Re: Strategic Site Allocations in Core Strategies - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

We are planning to include strategic alllocations in our Core Strategy and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues you have raised, most of which we are struggling with at the moment.

Ditto, We are thinking of including strategic allocations in oure Core Strategy too and would be interested in partaking in discussions with other authorities as to the issues this approach may raise.

Does anyone know if the proposed guidance on Strategic Sites referred to above (by Ian at ATLAS) has been published or is due to become available any time soon? We are interested for example in size and type of sites to be included, as well as the process of consulting on these including the need for options appraisal.

Having recently had a PINS "frontloading" visit we took the opportunity to discuss a possible expansion of the idea of strategic sites. The idea of developing strategic "locations" or "areas" for those parts of our district where we either did not wish/or were unable to preceisely describe a site boundary from the outset in our Core Strategy OR where we felt that a broad area, proabalably running to several hundred hectares (in which there may be one or more strategic sites) was of sufficient importance to warrant particular attention. The visiting inspector had no expericence of such an approach and indicated that it would need to be justified and eveloped in the same way as a strategic site. Dover recently published a submission Core Strategy with several strategic sites in, so you might take a look at that.

Wokingham's Core Strategy includes four strategic sites. The Examination closed on 30 April and the Inspector's Report is due in October this year. Details of the Core Strategy is available on the Council's website at http://www2.wokingham.gov.uk/environment/planning/ldf/core-strategy/examination-core-strategy. You are welcome to contact me if you want further details of the Core Strategy together with the identified strategic sites.

The issue of Strategic Site Allocations seems to be leading to some confusion as to what PPS12 meant when it included those additional words; whether it meant that tall CS would have allocation powers, and therefore reduce the need for seperate Site Allocation DPDs (and perhaps speed things up with securing policy revisions) or whether a CS could allocate, but only if it really needed to to ensure delivery in the short term. I think that enabling Core Strategies to allocate land is a good way forward and a natural progression in light of the SHLAA and other land availability work that is going on. (Arguably, perhaps, some might say a return to old local plan system). However, what do people interpret whether faced with the term 'strategic sites'? If we just go on a number of units that would suggest for example, an urban extension type of development, could consider 300- 500+ units as strategic. That would be a simple way of defining 'strategic', and perhaps easily hooks up with previous definitions or practice. But if we are to take the spatial Core Strategy principles to heart, then Strategic could mean what ever action is needed to deliver the spatial objectives of the core strategy and these may not link up with the size of sites. A LA could for example have one large 100ha site that could deliver all its housing needs and targets that its Core Strategy sets out - this could be strategic. However, another could have similar needs and targets that it wishes to deliver, but the best option could be to develop 50 sites in seperate locations of between 1-2ha, that could be spread around its LPA area. In size terms they may not be considered strategic - but in terms of delivering the Core Strategy - collectively they would be crucial, despite being physically smaller on a site by site basis. Any thoughts - or am I just reading too much into things?

Matthew, I think your last paragraph is right on the money. I would steer well clear of thinking about sizes, whether that be hectares or housing numbers. Nationally, it was impossible to suggest at a stroke what size would qualify as a 'strategic site'. If you stick to your thinking about what elements of the overall strategy are reliant on certain key sites (or possibly areas, as with Mr Eccles), and as long as the eveidence backs that up, then it is those sites which ought perhaps to be allocated in the CS. For the simple fact that there are so many different types of bourough and district out there, I would encourage everyone to stop thinking about size, and think about contribution to the strategy. Ask, 'if this site is not delivered, how will this impact on the strategy'.