the Parish; the social dimension to sustainable development. In proposing policies to protect and enhance heritage and local character, the natural environment and landscape, and open spaces, the Plan addresses the environmental dimension to sustainable development.

4.9 I am satisfied that, subject to the detailed points and associated modifications recommended in the specific issues section below, the Plan would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

General conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan

4.10 The legal requirement is that neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area. In this case, this is the 2014 Core Strategy and the saved policies of the 2006 Local Plan. Strategic policies include, but are not limited to, those delivering homes and jobs, providing for retail, leisure and commercial development, providing infrastructure, addressing climate change, and conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment.

4.11 The Neighbourhood Plan includes policies on housing and the built environment, local employment, community facilities and open spaces, transport, the natural environment and landscape, and renewable energy and telecommunications. In defining a settlement boundary to Ridge Lane, policy SB1 does not strictly comply with the settlement hierarchy in Core Strategy policy NW2 and I address this apparent conflict in more detail below. But overall, in terms of general compliance, I find that the objectives of the Plan generally align with the strategic policies of the extant Core

3 NPPF paragraph 7.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


Strategy on sustainable development, the historic environment, sustainable transport and promoting healthy communities. As such, and subject to the detailed points and associated modifications set out in the Specific Issues section below, I am satisfied that the Plan would be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the extant development plan for the area.

Compatibility with EU Obligations

4.12 The Basic Conditions Statement notes that in accordance with recommended good practice, the Neighbourhood Plan was screened for SEA by North Warwickshire Borough Council. This is also a legal requirement under Regulation 15 of the 2012 Regulations. The Environment Agency, Natural England and Historic England were consulted and on the basis of the screening, it was found unnecessary to undertake SEA. I have independently considered this issue and I concur with that assessment.

4.13 No consultees have raised issues in relation to any other European Directives. Natural England in its consultation response made no specific comments in respect of any need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment. I note that the Plan area is not close to any European designated nature site. I am satisfied from the evidence submitted that the Plan is compatible with EU obligations.

Specific issues of compliance of the Plan’s policies

Sustainable Development Principles - Policy DP1

4.14 Policy DP1 is an overarching policy setting out development principles intended to provide a positive framework for decision making in the area. When made, the Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the development plan and PPG advises that policy should be drafted with sufficient clarity that a decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications4.

4.15 However, as drafted, policy DP1, which would be applied to all forms of development requiring planning permission, lacks the necessary clarity, is overly wordy, confusing and repetitious. As the Plan should be read as a whole, there is no need to cross refer to other policies in the Plan. Part A of policy DP1 is unclear as to what is meant by ‘where it can be shown that the development would support the community’. These words introduce an unnecessary ambiguity, appearing to read as another test for developers but there is no further reference to it in the justification or any guidance as to what form such support might be expected to take. Similarly, no definition is given of what might constitute an infill housing scheme or what size, type and tenure of housing would have to be proposed by a developer to satisfy the requirement to meet local housing demand.

4 PPG ID:41-041-20140306.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


4.16 Standards of construction, energy efficiency and water management are

matters covered by other legalisation and regulations and it is unnecessary to include them as a development principle in the Plan. Part B requires that development should have regard to the ‘principles set out in the Neighbourhood Plan’, yet the only principles specifically mentioned in the Plan are those in policy DP1. There is some overlap and duplication of the criteria in Parts A and B. The justification to the policy refers to sustainable development and better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, which reflects paragraph 35 of the NPPF, yet this is not identified as a development principle in the policy.

4.17 I note that Part C of the policy arose from early consultation with the Coal Authority. However, without any detailed information in the Plan on the extent of past mining activity, a decision maker would be unable to apply Part C with any confidence or consistency. As such the policy lacks precision and unnecessarily duplicates the requirement in the NPPF for local planning authorities in preparing their local plans to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas5. The Coal Authority would be consulted on planning applications in the defined areas.

4.18 Accordingly, I propose to delete Part C and redraft Parts A and B of policy DP1 Sustainable Development Principles as set out in the Appendix as PM2. I am satisfied that the redrafted policy DP1 will meet the objective to provide a positive framework for decision making, will promote sustainable development and accord with the core planning principles in the NPPF. It will also meet Natural England’s concern that priority habitats should be protected.

Settlement Boundary Policies – Policies SB1 and SB2

4.19 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles underpinning both plan making and decision taking including the active management of patterns of growth, focusing significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

4.20 North Warwickshire has over 50 settlements of varying size and the adopted spatial strategy is for most growth to be directed towards the main towns (Core Strategy policy NW2). Development boundaries are shown around the larger towns and villages, whilst those settlements without development boundaries are included in Category 5 where development is strictly limited to small scale affordable housing or uses requiring a rural location. The spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy is carried forward with only minor changes in the emerging Local Plan.

4.21 The Neighbourhood Plan Proposals Map Insets show settlement boundaries for Mancetter and Ridge Lane, within which the provisions of policy SB1

5 NPPF paragraph 143 4th bullet point.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


would apply and beyond which residential development would be subject to policy SB2.

(i) Mancetter village

4.22 Core Strategy policy NW2 identifies the conjoined settlements of Atherstone with Mancetter in Category 1 as a Market Town outside the Green Belt where development will be permitted within the development boundary. Having regard to the landscape importance of the Anker valley, the extent of scheduled archaeological sites, the impact of the A5, the railway, canal corridor and attractive rising open countryside to the south west, the Neighbourhood Plan does not propose any change to the development boundary around Mancetter. In that respect, therefore, the Plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan. However, Mancetter forms part of the larger Market Town to which the Core Strategy and draft New Local Plan settlement hierarchy applies and, as drafted, the Plan's policy SB1, in seeking to restrict development in Mancetter village to small scale development 'of up to 10 dwellings', does not reflect the strategic policy approach to development, despite the inclusion of the word 'usually'. I recommend specific modifications to clarify this in paragraph 4.36 below.

4.23 The Plan includes a community proposal (SB CP1) for possible future large scale housing to the south of Mancetter village on open farmland between Nuneaton Road and the railway, outside the development boundary. As a local aspiration, SB CP1 sits outside the policies and proposals of the Plan and does not fall to be considered against the Basic Conditions. However, representations have been made6 that modifications should be made to the Plan in order to ‘future proof it’, more specifically by including the community proposal as an allocation, or at the very least, a reserve housing site within an extended development boundary.

4.24 It is Government policy to boost significantly the supply of housing. The PPG advises that all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas7. The SB CP1 site was assessed in the 2016 SHLAA8 and in the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanies the Draft Local Plan and identified as a ‘Reasonable Alternative’ site, which the Borough Council has explained as meaning that it is technically in a sustainable location but not carried forward as a formal allocation in the Local Plan, or safeguarded for future or alternative development9.

4.25 The PPG advises that a neighbourhood plan can allocate additional sites to those in the local plan10 and identify reserve sites to ensure that emerging evidence of housing need is met11. However, the ambition of a neighbourhood must still align with the strategic needs and priorities of the

6 Gladman Developments Ltd. 7 PPG ID: 41-044-20160519.8 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.9 Borough Council’s letter of 4 April 2017.10 PPG ID: 50-001-20160519.11 PPG ID: 41-009-20160211.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


wider local area and not undermine strategic policies in the Local Plan (NPPF paragraph 184).

4.26 The Core Strategy was adopted in 2014. Its spatial strategy is to focus

further development to the north west of Atherstone (policy NW18) and the emerging Local Plan proposes substantial housing allocations off Holly Lane, the other side of the town to Mancetter, to meet the objectively assessed housing need of the area. To modify the Plan to extend the development boundary to the south east of Mancetter to include this greenfield site, capable of accommodating some 170 dwellings, would be contrary to the planned direction of future growth, would not generally conform with the strategic policies in the extant development plan (nor align with the emerging Local Plan) and would therefore not satisfy the Basic Conditions.

4.27 Moreover the SB CP1 site is immediately to the south of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments at Mancetter (Manduessedum Roman Camp and Fort). Evidence provided by the Borough Council from the Historic Environment Assessment prepared for the draft Site Allocations Plan indicated the impact of development on archaeology as being ‘very high’ and noted that the site was located on a medieval settlement and there had been Roman finds made there. Having regard to the sensitivity of the site and in the absence of evidence that it should be allocated or safeguarded to meet Atherstone/Mancetter’s housing need that cannot be met elsewhere, I am not persuaded that SBCP1 should be identified as a reserve site for housing nor that there should be any modifications to the Mancetter development boundary.

4.28 I note that whilst the community proposal received a high level of support in the Regulation 14 consultation, it appears this was in the context of concern at the time about a proposed broiler chicken rearing unit. I appreciate the Parish Council’s wish to be proactive in anticipating a possible need for future large scale housing, albeit the wording of the Plan towards the community proposal, as in paragraph 2.14 and the use of the phrase ‘reluctantly accept’ in SB CP1 do not serve to particularly reinforce this.

4.29 I agree with the Borough Council that in the interests of clarity, all community proposals, including SB CP1 and their supporting text, including paragraphs 2.12 to 2.14, should be moved from the main body of the Plan to a separate section and marked as Community Aspirations to clearly distinguish them from those Plan policies and proposals that, when made, will form part of the development plan and subject to the full force of Section 38(6) (PM3).

(ii) Ridge Lane

4.30 The settlement hierarchy in the Core Strategy at policy NW2, and in the emerging Local Plan at policy LP2, place Ridge Lane as a Category 5 settlement without a development boundary where development will be strictly limited. The Plan’s Ridge Lane Inset shows a new settlement


14

boundary for Ridge Lane where, in accordance with policy SB1, small scale new housing of up to 10 houses would be permitted. There is community support for the proposed settlement boundary which has been tightly drawn around the existing development.

4.31 The Plan indicates at paragraph 2.10 that the Borough Council supports

policy SB1. However, the Council’s more recent Regulation 16 response advises that the development boundary is a matter that should be addressed through representations on the emerging Local Plan. I understand that the Parish Council has made submissions to the Borough Council on the draft Local Plan consultation asking both for a change to the settlement hierarchy (to include Ridge Lane as a Category 4 settlement) and to include the new development boundary for Ridge Lane, as shown in the Neighbourhood Plan12. Those submissions will not be considered by Borough Council members until June or July this year. Nevertheless, I note the officer comment that in view of the ongoing housing needs and pressures in the Borough, and in view of the Parish Council’s support for upgrading the development status of Ridge Lane, ‘it is probable that support for the proposal would be forthcoming’. Be that as it may, in that the Plan includes policy SB1, it is a matter that falls to be assessed as part of this examination having regard to the Basic Conditions.

4.32 The Core Strategy recognises, at paragraph 2.19, that within the Borough there are other settlements, without a development boundary, that do not have the same range of services and facilities but which contribute significantly to community life within the Borough and where, without the support of planning policies to recognise their importance to the Borough, services and facilities were being lost. ‘Local requirements have changed as the residents of the countryside have changed, but there are many people who live in the smaller settlements and the countryside, who have difficulty accessing services/facilities and affordable housing. Local planning policies should allow for these needs to be catered for in a sensitive and innovative way.’ Ridge Lane is named as one such settlement.

4.33 Recent Government advice in the PPG is that all settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas, and blanket policies restricting housing development in some settlements and preventing others from expanding should be avoided unless their use can be supported by robust evidence13. The Mancetter Parish Council Landscape Character and Built Environment Assessment Report July 2016 describes Ridge Lane as a compact village of lower cost housing, surrounded by open countryside. There is a village shop, public house, chapel, brewery and a country bus service. The PPG recognises that housing plays a role in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller settlements and that rural housing is essential to ensure the viability of local services like these.

12 Borough Council’s letter of 4 April 2017.13 PPG ID: 41-044-20160519.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


4.34 In assessing the extent of any conflict between the proposed Ridge Lane settlement boundary and strategic policies, I have had regard to the advice in the PPG14 on assessing general conformity. Ridge Lane is at the bottom of the settlement hierarchy. Policy SB1 would still support and uphold the general principles of the Core Strategy spatial strategy. As it would only provide for small scale housing development within the settlement boundary, the degree of conflict with the strategic policy would be minimal. The Core Strategy appears to acknowledge that Ridge Lane is a settlement where local needs have changed as the residents have changed, in part to do with the closure of the North Warwickshire Coalfield. Evidence gathering and consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan has provided an additional level of detail that I am satisfied justifies a local approach distinct from that set out in the strategic policy, but which would not undermine that policy. For these reasons, I conclude that in respect of policy SB1 and the Ridge Lane Inset, the Plan is generally compliant with the spatial strategy policies of the adopted development plan.

4.35 I am satisfied from my site visit that the settlement boundary has been appropriately drawn around the existing built up area and is robust and defensible. The small parcel of undeveloped land on the north side of Ridge Lane at the south-eastern edge of the village, contained within strong hedge boundaries, relates more to the village development than the open countryside to the north and east and offers the opportunity for a small market housing scheme adding to local housing choice and promoting sustainable development.

Policy SB1

4.36 As drafted, policy SB1 rather confusingly seeks to generally provide for small scale housing development, usually of up to 10 dwellings, within the settlement boundaries of Mancetter village and Ridge Lane but then sets out detailed criteria for development of up to 15 dwellings on a specific site in Ridge Lane. For the reasons set out in paragraph 4.22 relating to conformity with strategic policy and in the interests of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, I am recommending modifications to clearly distinguish between the different policy approach to Mancetter and to Ridge Lane, to clarify the 2 distinct parts of the policy that relate to Ridge Lane, and some rewording to simplify the policy criteria (PM4).

Policy SB2

4.37 Policy SB2 provides for residential development outside the settlement boundaries which, in accord with the Core Strategy policy, is limited to that necessary for agriculture, forestry or other uses shown to require a rural location or to provide affordable housing for which there is a proven local need. I am satisfied that the policy meets the Basic Conditions and would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Whilst the policy as drafted requires the 4 criteria to be met, parts (a) and (b) are in the

14 PPG ID: 41-074-20140306.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


alternative and I am recommending a modification to the policy to make clear how it would be applied (PM5).

Area Based Policies – Policy AB1

4.38 Policy AB1 deals with Mancetter Quarry which is an operational hard rock quarry worked by Tarmac. It is acknowledged in the Plan that policies concerned with the winning and working of minerals are the domain of the Minerals Local Plan, currently being progressed by Warwickshire County Council. The justification goes on to say that policy AB1 has been acknowledged by the County Council and the site owners/operators have raised no objections. However, in response to the Regulation 16 consultation, an objection to policy AB1 was made on behalf of Tarmac; first that the policy as drafted was insufficiently flexible in the event that permission was sought for further working, and secondly that the NPPF, Minerals Local Plan and Core Strategy already provide sufficient levels of environmental and amenity protection and policy AB1 was unnecessary.

4.39 As drafted the policy refers to ‘proposals for development on land affected by former and current Mancetter quarry operations’, so would apply to any proposals including those relating to extraction operations, for example phasing or working methods. As such, I am of the view that as drafted the policy does relate to the winning and working of minerals, which is ‘excluded development’ and therefore policy AB1 should be deleted (PM6).

4.40 I note the high level of local support for policy AB1. However, the policy criteria are generally already covered elsewhere in the Neighbourhood Plan, for example policies NE&L1, NE&L2, and BE4. When made, the Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the development plan and its policies will be applicable to the determination of any development proposals at the quarry alongside relevant policies of the Minerals Local Plan, the Core Strategy and the emerging Local Plan. As such, I am satisfied that the wider restoration objectives of habitat enhancement and creation which are important to those living in the local area would remain a priority.

General Housing Policies – Policies H1 and H2

4.41 Policy H1 is generally permissive of small infill housing schemes on previously developed land inside the settlement boundaries of Mancetter and Ridge Lane subject to criteria being met. As such it complies with national and local policy and supports sustainable development. To assist the reader, the justification to the policy at paragraph 7.21 should be modified to refer the reader to the Glossary at the back of the Plan and the definition of previously developed land which accords with the definition in the Glossary to the NPPF and confirms that it excludes land in built up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments. (PM7) The justification refers to the monitoring of the policy so that it does not lead to excessive cumulative development ‘outside preferred locations’. The policy is clear that it applies to land inside the settlement boundaries and in


17

the absence of any detail as to where these preferred locations are, these words should be deleted from paragraph 7.21. (PM8)

4.42 I am satisfied that the policy criteria are suitable and necessary, subject to the inclusion of the word ‘unacceptable’ before ‘adverse impact’ in (a) and (d), as any form of development might have some adverse impact but the judgement is whether that impact is so unacceptable such that the development should be refused. As the list of matters in (a) are all to be considered, ‘or’ should replace ‘and’ in front of ‘additional traffic’. (PM9).

4.43 Policy H2 sets out requirements for the design of residential conversions and extensions. It is comprehensive, clear and promotes sustainable development and I support it.

Built Environment Policies – Policies BE1, BE2, BE3, BE4

4.44 The NPPF in section 7 of the NPPF sets out the importance the Government attaches to good design as a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 58 requires local and neighbourhood plans to develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. The Plan includes a raft of policies which deal with the protection of various elements of the built environment.

Policy BE1

4.45 Policy BE1 sets out criteria to be applied to development in the Mancetter Conservation Area. Having regard to policy in the NPPF on conserving and enhancing the historic environment, I am satisfied that the criteria are appropriate and proportionate to achieve a high standard of design so that new development makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area’s local character and distinctiveness. Criterion (g) is needed because of the extent of the Scheduled Monuments of Roman origin around Mancetter and their proximity and part overlap with the Conservation Area. The last part of the policy appears to require that all applications should be accompanied by a Design and Access Statement (DAS) and/or a Heritage Statement. As the circumstance where a DAS is required are set out at Article 8 of the Development Management Procedure Order, the words ‘where one is required’ should be added (PM10).

Policy BE2

4.46 It is one of the core planning principles set out in the NPPF that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas. Policies to promote quality development should be based on an understanding and evaluation of the area’s defining characteristics (paragraph 58 of the NPPF). Policy BE2 seeks to protect and enhance local character and, in identifying areas of local character and key views, relies on the work undertaken to produce the Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan Landscape Character and Built Environment Assessment Report July 2016.


18

4.47 The Study takes a systematic approach, using both desk based and field

work, identifying 10 character areas and sub-areas in the Parish. The key characteristics are listed in the Plan’s supporting text. It is those bullet points, in my view, which would be most useful to a potential developer and decision maker in assessing the impact of any development on local character, rather than the list of character areas, and accordingly I propose to modify part A to delete the areas listed (PM11).

4.48 Part B of policy BE2 requires that key views ‘described in Appendix 1 and shown on the Proposals maps should be respected and not compromised by the location or scale of new development’. Assessment of and descriptions of the views are found in the Landscape Character and Built Environment Assessment Study. Five key views, or which more correctly should be described as sets of key views, are listed in Appendix 1. However, confusingly 10 key view symbols are shown on the Proposals Map and Insets. Because of this I am not satisfied that in respect of the protection of the key views the Plan is drafted with sufficient clarity to enable a decision maker to apply the policy consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications. To remedy this, I recommend that the Plan should be modified by labelling from A to J the 10 key view symbols on the Proposals Map and Insets, by providing a short description of each view in Appendix 1, and by attributing each viewpoint to the appropriate set of key views in Appendix 1 (PM12).

4.49 The argument was put by a representor that it is more likely for major developments to have the potential to affect these views. That is likely to be the case, but I am satisfied that by referring to the key views not being compromised by the location or scale of new development, policy BE2 is sufficiently flexible and not unduly onerous on developers and I do not propose any modification to Part B.

4.50 I support Part C of the policy which seeks to protect the existing open spaces and countryside between Mancetter, Atherstone and Witherley. It accords with the aims of the Core Strategy and of the adjoining local planning authority to protect the openness of the countryside.

Policy BE3

4.51 Historic England have expressed support for the Neighbourhood Plan and commended the recognition in the Plan of the importance of the local historic environment including the emphasis on the conservation of local distinctiveness and the protection of locally significant buildings. Policy BE3 seeks to protect and enhance local built heritage assets but in so doing applies the same restrictive policy approach to designated heritage assets as to non-designated assets. This is contrary to the clear policy tests set out in section 12 of the NPPF that require first an assessment of the significance of the heritage asset and then consideration of the impact of development to determine the degree of harm or loss. The more important or significant the


19

asset, the greater the weight should be given to its conservation. NPPF paragraph 132 confirms that substantial harm or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, which includes grade I and II listed buildings, should be wholly exceptional.

4.52 The PPG states that only a minority of buildings have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process. Local lists incorporated into Local Plans can be a positive way for a local planning authority to identify non-designated heritage assets against consistent criteria across the district15. Policy LP15 of the draft Local Plan refers to the North Warwickshire’s Historic Environment Record which lists buildings, monuments, and archaeological sites, positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.

4.53 If policy LP15 is to be applied consistently, the identification of non-heritage assets should follow a due process to assess their significance. There is no evidence that such a process was followed in the identification of the local (non-designated) buildings and structures in Appendix 1. If the Parish Council wishes them to be assessed for inclusion in the Historic Environment Record, which would give them greater significance when planning applications are being considered, then this should be addressed through the local list process.

4.54 There are well established policies at national and district level which provide protection for designated heritage assets, such as listed buildings. It is clear from the justification that policy BE3 was written to provide protection, to the same high level, for those buildings identified in the Character Study as local built heritage assets. This does not have sufficient regard to national policy and advice and would not be in general conformity with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that policy BE3, its accompanying justification and associated part of Appendix 1, should be deleted (PM13).

Policy BE4

4.55 There are two scheduled monuments in Mancetter. They occupy extensive areas of land to the east and south east of the village and it may well be that there are further sites of archaeological interest associated with the Roman camp and Roman villa and settlement that are still to be found and investigated. That there may be assets as yet unknown is recognised in the NPPF at paragraph 139 which notes that non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.

4.56 Policy BE4 seeks to ensure that any potential impact of development on archaeological deposits is taken into account and mitigated and that evidence is not lost. As drafted the policy would apply to the whole of the

15 PPG ID: 18a-039-20140306.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


Parish, although it is clear from the supporting text the concern is with development in the vicinity of the scheduled monuments in Mancetter. To clarify this, I am modifying policy BE4 by adding the words ‘In the vicinity of the Scheduled Monuments shown on the Mancetter Inset …. ‘ (PM14)

Community Proposal BEP CPI

4.57 I have already recommended at paragraph 4.29 above that the community proposals in the Plan should be moved to a separate section on Community Aspirations to make clear that they sit outside the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan which when made will form part of the development plan. Community Proposal BEP CP1 seeks to encourage Historic England and the respective Councils to update the Mancetter Conservation Area Assessment. The Parish Council may also wish to include as a community aspiration the assessment by the Historic Environment Record of local buildings and structures for inclusion in a local list (paragraph 4.53 above).

Natural Environment and Landscape Policies - Policies NE&L1 and NE&L2

4.58 The NPPF16 requires that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. Core Strategy policy NW13, carried forward in the draft Local Plan as policy LP14, states that the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural environment will be protected and enhanced. The Character Study highlighted the value of the countryside around Mancetter and Ridge Lane in terms of its landscape, heritage and biodiversity and the consultation statement notes the local people’s appreciation of their local landscape.

4.59 As drafted policy NE&L1 provides a robust framework for considering proposals for development in the rural areas and identifies those elements of the landscape heritage that need to be protected. The policy also refers to the longer views of the Anker Valley from Mancetter village and across higher open countryside around Ridge Lane and Purley Park. I have already recommended above (PM12) that the Plan is modified by the inclusion of descriptions of each of the key views in Appendix 1 and their numbering on the Proposals and Inset Maps.

4.60 It is not clear what is meant in the final part of the policy by ‘an appropriate

landscape analysis’. Not all proposals would need to consider in detail all the matters in this policy, and I conclude that the policy should be modified to read ‘where appropriate, proposals should include consideration of the above factors in a landscape analysis either as a freestanding report or as part of a design and access statement’ (PM15). Subject to that modification, I conclude that the policy would have regard to national policy, would promote sustainable development and would be in general conformity with the development plan.

16 NPPF paragraph 109.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


4.61 Policy NE&L2 deals with nature conservation and is supported by Natural England and the local Wildlife Trust. The NPPF is clear that pursuing sustainable development includes moving away from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature and that a core principle for planning is that it should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution17. There are no European or national designated nature conservation sites in Mancetter Parish, although Appendix 2 notes there are 3 Local Wildlife Sites and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) adjoins its western boundary. The SSSI is named as Bentley Park Wood but referred to as Monks Park Wood by the Borough Council.

4.62 The first part of the policy requires development proposals to demonstrate how design has had regard to potential impacts on habitats, species and connectivity. It accords with national policy in the NPPF, the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Green Infrastructure Strategy and Core Strategy policies NW15 and NW16 on biodiversity. British Standards can change and be updated so after ‘BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development’ I am recommending the addition of the words ‘or any subsequent revision or replacement’. Additionally, add the following as a footnote to the end of the first clause of Policy NE&L2: ‘The UK commitment to halt overall loss of biodiversity by 2020 in line with the European Biodiversity Strategy and UN Aichi targets, is passed down to local authorities to implement, mainly through planning policy. To assist organizations affected by these commitments, British Standards Institute has published BS 42020: 2013 Biodiversity in planning and development, a Code of practice which offers a coherent methodology for biodiversity management.’ (PM16)

4.63 North Warwickshire is a partner in the Coventry/Solihull/Warwickshire

Biodiversity Offsetting scheme which is carried forward through policy LP16 of the draft Local Plan. The fourth part of policy NE&L2 requires that methodology to be used in assessing any net changes to biodiversity likely to arise because of development and sets out the need for compensatory measures to avoid any net loss of biodiversity. I am satisfied that, subject to the inclusion of the full name of the biodiversity offsetting scheme, this part of the Plan’s policy accords with national policy, contributes to the achievement of sustainable development and is in general conformity with the development plan.

4.64 The final part of the policy encourages the use of sustainable drainage solutions in new development. These can complement nature conservation objectives and are supported by the Environment Agency.

4.65 Turning then to the remaining parts of the policy, the second part refers to locally important sites and features which are listed in Appendix 2, but there is no evidence on how the potential Local Wildlife Sites were identified or their current status. Sites and features, along with high value habitats, are

17 PPG ID: 0-007-20140306.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


required to be protected from harm, yet there is no guidance or explanation in the Plan as to what ‘harm’, in the context of a planning policy concerned with the use and development of land, might be. The reference to ‘relevant criteria’ is also unclear. Similarly, the third part of the policy refers to ‘locally notable species’ being protected but there is an absence of evidence of what these might be or why they are defined as such. I find that these parts of policy NE&L2 are not drafted with sufficient clarity such that a decision maker could apply the policy consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications. The PPG advises that policies should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence. I am not satisfied that the second and third parts of policy NE&L2 accord with national guidance and thus do not meet the Basic Conditions and I am recommending their deletion.

4.66 Policy NE&L2 should be modified as set out in the appendix at PM16. Subject to the modifications being made, I conclude that the Neighbourhood Plan policy for nature conservation has regard to national policy, would promote sustainable development and is in general conformity with the development plan for North Warwickshire.

Community Proposal NE&L CP1

4.67 I have already recommended at paragraph 4.29 above that the community proposals in the Plan should be moved to a separate section on Community Aspirations to make clear that they sit outside the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan which when made will form part of the development plan. The Parish Council may also wish to include as a community aspiration formal assessment of the potential Local Wildlife Sites in Appendix 2.

Transport and Access – Policies T&A1, T&A2, T&A3

4.68 It is Government policy to promote sustainable transport and paragraph 29 of the NPPF notes the important role of transport policies in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Mancetter is crossed by the A5, the West Coast Mainline and the Coventry Canal and each has a policy in the Plan.

4.69 Policy T&A1 identifies particular traffic issues in the area: the level and routing of A5 traffic; the level of commuter traffic; and the need for safe walking and cycling routes for residents. Development should not result in any worsening of current highway safety and traffic related problems and where appropriate, proposals must be supported by a Transport Statement or Assessment. It sets out a partnership approach of working with the local authorities and Highways England so that these issues are considered as part of large scale development. Policy T&A1 is endorsed by Highways England and I support its approach which has regard to national policy and would contribute to sustainable development.


23

4.70 The West Coast Mainline runs close to the Nuneaton Road and policy T&A2 was prompted by Network Rail’s comments at consultation. It sets out the requirements for any development within the vicinity of the line to take account of the continued safe operation of rail services and safety for nearby residents and businesses. I am satisfied that in the local circumstances the level of detail is justified and policy T&A2 meets the Basic Conditions.

4.71 The Coventry Canal is an important landscape, heritage, and nature conservation asset in Mancetter. Policy T&A3 supports development that would enhance the canal and sets out criteria in order to protect its environmental quality. These seek to protect and enhance the historic character and interest of the canal, protect its existing nature conservation interest, maintain and if possible enhance existing rights of way and access to the canal towpath, and ensure no adverse impact on adjoining residential properties. I note the support of the Canals and Rivers Trust for policy T&A3 and I conclude that it accords with the Basic Conditions.

Community Proposal TA CP1

4.72 Through this proposal the Parish Council is looking to investigate opportunities to extend and improve pedestrian and cycling accessibility to and from Atherstone and into the surrounding countryside. There are no specific proposals for the use and development of land and should be moved to the new Community Aspirations section.

Community Facilities and Open Spaces - Policies CFOS1, CFOS2, CFOS3

4.73 The NPPF recognises the important role the planning system can play in promoting healthy communities. To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs’18. Policy CFOS1 protects identified community facilities in the parish and resists their loss unless equivalent or enhanced provision is made or a need for the facility can no longer be demonstrated. The six facilities listed include community halls, churches and public houses in Mancetter and Ridge Lane. Overall the policy meets the Basic Conditions but I recommend a modification to make it clear there is no need to show the facilities on the Proposals Map (PM17).

4.74 In accord with paragraph 74 of the NPPF, policy CFOS2 protects existing open spaces and recreation facilities from development. It identifies 5 open spaces including the ‘informal open space within the A5 traffic island in Mancetter village’. As public highway land, Highways England has objected to its inclusion as has the Borough Council and the justification to the policy notes that there may be future enhancement schemes that would have an impact on the land. I am not satisfied that the identification of this area

18 NPPF paragraph 70 2nd bullet point.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


aligns with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area and I recommend that it should be deleted from policy CFOS2.

4.75 As drafted the policy would apply to those areas proposed as Local Green Spaces under policy CFOS3, even though the sites in policy CFOS2 would be offered a lower degree of protection as open spaces than the green spaces in policy CFOS3. There is an overlap between the sites named in the two policies that is confusing and results in the policy lacking clarity. I propose to address this by modifying policy CFOS2 to remove any reference to sites and to policy CFOS3 (PM18).

4.76 Policy CFOS3 names three sites as Local Green Spaces, all in close proximity to Ridge Lane or Mancetter. It is clear from the Character Study and the consultation responses that they are demonstrably special to the local communities. The Harpers Lane informal open space (A) is local in character and has particular local significance as a pleasant open grass and planted area near the centre of the village and affording views of both Mancetter and Witherley churches. The Roman scheduled monuments (B) are already protected because of their archaeological value, but the designated areas also have particular local significance because of their beauty, village setting and recreational value for local people walking beside the river as well as their historic significance. They are local in character and I consider that an additional local benefit would be gained by their designation as a Local Green Space. The recreation ground and allotments at Ridge Lane (C) are local in character, not extensive in area and have particular local significance for the local community in terms of their openness and recreational value. Having regard to the advice in the PPG19, I am satisfied that they meet the criteria in paragraph 77 of the NPPF. Local policy for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with policy for Green Belts20 and I have modified policy CFOS3 to make this clear (PM19).

4.77 I also recommend modifications to the Mancetter and Ridge Lane Insets to define precisely by use of a colour, crosshatching or boundary line, the extent of the Local Green Spaces covered by policy CFOS3 and to correctly label the two Ridge Lane LGS as (C) (PM20). Subject to these modifications I conclude that the Plan’s policies on the protection of open and green spaces have regard to national policy and are in general conformity with the development plan.

Local Employment – Policies LE1, LE2

4.78 The Manor Road Industrial Estate provides local employment opportunities and policy LE1 is permissive of development proposals subject to there being no adverse impacts in terms of unacceptable increases in traffic and on adjoining residents. Subject to the modifications to its wording set out in the Appendix (PM21), I am satisfied that the policy meets the Basic Conditions.

19 PPG ID: 37-011-20140306.20 NPPF paragraph 78.Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd, Regency Offices, 3 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1


4.79 Policy LE2 is supportive of appropriate proposals for business development in other parts of the parish, including the development of new small business units and farm diversification schemes. It has regard to national policy in the NPPF to support a prosperous rural economy, would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and would be in general conformity with the development plan for North Warwickshire.

Renewable Energy and Telecommunications - Policies RE1 and RE2

4.80 It remains Government policy to increase the use and supply of renewable and local carbon energy. Policy RE1 in setting out criteria for the consideration of such proposals, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts, accords with paragraph 97 of the NPPF and with Core Strategy policy NW11 and I am satisfied meets the Basic Conditions.

4.81 Advanced high quality communications infrastructure is essential for sustainable economic growth. It also plays a vital role in enhancing the provision of local community facilities and services. Policy RE2 provides a positive context for telecommunications development in appropriate locations, having regard to landscape and cumulative impacts. It has regard to national policy in the NPPF, would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and is in general conformity with the development plan for North Warwickshire.

Table 1

4.82 Table 1 is a policy summary intended as an easy reference linking the Plan’s policies with the objectives, adopted Core Strategy policies and the NPPF. But in that the selection of policies must necessarily be subjective, and will become dated as new national and development plan policy is adopted, it lacks clarity and I recommend it should be deleted. (PM22)

Implementation

4.83 The Plan has a short section on implementation, identifying partnership and joint working with various organisations, funding and implementation mechanisms, priority projects, and annual monitoring and review process. In showing commitment to the ongoing planning of the parish, I support the inclusion of this section in the Plan.

5. Conclusions

Summary

5.1 The Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan has been duly prepared in compliance with the procedural requirements. My examination has investigated whether the plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements for


26

neighbourhood plans. I have had regard for all the responses made following consultation on the neighbourhood plan and the evidence documents submitted with it.

5.2 I have made recommendations to modify a number of policies and text to ensure the plan meets the Basic Conditions and other legal requirements. I recommend that the plan, once modified, proceeds to referendum.

The Referendum and its Area

5.3 I have considered whether or not the referendum area should be extended beyond the designated area to which the plan relates. The Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan as modified has no policy or proposals which I consider significant enough to have an impact beyond the designated neighbourhood plan boundary, requiring the referendum to extend to areas beyond the plan boundary. I recommend that the boundary for the purposes of any future referendum on the plan should be the boundary of the designated neighbourhood plan area.

5.4 It is clear from the quality of the Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan the significant amount of hard work which the Parish Council and its Steering Group has put in over the last two years to prepare a Plan that reflects local opinion and which will influence the development of the area in a positive way. The submitted Plan has many good features, setting out its vision, objectives and policies clearly, proactively progressing a development boundary for Ridge Lane, whilst seeking to protect the environmental and historic assets of this rural parish. I commend the Parish Council and Steering Group for their efforts which, subject to some recommended modifications, should influence development management decisions over the next twelve years.

Mary O’Rourke

Examiner


27

Appendix: Modifications

Proposed modification number (PM)

Page no./ other reference

Modification

PM1 Page 7 Put the Plan period 2016 to 2029 on the front cover.

PM2 Page 12 Modify policy DP1 to read:All proposals for development should:

Be appropriately located; Be of an appropriate scale and

demonstrate a high standard of design;

Have regard to their setting and the character of the local area;

Take account of the key landscape views identified in policy BE2;

Not adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents;

Where appropriate, provide for the use of sustainable transport modes, including walking and cycling; and

Respect the local built, social, cultural, historic and natural heritage assets.

PM3 Page 15 Delete the four community proposals, SB CP1, BEP CP1, NEL CP1, and TA CP1, from the body of the Plan and move them and their supporting text including paragraphs 2.12 to 2.14, to a new Community Aspirations section.

PM4 Page 17 Modify policy SB1 to read:A. Within the defined settlement

boundaries of (i) Mancetter village, development will be permitted and (ii) Ridge Lane, small scale housing development of up to 10 dwellings will be permitted.

B. Proposals for development at Ridge Lane will be required to meet the following criteria:

(a) be wholly contained within the settlement boundary shown on the


28

Ridge Lane Inset to the Proposals Map;

(b) provide for a mix of size and type of dwelling units, including bungalows, to accommodate young families and older people;

(C) reflect the character of the surrounding development in Ridge Lane and its rural location;

(d) provide for a new vehicular access from Ridge Lane;

(e) retain the existing frontage hedge, so far as that is possible whilst complying with (d) above, and existing trees on the site;

(f) strengthen the boundaries of the site with new hedgerow planting; and

(g) provide for a new footpath/cycle link to the adjoining Arden Forest estate.

PM5 Page 17 Modify policy SB2 by:Rewording the preamble to delete the word ‘four’.

Replace (c) with (1)

Replace (d) with (2)

PM6 Page 18 Delete policy AB1 and its justification.

PM7 Page 18 Modify paragraph 7.21 (justification for policy H1) to refer to the Plan’s Glossary and the definition of previously developed land.

PM8 Page 18 Modify paragraph 7.21 to delete the words ‘outside preferred locations’.

PM9 Page 18 Modify policy H1 to add the word ‘unacceptable’ before ‘adverse impact’ in (a) and (d), and replace ‘and’ with ‘or’ in front of ‘additional traffic in (a).

PM10 Page 19 Modify the last sentence of policy BE1 to add after ‘Heritage Statement’ the words ‘where one is required’.

PM11 Page 20 Modify Part A of policy BE2 to read ‘Development should recognise and


29

complement the local character of the surrounding area’.

Delete the reference to the Character Study and the areas listed.

PM12 Page 19 Modify Appendix 1 as follows:No change to text under heading Key ViewsAdd after ‘1. The open quality ….. to Hartshill’ the words (views D, E, F)

Add after ‘2. The setting ….. in Mancetter village’ the words (views E, F)

Add after ‘3. Views from …… to Hartshill’ the words (views A, C)

Add after ‘4. Views from ….. from Mancetter Hill Farm’ the words (view B)

Add after ‘5. Views outward …… larger woodlands’ the words (views G, H, I, J)

Then add the following text:Description of views

Proposals Map

A. View from Quarry Lane looking S from bridge over the canal

B. View looking NE from PROW between Purley Chase Lane and Oldbury Road

C. View from Canal towpath looking SW towards higher ground to the south

Mancetter Inset

D. View from Harpers Lane NE towards Witherley

E. View from footpath south of Watling Street looking SW over the Anker valley towards Mancetter church

F. View looking west from River Anker across the Roman fields towards Nuneaton Road

Ridge Lane Inset


30

G. View of fields and woodland looking N from Arden Forest Estate

H. View from footpath looking W from Purley Chase Lane

I. View from Ridge Lane looking NE across open fields towards Purley Chase Lane

J. View from footpath north of sewage works looking SE across open fields

Mark the viewpoints shown on the Proposals and Inset Maps from A to J in accordance with these descriptions.

PM13 Page 21 Delete policy BE3, its accompanying justification and associated part of Appendix 1.

PM14 Page 22 Modify policy BE4 by the addition of the words ‘In the vicinity of the Scheduled Monuments shown on the Mancetter Inset …. ‘

PM15 Page 22 Modify the final part of policy NE&L1 to read:Where appropriate, proposals should include consideration of the above factors in a landscape analysis either as a freestanding report or as part of a design and access statement’.

PM16 Page 23 Modify policy NE&L2 to read:A. Proposals should demonstrate how

the design of the development has taken into account potential impacts on habitats, species and connectivity. (Proposals should meet British Standard BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development or any subsequent revision or replacement).

B. Proposals will be required to demonstrate net changes to biodiversity using the Coventry/Solihull/Warwickshire Biodiversity Offsetting methodology. Where there would be a negative impact, despite


31

avoidance/mitigation measures, compensatory measures will be required to avoid any net loss of biodiversity.

C. Opportunities should also be taken by developers and landowners to link sustainable drainage solutions in new development to complement nature conservation objectives.

Include a reference to BS 42020:2013 as a footnote at the end of the first clause of Policy NE&L2 as follows:‘The UK commitment to halt overall loss of biodiversity by 2020 in line with the European Biodiversity Strategy and UN Aichi targets, is passed down to local authorities to implement, mainly through planning policy. To assist organizations affected by these commitments, British Standards Institute has published BS 42020: 2013 Biodiversity in planning and development, a Code of practice which offers a coherent methodology for biodiversity management.’

In Appendix 2 clarify the name of the SSSI as being either Bentley Park Wood SSSI or Monks Park Wood SSSI.

PM17 Page 26 Modify policy CFOS1 to delete the requirement to show the facilities listed on the Proposals Map.

PM18 Page 26 Modify policy CFOS2 to delete the rest of the policy from the words from ‘In addition to ……’ up to and including ‘E – the allotments in Ridge Lane’.

PM19 Page 26 Modify policy CFOS3 to read:The local green spaces listed below and shown on the Inset Maps will be protected from inappropriate development. Development of these spaces will only be permitted in very special circumstances where harm to the local green space, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.


32

A. Informal open space at the junction of Harpers Lane and the B4111 in Mancetter Village

B. The Roman Scheduled Monuments in Mancetter village

C. The recreation ground and allotments at Ridge Lane.

PM20 Page 27 Modify the Mancetter and Ridge Lane Insets to define precisely by use of a colour, crosshatching or boundary line, the extent of the Local Green Spaces covered by policy CFOS3. Amend the Ridge Lane Inset by deleting both LGS (B) and replacing with LGS (C).

PM21 Page 27 Modify policy LE1 to read:

On the Manor Road Industrial Estate development for employment uses and changes of use between Use Class B1 (light industrial) and Use Class B2 (general industrial) shall be permitted subject to:

a. No unacceptable increase in traffic beyond the capacity of local roads

b. No unacceptable adverse impact on nearby residents.

Where necessary operating hours and other planning conditions shall be applied to limit any adverse impact.

PM22 Page 28 Delete Table 1


33