NP Sustainability Appraisal - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Tim, I've actually spent a while now putting together a Neighbourhood Plan Scoping Report for Buckingham Town Council. We're slightly unique though as we're a frontrunner area and also have a dedicated officer (myself) to facilitate the Neighbourhood Plan. If it wasn't for that fact I think the LPA would have had a lot more to do with it, however they have provided regular feedback on it and arranged for an early draft to be audited by an independent consultant. Most of the evidence in the report is also taken from existing LPA sources, so while they may not have written it, they have plenty of say on it and provide the background. I understand that other authorities (specifically from my knowledge, Maidenhead & Windsor) are intending the Neighbourhood Plan SA/SEA requirement to be met via the existing Local Plan SA. We've always been told that each plan will need to be subject to its own SA though and as we're looking for a fairly robust plan, are intending to use SA at the policy option stage too. I'm afraid our own Scoping Report, although technically complete, won't be published until next month. In the meantime, Thame Town Council (another frontrunner area) did publish theirs not long ago. Again there is a slightly unique situation though because they are paying consultants to oversee the whole process and produce documents like the SA Scoping. It can be found here: http://www.thametowncouncil.gov.uk/images/stories/pdfdownloads/sascopingreport10.01.12.pdf

Can anyone tell me how to decide whether or not a Neighbourhood Plan should be subject to SEA/SA? Guidance I've read suggests that if a plan is voluntary, there is no legal requirement for SEA/SA, yet everyone seems to be suggesting that you should SA all plans. Is this an over-cautious, 'better-safe-than sorry' approach, or is there a legal basis for insisting on SA, apart from the fact that it may just be good practice? There seems to me to be world of difference between telling parishes that they should undertake SA for their Neighbourhood Plans because if they don't it might be legally challenged, or just because it will help them make a better plan.

Judith. Presumably the line from DCLG you heard was based on an argument that the only reference in the NPPF to a requirement for SA is in para. 165 in the section which refers to Local Plans and references to Neighbourhood Plans only come after that, para 183 onwards. Thus no requirement for SA in a NP? Whereas obligation for SEA comes from superior EU requirement SEA Directive 2001/42/EC which domestic legislation cannot abrogate? Even if a SA isn't explicitly "legislated" how are alternative proposals objectively assessed against the yardstick of "sustainable development? An excellent article by Jane Mulcahey.in Planning 5th April addresses the uncertainties over SA for NPs and the risks following some LPs being found unsound ....... http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Environment/article/1126015/will-nppf-deliver-sustainable-development/ This would suggest NP preparation needs to be alert to the same challenge. Roll on Case Law! At Dawlish last month the non-statutory neighbourhood plan submission was supported by a SA prepared by the LPA. This plan is with an independent assessor (who intends to report next month). The Core Strategy Local Plan for the area has not been completed. As a Planning Aid Advisor I've suggested to local groups wishing to embark with Neighbourhood forum's NPs that 1. SEA's are necessary and that SA's are desirable to address "sustainability" concerns, 2. such exercises need not be daunting since they should only be "proportionate" 3. need not address matters already covered where CS and other LPs are in place supported by their own SAs 4. only address "new" issues arising from the NP 5. as with other aspects developing a good working relationship with the LPA Planning Policy Team is desirable - even though resource constraints are biting more resources could get expended (wasted!) if there is a lack of "synchronicity" in the NP preparation! 5. finally, even where the LPA may be less than helpful and not offering to help with this admittedly technical piece of work there is help available and that a positive attitude for what SA done properly can achieve should be followed. Happy to be corrected on any of these points! As a footnote I have come across at least one example where, unfortunately, a LPA seems to be less enthusiastic about NPs arriving in their "domain" and trying to "rattle" a residents association who are taking steps to meet the Neighbourhood Forum requirements and have some enthusiasm to prepare a NP by suggesting that a full SA would have to be prepared by consultants, costing many thousands of pounds when the likely range of policies/proposals emerging do not at the outset at least seem to be particularly ambitious.

Thank you - this is very useful!

I was at a Planning Aid training event a couple of months ago, and we were told that the latest from CLG was that although there is no formal legal requirement, it is good practice to do SA. In terms of SEA, the LPA should prepare the Screening to identify whether SEA was needed. If it's needed, it is the responsibility of the NF/PC to undertake it.

“There is no harm in carrying out an SA where it is not legally required, but you can be legally challenged for not carrying out an SA where one is required. So in case of doubt, carry out the SA. You may want to do this anyway, simply because SAs help to make sure that your neighbourhood plan is as well thought-out and as sustainable as possible.” Will the plan propose a higher level of development than has been identified in the relevant LA Plan ? Will the plan lead to possible local development projects in the future? Will the Neighbourhood Plan be proposing usage of local identified sites? if any of these questions are yes then you are required to do an SA, and as mentioned its best to ask your LA if your plan will need it's own SA. Regards Adrian.

Hi We are currently consulting on the Scoping Reports for two of our Neighbourhood Plans (http://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/environment/planning/policy/ldf/neighbourhood_plans.htm). These have probably been prepared in the traditional planning way, although have had input from the communities. Craig

I think that it can be very useful for emerging NPs to engage with he principles of SEA, not just to ensure sustainable decision making through the plan, but to bring forward a mechanism for communities to generate and test options. This can lead to a more comprehensive and inclusive document, which may be more likely to be adopted by a community. The Levett-Therival draft guidance is always a good start to present to aspiring communities. http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk/DIYSA.pdf Should a situation arise where an issue is covered that is not strategically addressed by a higher level plan, it would be advisable for an NP to undertake an SEA to appraise this approach. Notwithstanding the potential for a clash with the policy approach from the LPA, this may constitute a substantive change to policy which needs to meet the requirements of SEA.

This thread has convinced me of the need to improve our FAQs. neighbourhood plans - do not need to engage formally with "Sustainability Appraisal" - need to ask for an SEA opinion using a simple template. The key question is "Is your plan likely to have a significant effect on the environment ?" - can expect to spend zero pounds and about 30 minutes on this issue And, in my opinion, if a neighbourhood plan does find it needs to carry out an appraisal under SEA then it should seriously consider whether it is the correct tool for the job. Time, perhaps, to make way for an AAP. Note this is probably bad advice for some of the business-backed neighbourhood plans that are actually planning for significant amounts of development. Note also that I'm not arguing against those that say "the principles of SA can be useful to make good plans".

From the outset, the Government's stated ethos for neighbourhood planning has been to enable communities to promote development over and above what is in the local plan. It seems to me that any plan which does this cannot hide behind higher level SEA and, at the very least, a scoping exercise to identify additional or different impacts, is necessary. Neighbourhood plans which seek to significantly change the pattern of development over a wide area, for example, by promoting dispersed development in the countryside ahead of allocations in villages, may have significantly different impacts. At the same time, you could argue that requirement for SEA over and above Local Plan SEA. was an in principle demonstration of strategic non-conformity, meaning that such a plan could not legally pass examination! Do you think anyone has thought this through?

I don't understand why a Neighbourhood Plan that is a site allocations document wouldn't need an SA? We have an adopted Core Strategy (with an SA). We are consulting on a Site allocations DPD (with an SA). Some of our Parishes/communities are thinking about producing a Neighbourhood Plan. They would in effect take a cookie cutter to our site allocations proposals map and undertake the task of allocating development sites within their area, in general conformity with the strategic requirements of the Core Strategy. If our Site Allocations document needs an SA, why doesn't a Neighbourhood Plan need one too?

And in response to Daniel Hudson, I understand that a Neighbourhood Plan can promote the same or more development than set out in the Core Strategy/Local Plan. But if the Neighbourhood Plan is to be in general conformity with the Core Strategy/Local Plan (which I think is a requirement) can it really 'seek to significantly change the pattern of development over a wide area'. Surely that would not be in general conformity with the Core Strategy/Local Plan, it would be revisiting the strategic policies, which is not (I thought) the intention for Neighbourhood Plans?

" If our Site Allocations document needs an SA, why doesn't a Neighbourhood Plan need one too?" This is a good question. Such a good question I'm going to see if I can get it answered as one of our new FAQs.... [edited to avoid cliff hanger] The reason is that neighbourhood plans are SPD. Even though they can allocate land, like a DPD. Neighbourhood plans are DPDs wrapped in SPD clothing. We'll come up with something better for the FAQs, as this just generates lots of sub-questions about how to manage the risks this creates.

Helen I know of a neighbourhood plan which is doing exactly that (promoting dispersed small scale development across a sparsely populated rural area and seeking to restrict development in villages, contrary to an adopted Core Strategy) and DCS are hailing it as an exemplar. The cookie cutter approach here is interesting and may have ramifications for the soundness of the allocations document. The inspector will want to know - i) can you be confident that the neighbourhood plans will deliver? ii) are you reliant on completions within these areas to meet your overall target or 5 year supply and iii) what is your strategy if they don't;

Richard, can you also clarify whether neighbourhood plans are DPDs for the purposes of Section 38? I must confess, i don't understand the distinction of a neighbourhood plan being a 'dpd wrapped in spd clothing'.

@Helen - is this a definition question, or is there something else you want to address in this FAQ ?

Apologies for the thread drift, but the DPD/SPD question does raise a few issues. I'm aware that there's some Neighbourhood Plans which may be adopted as SPD's rather than going through examination or referendum. If they've been prepared as DPD's with land allocations, but then go down the SPD route, does that raise problems re. any land allocation policies in the plan?

Richard. Sorry, i don't understand your question.

My understanding had been that neighbourhood plans essenatially introduce a new tier of planning policy doucment - lower than DPDs but higher up the chain than an SPD. I think this is a liitle different from the "DPD wrapped in SPD clothing" position expressed above. The impression we have been given is that on adoption of a Neighbourhood Plan, the NP would in effect 'trump' not just those non-strategic policies in the LPA's local plan with which it is in conflict (NPPF para 185), but also any SPDs that relate to the same matters addressed in the NP. To return to the SA point, our advice to parishes undertaking neighboruhood plans has been along the lines in Phillip's post in May abover - that SEA's are likely to be necessary and that SA's are desirable to address "sustainability" concerns,

The SA question for neighbourhood plans has been clarified on the PAS neighbourhood planning FAQs. http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=2497128 Neighbourhood plans are not legally required to have a sustainability appraisal undertaken on them as they are not DPDs. A community group producing a neighbourhood plan can decide to undertake an SA if they feel it would be useful in appraising the plan's impact but there is not a legal requirement to do so. A neighbourhood plan may be required to undertake an SEA if it has ambitious content. So neighbourhood plans should be SEA screened to see if it would trigger an SEA. It is strongly advise that this is looked at early with discussion between a community group producing a plan and the local authority advising them. I hope this clarification helps.