Core Strategies and Open Space Standards - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Grŵp agored
|
Wedi dechrau - Gorffenaf 2012
|
Gweithgaredd diwethaf - May
Core Strategies and Open Space Standards
andrew waterhouse, Addaswyd 12 Years yn ôl.
Core Strategies and Open Space Standards
New Member Postiadau: 6 Dyddiad Ymuno: 20/10/2011 Bostiadau diweddar
0
Hi, We are currently preparing a Core Strategy for Derby and are thinking through how we might express a GI/Open Space policy or policies. In particular, we are considering if and how it might address open space standards. We've seen quite varied approaches to this ranging from general GI policies that do not include any quantitative or accessibility standards (presumably leaving it to SPD/CIL?), through to those that establish a broad district wide quantitave figure (x ha/1000 population) but leave the detail to other documents, through to those that include quite a bit of detail. I don't want to include too much detail, but am concerned that if we don't have some sense of how much we should be asking for, we will come unstuck on appeals. So one of my qyuestions is whether it would be robust to include all standards in SPD, or is this one of the 'difficult questions' that core strategies should address? Any views?
In my experience, we originally set out to include our latest open space standards as an appendix to our Core Strategy, although Sport England advised us to remove this and include them in an SPD instead - the reason being that standards can change over time with new evidence coming on board, and therefore an SPD is a better home for them to take account of any updates. The Core Strategy policy can then just say it will take account of any provision standards developed as part of the evidence base and that SPDs will set out the requirements in response to them.
This query raises a broader issue about the relationship between DPDs and SPDs. Certainly a Core Strategy would not be the most appropriate place to include detailed standards; at most there should be a strategic policy, perhaps relating overall provision to population. I would have said that more detailed criteria based policies would be better placed in a subsequent DPD dealing with site allocations or development control policy. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty until will see the final NPPF as to whether this approach will be favoured. One thing that is unlikely to change is that if you are thinking of applying policy to specific areas of land that must be in a DPD. I would say that detailed standards are best set out in SPD which, provided that they have been subject to full public participation, will usually be given weight at appeal. But, it is wise to bear in mind the Great Portland Estates v. Westminster CC judgement should you intend to base a refusal solely on a failure to comply with standards. A developer might argue that there has not been an opportunity to formally challenge the standards before an Inspector at examination.
Agree with John, also the NPPF and draft new development plan regs as drafted mean that an almost impossible bar against SPD is set. The Portland test means that id none compliance leads to refusal then should be in a DPD, the detail of how you might achieve that should be in SPD. Then you can rightly say there is no 'compliance cost' with following the SPD.