Hello. Does anyone have any examples of changes to a neighbourhood
plan that would 'change the nature of the plan' please? The PPG gives
the example of allocating new sites for significant development - our
2nd Ed NP (currently at Reg14) doesn't do this, but it does introduce
new policies - would they constitute a change of the nature of the
plan? Just trying to find some examples for when I ask the QB for
their statement as to how significant they think their changes are.
Sorry to hijack this message Jo, but you have reminded me of a
slightly related matter which I would just throw out for info/comment.
On Neighbourhood Plans, regs govern how they are set up. We had a body
of people who went through due process and established a
Neighbourhood Forum because they wanted to do a Neighbourhood Plan. We
engaged with them and established a defined Neighbourhood Plan Area
with them which was set as a boundary through due process. So we have
a Neighbourhood Area established. They set about writing their plan.
Unfortunately they had the wrong idea. They wanted the plan to be very
restrictive and the policies they wanted were more about anti social
behaviour etc. After a while they gave up and disbanded, indicating
that they were no longer intending to do a Plan. However, that left
us with a defined Neighbourhood Area. And there are requirements in
the NPPF about such areas. So we decided the best thing to do would be
to withdraw/remove the neighbourhood area as it served no purpose.
After looking into it and taking legal advice it appeared at the time
that there is actually no mechanism to remove a Neighbourhood Area
once it has been established. There are only regs for creating
one. So, once one is created..that's it.
Don't know if anyone else has any experience of this.
Revoking/cancelling a Neighbourhood Plan area?
On the question of 'abandoned' neighbourhood areas, there are several
in London. They are referred to by as neighbourhoodplanners.london as
'orphan areas'. Most result from the local authority resisting the
boundary that was applied for and amending it to such an extent that
no forum subsequently wanted to progress to a plan. Or from local
authorities 'refusing' the forum part of a designation application, on
questionable grounds. leaving the area 'orphaned'.
This has happened on two occasions as a result of deisgnation
applications to LB Hammersmith & Fulham, resulting in an unnamed
neighbourhood area at Eynham Road W12 and another one at the Old Oak
Estate, south of Wormwwod Scrubs.
So it does seem unclear whether such areas remain in a ghost-like
limbo, or expire after five years as would a forum which does not
apply for re-designation. Other may have found a relevant piece of
On the original question of what constitutes 'changing the nature of
a plan' the content of the NPPG does not seem precise. I have not
come across enough examples of second edition NPs to know where a line
Jonathan, the situaton of 'orphan' neighburhood areas in London,
which I referred to, is where no forum was ever designated. New
proposals for a forum could have come forward in these areas - but
have not (for several years).
My assumption is that the local authority would not have begun to
think about working out a housing requirement in either case. The
Borough Council would have considered this an unnecessary step unless
and until triggered by signs of a NP in preparation. Where a
nieghbourhood area forms a small part of a densely built London local
authority, arriving at a housing target cannot be an easy task.
Others will know more than me about examples where such targets have
been set and how they have featured at examination stage. Best wishes.