POLICY by goodbaby


									APPENDIX 1


POLICY Replace Policy DP1 (Regional Development Principles) with a set of principles DP1 – DP9 (new policies)

PROPOSED CHANGES Policy DP1: Spatial Principles – sets out 8 principles which all LDF policies and developments should adhere to. Policies DP2 – DP9 deal separately with each principle (see below) Policy DP2: Promote Sustainable Communities Sets out a number of specific criteria to help deliver sustainable communities, including the promotion of physical exercise through putting in place sporting opportunities, and integrating public services to meet the current and future needs of the community. Policy DP3: Promote Sustainable Economic Development. This policy supports economic development and a reduction in social inequalities Policy DP4: Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure This policy supports developments which build upon existing concentrations of activity and infrastructure and which do not require major infrastructure investment. It makes reference to a sequential approach for developing land in terms of previously developed in the first instance. Policy DP5: Manage Travel Demand; Reduce the Need to Travel, and Increase Accessibility This policy seeks to locate major growth in


The criteria listed under proposed Policy DP2 are clear and support the principle of delivering sustainable communities. They encourage an integrated approach to spatial planning and delivery and, in this respect, will assist in developing spatial policies through the LDF. This Policy should be supported.

This policy says very little. The principle is to be supported but more text is required

This Policy sets out a good framework against which LDF policy should focus and adhere to.

urban areas and where there is good public transport Policy DP6: Marry Opportunity and Need. This Policy seeks to link areas of economic opportunity with areas in greatest need of economic, social and physical restructuring and regeneration. Policy DP7: Promote Environmental Quality This Policy seeks to protect and enhance environmental quality through, for example, maintaining quality and quantity of biodiversity and promoting good design. Policy DP8: Mainstream Rural Issues This Policy requires Plans to respond to spatial variations in rural need and opportunities. Policy DP9: Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change This Policy requires Plans to contribute to a reduction on carbon dioxide emissions. It suggests a number of measures to support this, including, increasing urban density, reducing traffic growth, increasing renewable energy capacity. The Policy requires Local Authorities to use the North West Integrated Appraisal Toolkit (NWIAT ) to assess and strengthen the climate change mitigation and adaptation elements of their plans and strategies, only in exceptional

% emissions reductions targets suggested by the EIP Panel have not been included as these are expected to be set on enactment of the Climate Change Bill. The Policy requires Local Authorities to use the North West Integrated Appraisal Toolkit (NWIAT ) to assess and strengthen the climate change mitigation and adaptation elements of their plans and strategies, only in exceptional cases, other comparable and robust methodologies might be used. The Council should object to this. The NWIAT does not cover all the requirements for a full Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating SEA), therefore it seem more logical to assess climate change mitigation and adaptation through the SA process. Indeed the SA toolkit prepared for Pendle by

cases, other comparable and robust methodologies might be used. Applicants and LPAs should ensure that all developments meet at least the minimum standards set out in the North West Sustainability Checklist for Developments.

Entec Ltd deals with mitigation (P2a) and adaptation (P2b). It is a further burden to assess Plans and Strategies against yet another toolkit when the SA process should adequately address the climate change issue. It is suggested that the Policy be reworded. The NWIAT may be useful for authorities who have not progressed their SA work, but it is suggested that the word 'exceptionally' be replaced by 'Where a robust and rigorous alternative is available' In respect of using the North West Sustainability Checklist the Policy requires re-wording. The Policy as worded suggests that all developments must use the Checklist. This is misleading since the Checklist only applies to certain developments, and the majority of minimum standards are set locally. If reference is to remain these issues should be reflected in the wording of policy DP9 through some amendment. Perhaps inserting 'where applicable' at the start, since it does not apply to all developments. It is welcomed that the revised Policy RDF1 makes reference to East Lancashire as a priority for investment and regeneration activity. The Policy emphasises the need for growth in Housing Market Renewal Areas and that East Lancashire should be a priority for investment and regeneration. The policy however contradicts itself in that by only identifying Burnley and Blackburn as priorities for growth it takes away the emphasis for regeneration of the whole of East Lancashire mentioned elsewhere in the policy. In reality the urban area of Colne and Nelson are physically inseparable from Burnley and act as a

Policy RDF1: Spatial Priorities.

Policy RDF1 as proposed has greater alignment to the RES and makes specific reference to East Lancashire as a priority for investment and regeneration.

single housing and employment market. As with Workington/Whitehaven, contained at the third bullet point of the policy, reference to Burnley alone should be altered to Burnley/Nelson and Colne. Policy RDF1 as drafted sets out a hierarchy of spatial priorities – but the reference to investment in East Lancashire does not seem to form part of the hierarchy, therefore it is unclear as to whether this is to be treated as an exception to the hierarchy or whether it is indeed at the end of the hierarchy. The settlement hierarchy, and its interpretation by policy makers is important not only in housing and employment but also in education. Policy L1 relates to general education and social provision of services. As this would be linked to RDF1 as it stands RDF1 would mean that the substantial urban areas of Nelson and Colne would not have the same priority for investment in social and education facilities. It is essential that the role Burnley and Nelson/Colne play in east Lancashire is recognised as set out in our proposed wording. Investment priorities in housing are also now being targeted to Hynburn, Burnley and Pendle through Elevate. This is a recognition of the relative position of the housing markets in these areas and the need to continue to prioritise investment in the worse HMR areas. However as drafted RDF1 only recognises Burnley as an investment priority and this reinforces the need to change reference to Burnley to “Burnley/Nelson and Colne.” In draft RSS Nelson/Colne (including Brierfield) and

Policy RDF2: Rural Areas

Policy RDF2 deals specifically with rural areas

Policies RDF2 and RDF3 (key service centres and rural areas) have been amalgamated and revised to from new Policy RDF2: Rural Areas

and also gives criteria to assess and identify Key Service Centres. Development in rural areas should be concentrated in these Key Service Centres. There is no longer a list of Key Service Centres as it is stated that it is not the role of RSS to define these. Small scale development to help sustain local services, meet local needs or support local businesses will be permitted in towns and villages defined as Local Service Centres in DPDs. These should already provide a range of services to the local community. The Policy specifies the exceptional circumstances when development in open countryside may be appropriate.

Barnoldswick were identified as Key Service Centres. Under the Proposed Changes no Key Service Centres are defined. The Council would have the ability to define its own Key Service Centres, in accordance with the criteria in revised Policy RDF2 as part of the LDF. Whilst the list of Key Service Centres is unlikely to significantly change from that in the draft RSS, this revised Policy provides greater flexibility for a number of options to be considered through the LDF. Furthermore Policy RDF2 supports the identification of Local Service Centres. This will provide a further layer of centres within which development can be concentrated. Again, the LDF can consider the most suitable options so long as the settlements currently provide a range of services to the local community.

Policy RDF3: The Coast Policy RDF4: Green Belts

The exceptional circumstances for building in the open countryside are supported and should be further strengthened in the LDF. No impact No comment The wording of Policy RDF4 is proposed to be There is little change here. However the Policy does amended slightly. It still reads that there is no strengthen the position beyond 2011. Any strategic review is need for any exceptional substantial strategic to be undertaken by NWRA, this provides greater long term change to Green Belt within Lancashire before certainty for the Pendle Green Belt, over the lifetime of the 2011. However the wording is now strengthened LDF. The RSS assumes that future development as set out in to cover the period beyond 2011. This now the RSS can be accommodated without major Green Belt reads „after 2011 the presumption will be against reviews. exceptional substantial strategic change to the Green Belt‟ strategic studies undertaken by the It is supported that small detailed boundary changes should be

Policy W1: Strengthening the Regional Economy Policy W2: Locations for Regionally Significant Economic development has been reworded

NWRA will investigate any need for change to inform subsequent reviews of RSS. Any local detailed boundary changes can be considered through the LDF process, with the agreement of NWRA. No significant change There is less reference to specific locations in the revised Policy W2, however the Policy still directs regionally significant economic development to certain areas of the region. Furthermore there are criteria to help align knowledge based services and regionally significant office developments with their locational requirements The EIP Panel report suggested the desegregation of employment land requirements to Local Planning Authority level. However, the Government have left this matter to the Integrated Regional Strategy on the basis that data is not currently available to disaggregate to LPA level. However, the Government suggest the provision of figures by sub-region. This will require Local Authorities and other partners to work together to agree the distribution of land. Figures should be allocated broadly based on local labour market areas. Revised Policy W3 sets out a number of

considered through the LDF process with the agreement of the NWRA. Again this strengthens the protection afforded to the Green Belt.

No comment Pendle did not feature in the previous Policy W2, so there is little change. However, if a case were ever argued for a regionally specific economic use in Pendle the criteria in the new Policy W2 would allow for this, whereas previous policy W2 in the draft RSS was place specific, excluding Pendle.

Policy W3: Supply of Employment Land

Revised Policy W3 provides no district allocation of employment land. Instead a figure for Lancashire is provided. During previous consultations on RSS the majority of Lancashire Districts requested a district figure, however Pendle supported the Lancashire-wide figure. It is therefore expected that the Council will support, in general, revised Policy W3. The supporting text to Policy W3 suggests that local authorities work together to identify sub-regional requirements, based on local labour markets and travel to work areas. The Council should object to this since it will most likely lead to delays in the delivery of LDFs. If these requirements were thought necessary they should have been

requirements for employment land:       

identified in the RSS. Furthermore the Proposed Changes highlights the fact that there is insufficient data available to LPAs to undertake a comprehensive review of disaggregate. Furthermore the Strategic Housing Market Assessment undertaken for Pendle and Burnley demonstrates a commitments (and review it every 3 years) clear market area operating between the two districts (there is a Safeguard the most appropriate range of sites high degree of self-containment) – this is discussed in our for employment use ELR. The high self containment detailed in this study could be Ensure sites can meet the full range of needs used to support figures for employment land across the wider and are actively marketed Ensure at least 30% of sites are available (fully Pendle/Burnley area. There is therefore a case to be made for serviced and actively marketed within 3 years) setting a Pendle/Burnley requirement – this case should be based on the findings of the Council‟s Employment Land Maximise brownfield land use Reviews (ELR) which must be produced in line with the Consider scope for mixed use developments Government‟s latest guidance. Given the lack of district Ensure appropriate provision in Key Service allocations, the findings of the ELR should be used to inform Centres the LDF. It is noted that Policy W3 requires LPAs to update their employment land portfolio every 3 years. However, as the Policy recognises this is a more stringent requirement than that included in the Government‟s own guidance which states that it should be reviewed at „no more than five yearly intervals'. The Council should object to this 3 year review since it will place onerous requirements on small district Council‟s at a time when they are seeking to prepare their LDFs. It may also give ammunition to developers to render evidence as out of date (ahead of the Government‟s own approach). The ELR for Pendle either addresses the points in the revised Policy W3, or provides the evidence base to facilitate them through the LDF e.g. provides evidence to help make informed

Policy W4: Release of Allocated Employment Land

Policy W5: Retail Development

Policy W6: Tourism and the

decisions on the need to safeguard the most appropriate sites. In this respect the general thrust of the Policy should be supported. Minor amendment to Policy W4. Additional text There is little change to Policy W4. However, the Policy is provides safeguards against deficiency of supply. strengthened to resist the release of employment sites for other The Policy suggests that outside of a uses, outside of any comprehensive review. comprehensive review of commitments there should be a presumption against the release of This Policy should be supported. In Pendle the comprehensive allocated employment sites for other uses and the review is the Employment Land Review (ELR) recently de-allocation or re-allocation of a site should not adopted, this will inform the LDF evidence base. Policy W4 result in a deficient supply of employment land. as worded provides protection for any future allocations and also supports any local safeguarding policy e.g. Protected It is recognised in the supporting Policy text that Employment Areas. demand for employment land to be released for other uses is particularly strong in Pendle. Little change to draft Policy W5. Retains a focus The Policy places emphasis on Local Authorities‟ own retail on primary retail centres of Manchester/Salford need assessments and the need to ensure new retail and Liverpool. Encourages the enhancement of development in centres meets community needs. Pendle comparison retail facilities in a number of Borough Council have an adopted Retail Capacity Study. centres, including Blackburn and Burnley (these were listed in draft RSS policy). The Policy also The Policy refers to PPS6 and the need to resist out-of-centre states that investment, of an appropriate scale, in sub-regional facilities. centres not identified above will be encouraged in order to maintain and enhance their vitality The Policy supports new retailing facilities in other centres and viability, including investment to underpin (those not listed) particularly where there will be a regeneration initiatives. regeneration benefit – this approach in Policy W5 should be supported as it will allow Pendle to lever in new comparison retailing to assist in ongoing regeneration efforts. No significant changes to Policy It should be noted and supported that the Policy encourages

Visitor Economy

Policy W7: Principles for Tourism development Policy W8: Regional Casinos Policy L1: Health, Sport, Recreation, Cultural and Education Services Provision

No significant changes to Policy No impact Policy in draft RSS focused on health and education and has now been widened to include sport, recreation and culture. Revised Policy L1 seeks to ensure there is adequate provision of health care, education, sport, recreation and cultural facilities for all the community. In particular plans should focus on improving access and addressing spatial disparities. Policies L2, L3 and L6 have been restructured to aid clarity. Policy L2 requires Local Authorities to undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

tourism development opportunities in areas adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – this provides Policy support for tourist development in and around Pendle. No comments No comment Policy L1 supports the Government‟s approach to delivering and improving social infrastructure, as part of any new development. Given the emphasis on spatial planning through the LDF system, Policy L1 sets a framework for helping to reduce inequalities and deliver better services through locational choices and commuted sums. The Policy has been widened to take account of sport, recreation and culture. This is to be welcomed and Pendle‟s revised Open Space Audit should help inform the evidence base and future LDF policy. Policy L2 should be supported. The Government require Local Authorities to prepare a SHMA (PPS3). Pendle have commissioned a SHMA jointly with Burnley Borough Council. This will provide evidence and issues for future policy consideration in respect of market housing, affordable housing, sizes, tenures and types of housing and specialised accommodation requirements. There is little change to Policy L3 from that in draft RSS. It supports the Housing Market Renewal Programme and in Pendle provides a framework to pursue comprehensive regeneration through Area Action Plans. Of key importance is the need to „Manage the delivery of new build and its impact on the existing housing stock‟. A

Policy L2: Understanding Housing Markets

Policy L3: Existing Housing Stock and Housing Renewal

Policies L2, L3 and L6 have been restructured to aid clarity. Policy L3 refers specifically to Housing Market Renewal Initiative Pathfinder Areas (including Pendle). It states that Plans should:  Respond to any need to substantially restructure local housing markets

Policy L4: Regional Housing Provision

 Take account of and understand housing markets  Manage the delivery of new build and its impact on the existing housing stock  Reduce vacancy rates to 3% in the existing dwelling stock, through the increased re-use of suitable vacant housing  Where appropriate make the best use of the existing stock Policy L4 has been amended to take account of recent Government thinking in the Housing Green Paper. There is no overall increase in the housing requirement for Pendle which remains set at 3,420 (2003-2021) or 190 average per annum (The Council had requested a higher figure through previous consultation and the Examination in Public, but has not been successful in this request). Housing requirements are still net of clearance and replacement. For Pendle there are two clear changes to Policy L4 which will have an effect on local policy:  The phrase „as a maximum‟ has been removed from both Policy L4 and Table 7.1 (formally Table 9.1 in draft RSS). The Policy now

fundamental requirement of all Area Action Plans must be a robust and credible assessment of the impacts of any proposed new build. Furthermore, given that the overall housing requirement has no ceiling (see Policy L4) this statement is pertinent when considering overall housing distribution and management.

Policy L4 has been amended in light of the Government‟s Housing Green Paper. Of great importance is the removal of the „maximum‟ housing requirement. It is noted that the overall housing requirement for Pendle has not been increased (despite previous objections from Pendle Borough Council) however; the removal of the „maximum‟ requirement should provide greater flexibility at the local level. However, at present, Policy L4 as drafted in the Proposed Changes is disappointingly unclear. In the draft RSS the term „maximum‟ applied to the total housing provision (Table 9.1 and first line of Policy L4 in draft RSS). In revised Policy L4 of the Proposed Changes the Policy states that it is the annual average (190 per annum for Pendle) which is not intended to act as a maximum figure and can now be exceeded in any given year. The Council should support the removal of the term

states that annual average figures are not intended to act as maximum figures and that, in line with PPS3, in monitoring and managing their housing trajectory, Local Planning Authorities can exceed the figure in any given year.  The brownfield land and buildings target for Pendle has been reduced from „at least 80%‟ in draft RSS to „at least 65%‟. This was based on a recommendation by the EIP Panel who concluded that 80% was too high for the East Lancashire districts Revised Policy L4 clarifies that Local Planning Authorities should assume the average annual requirement in Table 7.1 (formally Table 9.1 in draft RSS) will continue for a limited period beyond 2021. This will allow progress on LDFs.

„maximum‟ as this provides greater local flexibility, however, Policy L4 must be made clearer. As it currently reads, only the annual average requirement can be exceeded, whereas the term maximum previously applied to the total provision (overall housing requirement). The Policy should be revised to make clear that in any given year the annual average requirement can be exceeded and that there is now no ceiling (maximum) on the total provision. Policy L4 and the justification text to Policy L4 provide greater clarity on how Local Planning Authorities should mange the supply and release of housing land and when it may be appropriate to exceed annual average rates set in Policy L4, again this should apply to exceeding the overall provision. Policy L4 states that Local Planning Authorities should address the housing requirements of different groups to ensure the construction of a mix of appropriate house types, sizes, tenures and prices and use the results of up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments (SHLAA) to inform the allocation of land and development control decisions. Pendle have a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (undertaken jointly with Burnley Borough Council) and this has clear findings on the amount of market and affordable housing required, different types, sizes and tenures of home required (including conclusions on any specialised accommodation). In this respect, the results of the SHMA can be used to inform local housing requirements. The

justification text to Policy L4 clearly states that the requirement figures are average annual figures and may be exceeded where justified by evidence of need, demand, affordability and sustainability issues and fit with relevant local and sub-regional strategies. The SHMA has a key role to play in making such justification. Again, however, this paragraph should relate to overall housing provision, not just the annualised rates. Policy L4 also states that Local Authorities should be aware of the policy framework and potential provision of housing land that exists in adjoining areas, ensuring that the over provision and early release of land in one district does not undermine urban renaissance in that district or another. The joint SHMA prepared with Burnley Borough Council should provide sufficient evidence to support any local approach, without undermining activity in Burnley. Policy L4 requires plans to introduce phasing policies which secure the orderly and managed release of housing land, prioritising previously developed land and buildings and sites with existing infrastructure (or where it can be implemented ahead of the development). Policy L4 requires a sequential approach to new housing development. The results of the SHLAA should assist with this and this approach should be supported. The SHLAA includes a housing trajectory and evidence to demonstrate a current 5 year supply of deliverable sites. The SHMA and any regeneration activity can be used to justify

development over and above this. The justification text to Policy L4 clearly supports regeneration in East Lancashire, including replacement and renewal of housing stock and, where appropriate, the development of a wider range of housing (including high quality market housing). This element of Policy L4 should be supported. In terms of the reduction in brownfield target. This should be supported. Pendle Borough Council would struggle to meet an 80% target, 65% is much more realistic and indeed our performance against the 65% target looks good – 71% in 2006/07. The Local Authority are free to set a higher target in their LDF if required. The flexibility included in revised Policy L4 should partly compensate for the failure to increase Pendle‟s overall housing requirement. However, the Policy is not clear. The policy seeks to remove the term „maximum‟. In draft RSS this applied to the total provision and revised Policy L4 must therefore be amended to reflect this. It should be accepted that careful consideration will be needed to ensure that any additional development (above the target) is managed carefully and appropriately so as not to harm existing regeneration efforts in Pendle and beyond. However, the Council are in a fortunate position having recently prepared a joint SHMA with Burnley, this should provide adequate evidence to support any additional house building as appropriate. There is little in this Policy to cause concern. The minimum density of 30 per ha is a national requirement in PPS3 and indeed it should be welcomed that the Policy recognises the

Policy L5: Residential Density Policy

Policy L5 in the Proposed Changes is a new policy. It states that the density of new residential development should not be less than

Policy L6: Affordable Housing

30 dwellings per ha. It should be higher in urban areas, particularly where there is good public transport links. It is recognised however that there is a need to provide an appropriate mix of house types and sizes. Policy L6 (previously Policy L5 in draft RSS) has been revised and the list of locations in most need of affordable housing has been removed. This is in recognition of the fact that such a list is likely to become out-dated. The revised Policy L6 now refers to Strategic Housing Market Assessments and using these as evidence to support the setting of quotas and thresholds for affordable housing provision along with an indication of the type, size and tenure of affordable housing required. The Policy requires plans to consider a number of solutions to deliver affordable housing including:  Seeking a proportion of affordable housing on all development sites above the relevant thresholds  Making the most of the existing housing stock  Actively promoting a rural exceptions site policy.

need to promote a diverse range of housing.

The general thrust of Policy L6 has not altered. There is still a requirement to consider delivering affordable housing through a number of mechanisms, including utilising the existing stock. However, revised Policy L6 now refers to the use of Strategic Housing Market Assessments as an evidence tool to identify and support policy in respect of affordable housing needs, thresholds, size, type and tenure of dwelling required. Pendle have a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (undertaken jointly with Burnley Borough Council) and this has clear findings on the amount of affordable housing required (including figures for rural areas) and different types, sizes and tenures of home required (including conclusions on any specialised accommodation). In this respect, the results of the SHMA can be used to inform local housing policy and the setting of affordable housing targets through the LDF.

Policy RT1: Integrated Transport Networks

The Policy clarifies that all affordable housing constructed will count towards the overall housing requirement for each district. The Transport section has been replaced by a new set of Transport Policies based on a multimodal approach to tacking transport issues. Policy RT1 suggests that transport problems and issues in the region should be examined on a multi-modal basis to develop sustainable, integrated and accessible solutions for all users. The Key Diagram identifies the M65 as a Regional Road Corridor and the railway line to Burnley (and onwards to Leeds) as a Regional Public Transport Corridor. There should be a co-ordinated approach to managing travel demand. Plans and strategies must:  Ensure all major new developments are located where good access to public transport already exists  Reduce private car use by introducing „smarter choices‟ e.g. safer routes to school, car pooling and park and ride schemes  Consider reallocation of road space in favour of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists  Make greater use of on-street parking controls  Incorporate maximum parking standards that are in line with or more restrictive than those

The justification text states that the emphasis should be on increasing the role of public transport. This is a national planning policy approach and is therefore an approach that must be considered through LDFs.

Policy RT2: Managing Travel Demand

This Policy should be supported. Part of the spatial planning approach will be to deliver sustainable communities, including focussing development to where existing infrastructure is already in place and taking account of the need to reduce dependence on the private car. Whilst the smarter choices are a good idea, there is only so much the planning system can do to incorporate such choices into people‟s lifestyles – this will involve working with key partners. The Proposed Changes to draft RSS includes in Table 8.1 a set of North West Parking Standards. The standards are equally as restrictive as those contained in PPG13, but do not cover as

included in the RSS Proposed Changes (Table 8.1)

Policy RT3: Public Transport Framework

Policy RT4: Management of the Highway Network

Policy RT5: Airports Policy RT6: Ports and Waterways Policy RT7: Freight Transport

The Central Lancashire Public Transport Corridor is shown as a Regional corridor which heads eastwards from Preston towards Leeds. Proposals and schemes to enhance services in such corridors should include priority measures to improve journey time reliability The Functional Road Hierarchy is included in Diagram RT2.1 of draft RSS and identifies the route from the end of the M65 at Colne onwards to Yorkshire as a route of Regional Importance. No impact No impact Supports the movement of freight on the Regional Highway Network, encourages Local Authorities to work with distribution companies to develop a consistent approach to lorry management. Policy RT8 supports the allocation of land for inter-modal freight terminals in 4 broad locations; SW Greater Manchester, Widnes,

many uses as the current standards applied in Pendle through the Replacement Pendle Local Plan. However Policy RT2 gives flexibility to adopt more stringent or focused parking standards. There is therefore opportunity to explore this through the LDF, bearing in mind that consistency with neighbouring districts may prevent competition of larger schemes, based on parking allowances. Policy RT2 should be supported. The policy recognises the constraints on funding physical expansion of public transport – heavy and light rail and local bus services, so instead concentrates on making the best use of existing resources.

There is no significant change, the route through to Yorkshire is still identified. No further comments.

No comment No comment. No specific comments.

Policy RT8: Inter-Modal Freight Terminals

There is no direct impact for Pendle or East Lancashire.

Policy RT9: Walking and Cycling

Policy RT10: Priorities for Transport Management and Investment

Policy EM1: Integrated Enhancement and Protection of the Region‟s Environmental Assets

Newton-le-Willows and Birkenhead Waterfront. Policy RT9 requires Local Authorities to work with partners to develop integrated networks of continuous, attractive and safe routes for walking and cycling. New developments should incorporate high quality pedestrian and cycle facilities, including secure cycle parking Policy RT10 states that schemes for which funding has been allocated, and those that are under investigation or proposed for investigation, are listed in the Implementation Plan. The Proposed Changes no longer include the priorities in a table (Table 10.2 of Draft RSS) Policy EM1 has been expanded so that it now covers the natural environment, the historic environment, landscape and trees, woodlands and forests. Revised Policy EM1 seeks to give priority to conserving and enhancing areas, sites, features and species of international, national, regional and local landscape, natural environment and historic environment importance. With respect to the historic environment Policy EM1 requires plans to exploit the regeneration potential of the Pennine textile mill-town heritage that exists in East Lancashire. No change to Policy

The policy approach which seeks better provision for pedestrians and cyclists in recognition that it can contribute towards reducing car dependency is a national approach followed from PPG13. There is no significant change.

Removing the list of priorities from the RSS allows for easier up-dating and review. No significant change.

Policy EM1 in draft RSS was based on biodiversity, landscape and heritage and woodlands. The revised Policy EM1 seeks to provide a more integrated approach to the management of the landscape and the natural environment, within both rural and urban areas. Many of the underlying principles of revised Policy EM1 are similar and build on the previous Policy. There is now greater focus on both natural and physical environments and this should be supported. This will provide the framework for criteria based LDF policy.

Policy EM2: Remediating

No comment

Contaminated Land Policy EM3: Green Infrastructure

Policy EM3 has been expanded to set out the requirements for conserving, enhancing and managing existing green infrastructure and for creating new green infrastructure. A paragraph has been added to the supporting text to define green infrastructure as „a planned network of multi-functional green spaces and interconnecting links that is designed, developed and managed to meet the environmental, social and economic needs of communities‟. No significant changes to Policy Amended Policy EM5 strengthens links between RSS and the EU Water Framework Directive. Policy EM5 places a number of requirements on Local Authorities:  Work with the water companies and Environment Agency when planning the location and phasing of development to ensure development is located where there is spare capacity  Produce district level Strategic Flood Risk Assessments  Design appropriate mitigation measures into schemes which exceptionally must take place in flood risk areas  Require new developments to incorporate

The general thrust of Policy EM3 has not changed, but there is now more detail on how to deliver new and improved green infrastructure. The Policy now refers to the Green Infrastructure Guide for the North West which provides more detailed guidance and can assist the way the Policy is put into practice.

Policy EM4: Regional Parks Policy EM5: Integrated Water Management

No comment. The revised Policy EM5 links better with the EU Water Framework Directive and also links better to PPS25 (Development and Floodrisk). The criteria in Policy EM5 reflect the requirements of PPS25 in respect of flood risk and the sequential approach, whilst point 1 (work with water companies and Environment Agency when planning the location and phasing of development) links clearly to the Government‟s emphasis on infrastructure planning and provides support for LDFs when addressing site specific needs. The Policy should be supported.

Policy EM6: Managing the North West‟s Coastline Policy EM7: Minerals Extraction Policy EM8: Land Won Aggregates Policy EM9: Secondary and Recycled Aggregates Policy EM10: A Regional Approach to Waste Management

SUDs No Impact No change to Policy No change to Policy No change to Policy Policy EM10 has been amended to reflect the Waste Strategy for England 2007 and PPS10 (Planning for Sustainable Waste Management). It now includes regional waste targets including:  40% of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2010, 45% by 2015 and 55% by 2020  Value to be recovered from at least 70% of commercial and industrial wastes by 2020 (including recycling/composting) In preparing plans and considering applications for development, local planning authorities should promote the minimisation of waste and the maximised use of recycled materials.

No comment Lancashire County Council is the Minerals and Waste authority for Pendle. No further comment. Lancashire County Council is the Minerals and Waste authority for Pendle. No further comment. No comment Whilst Lancashire County Council are the Minerals and Waste authority for Pendle there are some important recycling targets included within this Policy and within which Pendle should therefore operate. Pendle‟s Sustainable Community Strategy states that we are committed to reducing the waste we create and increasing recycling rates. In 2006/07, our household waste recycling rate was 31.8% which is the same as the national average for England as a whole (31%). Pendle also recycles more green waste than any other East Lancashire district. One of Pendle‟s Priority objectives is to minimise waste and continue to increase recycling rates. Target NI 192: Household waste recycled and composted - Proposed for negotiation at a rate of 38% in the next 3 years. There are no major concerns within this Policy in respect of household waste, targets set in Pendle‟s Sustainable Community Strategy will assist in meeting the targets.

However, the last bullet point refers to commercial and industrial waste. It is not clear what the term „value to be recovered from 70%‟ means – this should be clarified in the Policy. Finally there is no reference to recycling kitchen waste. There should be targets in place for this, although it must be recognised that meeting such targets will require central Government commitment and funding. Policy EM11 has been expanded to better reflect the „waste hierarchy‟. This will provide a good basis for any criteria based LDF policy and should be supported.

Policy EM11: Waste Management Principles

Policy EM11 now clarifies the role of the waste hierarchy, in summary that is:      Waste minimisation and re-use Composting or recycling Treatments Production of energy from waste Finally disposal by land fill

Policy EM12: Locational Principles Policy EM13: Provision of Nationally, Regionally and Sub-Regionally Significant Waste Management

Every type of development should promote the minimisation of waste, maximise the use of recycled materials and provide infrastructure to meet the needs of local residents and businesses. Policy EM12 refers to waste planning authorities Policy EM13 requires plans to identify locations for waste management facilities. This relates to waste planning authorities

Lancashire County Council is the Minerals and Waste authority for Pendle. No further comment. Lancashire County Council is the Minerals and Waste authority for Pendle. No further comment.

Facilities Policy EM14: Radioactive Waste Policy EM15: A Framework for Sustainable Energy in the North West

No change to Policy Policy EM15 has been amended to incorporate new Combined Heat and Power (CHP) targets which will reflect the North West Climate Change Action Plan. The Policy now states that the North West aims to double its installed CHP capacity by 2010.

No comment Policy EM15 as contained in draft RSS required public authorities to lead by example by reducing energy consumption and identifying potential for sustainable energy generation.

Policy EM16: Energy Conservation and Efficiency

The addition of targets to the policy applies only to CHP schemes and this is to apply to all developments. Whilst the target is ambitious, it is a target and not a requirement and it should assist the Local Authority in demanding high quality development schemes which address energy consumption and renewable sources of supply. However, the target is across such a wide area (the North West) that accountability will prove all but impossible. The main change to Policy EM16 is the inclusion Policy EM16 deals specifically with energy conservation and of reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes efficiency of energy. Widening the Policy to refer to the Code and minimum energy efficiency standards for for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM standards should be new homes equivalent to: supported.  Level 3 of the Code by 2010  Level 4 by 2013  Level 6 (zero carbon) by 2016 It also suggests that minimum energy efficiency standards for all other buildings be set at „very good‟ (or where possible in urban areas „excellent‟) of the BREEAM standard The targets included in the revised policy in respect of the Code for Sustainable Homes provide interim targets above the mandatory requirement to simply make a rating against the Code (expected to become mandatory in May 2008). Policy EM16 provides support to request higher levels of energy efficiency through new residential development and in this respect should be supported.

The Pendle LDF will need to consider a number of options to increase overall ratings against the Code for Sustainable Homes, this Policy EM15 refers specifically to energy efficiency which is only one of a number of factors to be considered and rated. Whilst Policy EM16 should be supported in principle, the text contained within the bracket to bullet point 1 – (up until the date – currently expected to be April 2008 – when it is anticipated that it will become a mandatory requirement to meet the Code ratings) should be removed. This indicates that the target ratings for energy efficiency will not apply once the Code for Sustainable Homes is mandatory for all new homes, however the Government are making it mandatory, but only to have a rating against the Code, not to meet a specific level, therefore the target levels for energy efficiency should remain once the Code is mandatory. The general thrust of Policy EM17 has not altered. However, in line with PPS22 the Policy is now more positively worded and offers greater support for renewable energy schemes. Of particular significance is the fact that stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape and townscape are not appropriate – whilst this relaxes the RSS Policy on renewable energy somewhat, it is in line with PPS22 as appropriate. PPS22 still affords protection to those sites of international (e.g Special Protection Areas) and, to some extent, national (e.g. AONB) designations. In the case of international designations, PPS22 states that planning permission should only be granted where there is no alternative solution and there

Policy EM17: Renewable Energy

Policy EM17 is similar to Policy EM17 of Draft RSS, but now makes more specific reference to helping deliver indicative capacity targets for renewables as set out for the Region (Table 9.6) and the Sub-region (Table 9.7a). The revised Policy EM17 contains a number of criteria which should be taken into account when considering proposals and schemes for renewable energy e.g.:  Effects on local amenity

 Acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact.  Effect of development on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity  Openness of Green Belt However, a significant change to the Policy is the statement that the criteria should be taken into account, but should not be used to rule out or place constraints on the development of all, or specific types of renewable energy technologies. Local Planning Authorities should give significant weight to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of proposals for renewable energy schemes. In line with PPS22 (Renewable Energy) the Policy has now been worded more positively in favour of renewable energy schemes. An example of this can be seen in relation to the criteria in respect of: Acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape

are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. It is the local designations that have less weight to play in determining applications for renewable energy schemes. However, this is wholly in line with PPS22. To minimise impact it is the role of local development documents to address the minimisation of visual effects e.g. on the siting, layout, landscaping, design and colour of schemes. The changes to Policy EM17 are in line with PPS22 and there are therefore no reasons to object.

Policy EM18: Decentralised Energy Supply

Whereby the Policy criteria is now altered to state that „stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape and townscape would not be appropriate if these effectively preclude the supply of certain types of renewable energy‟. Policy EM18 is a new Policy which incorporates the final part of Policy EM17 (as was in Draft RSS) and also reflects information contained in the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1. Policy EM18 primarily requires Plans to:  Set out targets for the energy to be used in new development to come from decentralised and renewable sources (small scale supplies which locally serve a development or site and can be located on site or near the site) – this to be based on available evidence and viability and should be consistent with ensuring housing and affordable housing supply is not prohibited.

Whilst a separate Policy on Decentralised Energy Supply is supported, there appears to be a lack of detail in the proposed Policy EM18 and there appears to be inconsistency between the proposed Policy and the Secretary of State‟s Decision. In this respect, the following comments should be sent to GONW:  R8.22 – The Secretary of State concludes that regional level targets for on site renewable energy generation be excluded from the new Policy EM18. However, in R8.23 the Secretary of State accepts that rising targets (15% by 2015 and 20% by 2020) should be included in Policy EM18 and that, with the exception of lowering the thresholds, Policy EM18 should read as set out in EiP/NWRA/21. There is clearly an error here. Policy EM18 included in the proposed Changes does not read as EiP/NWRA/21, in particular the following appears to have been omitted: all proposals and schemes for new non residential developments above a threshold of 500m2 and all residential developments comprising 5 or more units, should incorporate renewable energy production to provide at least 10% by 2010 (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) of the developments predicted energy requirements. Individual Planning Authorities are encouraged to use lower

thresholds for the development size where they consider it justified and practical to implement. From reading R8.22 and R8.23 it is unclear which is correct – should there be regional targets, rising over the longer term e.g. 10% by 2010 (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) or should there be no targets at all, these being better set at the local level. The Council would argue that setting regional targets of 10%, rising to 15% and then 20% sets a benchmark for Local Authorities to use and can be applied immediately rather than awaiting a detailed evidence base to be prepared at the local level. No comment No comment No comment Policy CLCR2 in draft RSS already set out that „development in the Central Lancashire City Region will be located primarily in the regional city of Preston and the three regional towns of Blackburn, Blackpool and Burnley‟ Policy CLCR2 in the Proposed Changes maintains this hierarchy. This is in line with Policy RDF1 (Spatial Priorities) which recognises Burnley as a third priority for development across the North West. LDFs will identify Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres below this hierarchy.

Policies MCR1 – MCR5: Manchester City Region Policy CH1: Overall Spatial Policy for South Cheshire Policies LCR1 – LCR5: Liverpool City Region Policy CLCR1: Central Lancashire City Region Priorities

No Impact No Impact No Impact Policy CLCR1 sets out the priorities for the Central Lancashire City Region. The main change is the addition of the first bullet point which reads „focus investment and sustainable development in the city of Preston and 3 towns of Blackburn, Burnley and Blackpool‟. There are then a list of actions which plans should support in the City Region – similar to Policy CLCR1 in draft RSS.

This hierarchy has been in place since draft RSS and can not therefore be contested; however, Policy CLCR1 as drafted in the Proposed Changes now identifies Burnley as a „focus for investment’. It could be argued that this is a step further than the focus of development identified in CLCR2, RDF1 and RDF2 for the following reasons: Policy CLCR1 as in the Draft RSS applied the need to „raise economic performance‟ to all districts, revised Policy CLCR1 now focuses this on Preston, Blackburn, Blackpool and Burnley. In particular, in applying this solely to these towns it applies the following „regeneration and restructuring of the East Lancashire economy (including actions taken under the Elevate Transformational Agenda) this would seem to prioritise Elevate activities and investment towards Burnley and Blackburn. However, the first line of the justification text to Policy CLCR1 clearly states that the strategy for the city region is underpinned by the need to balance improved economic growth with the regeneration of its more deprived areas. These areas are wider then Blackburn and Burnley and therefore Policy CLCR1 should be amended to reflect this. Whilst it is appropriate to focus development in the main towns it is not appropriate to focus all investment, particularly when other districts are covered by the Elevate Pathfinder. Apart from combining Policies CLCR2 and CLCR3 there is no major change in policy emphasis. It causes an issue when the Policy emphasis is extended to Policy CLCR1 (see comments above). But Policy CLCR2 as a stand alone Policy causes no

Policy CLCR2: Focus for Development and Investment in Central Lancashire City Region

Policy CLCR2 has now been combined with Policy CLCR3 (Development in Other Parts of the Central Lancashire City Region) from draft RSS. The Policy remains largely unchanged, in

Policy CLCR3: Green City

that it still lists the towns of Blackburn, Blackpool and Burnley as being the focus for development (this is in line with Policies RDF1 and RDF2), it now also addresses the issue of development outside of these main towns, explaining that this should be focused on Key Service Centres and Local Service Centres (these will be set by individual districts through LDFs) Policy CLCR3 on the Green City is a new Policy. The Policy seeks to protect and enhance the „green‟ character of the Central Lancashire City Region and recognises the advantages it offers for attracting people and investment. It seeks to:


New Policy CLCR3 supports other RSS policies in the context of the Central Lancashire City Region. Reference to maintaining the Green Belt helps to strengthen the argument in Policy RDF4 for maintaining the general extent of the Green Belt beyond 2011 and should be supported. Whilst the Regional Park concept should be supported, Policy CLCR3 (in line with Policy EM4) should recognise the role of the Strategic Framework (to be prepared by the NWRA and partners) in helping to set and define Regional Park boundaries.

Policies CNL1 – CNL4: Cumbria and North Lancashire

 Maintain the extent of the Green Belt as set out in Policy RDF4  Protect the Forest of Bowland AONB as set out in Policy EM1  Further development of the City Region‟s three regional parks, including East Lancashire (Policy EM4) Including the delineation of Regional Park boundaries in LDFs  Support the greening of urban areas through improved open space and reclamation of derelict land for „soft‟ end uses. No impact No comment

Policy IM1: Implementation

Policy IM1 sets out that Impact Assessments should be carried out as required and that local authorities should follow the plan-monitormanage approach.

There are requirements on the Local Authority to undertake assessment as necessary such as Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment. There are therefore no comments on this Policy.

To top