Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - May
Re: Proposals Map - Local Wildlife Sites
Paragraph 5 of PPS9 requires local authorities to indicate the location of designated sites of importance for biodiversity, including locally designated sites, as part of the Local Development Framework . The condition of sites can, however, vary over time and, as a result, a review may result in some sites being assessed as no longer of local importance. Equally,new sites that are worthy of designation but are not identified in the LDF may emerge from time to time. PPS12 states in Section 8 that the adopted proposals map should show locally designated sites, but these can of course only be shown as they exist when the Proposals Map is adopted. This would also apply to flood risk areas which also change as new assessments are made. As the Proposals Map is a DPD itself it should not be changed unless it goes through the formal process. Is anybody aware of any mechanism that we could use to protect sites that emerge in the future from inappropriate development without going through the formal process of amending the Proposals Map?
As an idea (and I haven't tried this elsewhere, so check first) UK legal process enables you to use electronic records instead of paper, and the concept of the regulation is to best inform the public about designated sites. So.... If you could designate an online GIS system as being the definitive record, you could use the GIS to show sites currently designated, sites under review, sites currently under consideration and potential future sites. Provided there is a clear audit mechanism for changes, and you never delete sites (only mark them historic at a date & time), you should be able to use the GIS in court as evidence. Whether it complies with the letter of planning regs, is another matter. Using a dynamic online system should also get you out of having to print new maps everytime there is a proposed change. From a public perspective, the online GIS based system provides a better quality of information than a static printed document. Also you could use the mechanism to solicit information from the public about specific sites, improving the democratic process.
We're currently considering a similar issue, albeit under an existing LP policy rather than an LDF policy. The existing policy states that reviews may be undertaken on the LoWS, and that a revised list of such sites may be published. As per the initial question, this does leave us with a question about the proposals map, and whether a separate stand alone map would be sufficient given that the policy has been worded specifically to allow for reviews of the LoWS. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated!
We have grappled with this problem for a little while ourselves now too. Our PM is from our 1998 LP and shows SINCs, but since then we have had a new Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out in 2004, together with an annual review of our LoWS since 2007. There are now ten new sites, a few deselected sites and sites with boundary amendments that are not accounted for in our PM. What we have done to try and address this is that in addition to the PM, we publish our Planning Constraints online on a web GIS; but this could be a suipplementary paper map/ PDF if this is easier. This is updated and is a 'live' reflection of constraints to development. It is currently not cited in any policy due to the age of the policies, but like Epping have done, we should be including reference to the fact that the LoWS are subject to frequent reviews and the designations should just be used as a guide in the DPD policies. We also publish a LoWS Register - which you could take to Cabinet and adopt as a formal material consideration on an annual basis, if you think it would add additional weight in the planning process. This comes with maps of the boundary extents and as a seperate document the LoWS Monitoring Forms, which set out why each site has been selected in the first place and whether it is improving, stable or in decline. As we have a planning system, which does not permit the Proposals Map to be a dynamic document for environmental designations, which would really benefit from this degree of flexibility; I think the only option is to supplement it with other reports, and ensure that in the policy & RJ, the relationship between these supporting documents and their role in the planning process are clearly explained. http://www.basildon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2112&p=0 http://www.basildon.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=2110&p=0 I would not recommend anyone puts flood zones on a Proposals Map. They can be updated every 3 months by the EA and are available to the public in any case from the EA's website. I think a hyperlink in the polcy document to the EA website would ensure that accurate guidance on the presence of flood plains and the risk they pose is interpreted properly.
Forgot to add...whilst PPS12 might say that flood plains should be on the PM, I think there are grounds to battle this out at an EiP on the grounds of misleading anyone interpreting the map. Personally, I would leave the flood zones off the map and include in the Legend/ Key - that detailed flood zone information is available from the EA's website on a postcode basis. If PINS are insistant that the flood zones go on - then they should do this through one of their changes. I would doubt whether you would be found unsound for missing this information off your PM; unless you hadn't applied its data to your allocations, etc through the Sequential & Exception tests. The concept of a PM with everything on it pre-dates the availability and opportunities for information access that the Internet provides. With the Internet, the PM concept needs to start moving with the times and existing alongside other sources of information from other data providers.
This is an issue we are considering as we progress our Environment DPD. Para 8.1 of PPS12 is clear that 'locally designated sites and areas' and 'areas at risk from flooding' should be identified on the proposals map. I appreciate that these are designations that are likely to change; however, wouldn’t a document be found unsound if it didn’t include them? With regards to flood risk, I would be inclined to leave the designation off the proposals map (as discussed in the earlier post) and refer to the SFRA or EA website. It could be a matter for consultation with relevant bodies or examination to discuss the merits of this approach. Could designated sites such as ‘Local Wildlife Sites’ be included on the proposals map with an acknowledgement that this was correct at the time of printing and should only be a guide. Further to this the AMR could be used to update the list of designated sites.