Contact your Parish Council

13

Box 1.1

This text box sets out a detailed programme for the next steps in the neighbourhood plan process. Whilst acknowledging this has been included as an informative for the public, it is now dated and does not reflect current circumstances. For example, the timescale for Examination in June/July 2024 will not be achievable given that the Regulation 16 public consultation will close 12 August. It is suggested that Box 1.1 is amended to refer to the key stages only, or alternatively, amended with updated the dates, as appropriate.

28

4.1

This paragraph states “all plans should set out a clear design vision and expectations”. For clarity, it is recommended that the policy is reworded along the following lines: “all planning applications submitted should set out a clear design vision and expectations…”

28

4.4

For clarity and to aid plan implementation, it is suggested that this paragraph makes specific reference to Policy HNP1 (Design Policy for Headcorn).

30

Section 5 - Design guidance

It is recommended that additional informative text is included within this section to make clear that the design guidance section is not to be taken as policy for the purpose of planning decisions.

29

HNP Policy 1

HNP Policy 1.C sets out that new development within the parish will be permitted if the development is sympathetic to the setting of a heritage asset. MBC considers there is a general conformity issue with Policies LPR6, LPRSP14(B) and LPRENV1 (which MBC highlighted in its Regulation 14 response). MBC recommends the HNP Policy 1 would benefit from the inclusion of text to recognise the scope for the conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and their setting.

84

HNP Policy 2

HNP Policy 2 deals, at various criteria, with development in or affecting the countryside. The policy is not considered to be consistent with NPPF paragraph 186 and not in general conformity with Policy LPRSP9. It is recommended that the policy is amended to reflect the key test in LPRSP9, which assesses whether development will result in ‘significant harm’ to the rural character and appearance of the area. This would ensure the policy is positively worded and does not preclude new appropriately located and well-designed development from coming forward in the countryside.

84

HNP Policy 2

HNP Policy 2.2 refers to HNP Policy Map 12: Key views in and around Headcorn Village. It is suggested that further clarification is included within to the policy to identify the views that should be protected and those views that could be improved. This would aid in the implementation of the policy.

84

HNP Policy 2

HNP Policy 2.11 addresses flood risk management. There is a consistency issue with the NPPF and general conformity concern with Policy LPRSP14(C). It should not be for the Parish Council to determine where flood risk is an issue, as set out in the policy; rather this should be informed by the latest technical evidence, such as Environment Agency flood risk maps, and information/advice issued by the lead local flood authority for the authority area. Furthermore, the policy should respond to Government policy and guidance on the appropriate locations for different types of development, in accordance with the sequential and exception tests. For instance, the policy indicates that no development will be permissible in Flood Zone 3b, whereas the NPPF/PPG provides that essential infrastructure may be appropriate in Zone 3b subject to the exception test being satisfied.

86

HNP Policy 2

HNP Policy 2.15 is considered to be overly onerous in seeking to ensure that development is avoided in locations which are more than 200 metres of at least two established dwellings. This approach is not considered to be consistent with the NPPF nor in conformity with LPRSP6 and LPRSP9 in setting a positive framework for facilitating development in this area. It is recommended that policy refers instead to adverse impacts on local character, including the countryside, having regard to relevant higher-level policies.

91

HNP Policy 3

It is recommended that HNP Policy 3.3 be amended to be more positively worded and to provide greater flexibility for design solutions that may enable development to come forward, where appropriate. For example, the criterion could emphasise that development should be designed to connect to the existing highway network, whilst seeking to avoid the need to cross additional field boundaries, so to ensure there will be no adverse impacts on local character.

91

HNP Policy 3

It is not entirely clear what HNP Policy 3.10 is seeking to achieve or how it will be implemented effectively. This may be a matter of wording and discussion with the Parish Council, which can be explored through the examination.

100

HNP Policy 4

HNP Policy 4.A sets outs proposed car parking standards. The justification for this approach is included in the policy supporting text, however much of the evidence relies on visitor surveys and is also heavily focussed on commuter parking, with limited technical evidence for the proposed residential parking standards. MBC seeks to ensure that that the approach to parking is sufficiently justified. It is recommended that HNP Policy 4.A is amended to align with LPRTR4; and whilst this is not a strategic policy for neighbourhood plans, it will help to ensure consistency in the approach to managing car parking provision and sustainable transport across the borough. In particular, the LPR reflects the evidence-based approach applied by Kent County Council, including the KCC Interim Guidance Note 3 (IGN3).

101

HNP Policy 4

To aid policy implementation, it is suggested that HNP Policy 4.B be amended to refer to Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) to align with the accepted industry terminology and that used in the LPR.

101

HNP Policy 4

HNP Policy 4.B.1 should be amended to remove reference to ‘British Telecom’ in order to ensure the policy is responsive to potential future changes in infrastructure providers.

103

HNP Policy 4

It is unclear how HNP Policy 4.D.1 will be implemented. It proposes that the energy performance of applications will be assessed against that of ‘standard properties of the type proposed’. The wording of this part of the policy is vague, and it is unclear what ‘standard properties’ would be used as a comparative benchmark in planning decisions. Overall, the policy would benefit from clearer standards against which developments can be assessed. For clarity, reference could be made to Policy LPRSP13(C), a strategic policy, along with Policy LPRQD1 which sets out borough-wide sustainable design standards. It is noted that MBC is currently in the process of preparing a Design and Sustainability DPD which will provide further detailed policies on this topic area.

103

HNP Policy 4

HNP Policy 4.E sets out priorities for infrastructure spending in Headcorn. Whilst MBC does not have an objection to the inclusion of a priority list for infrastructure spending within the plan, the policy should be amended to make clear that this list is specific to the neighbourhood proportion of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts passed to the Parish Council. It is important that this list is not conflated with or otherwise undermines the Borough Council’s strategic approach to infrastructure funding, including the use of CIL and planning contributions, as provided by Policy LPRSP13. The LPR approach to infrastructure funding is supported by a significant amount of technical evidence, such as the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Integrated Transport Strategy. Approaches to prioritising funding, including in the neighbourhood plan, should be robustly supported by evidence.

106

Para 9.10

This paragraph sets out a definition of self-build housing for Headcorn. It is recommended that this paragraph is amended to refer to and/or align with the legal definition of self-build housing set out in legislation (i.e., the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016).

119

HNP Policy 5

HNP Policy 5.I.(I.I).iv should be amended to align with LPRENV2 (Change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden land). This will help to ensure it reflects national planning policy considerations on safeguarding the open, rural character of the countryside, including by having regard to the best and most versatile agricultural land.

119

HNP Policy 5

HNP Policy 5.I.(I.2) sets out density standards for new residential development. It provides for a guideline minimum density of 15 dwellings per hectare (excluding ‘micro developments’) and a maximum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. MBC has concerns that these thresholds may preclude new development from coming forward to meet identified housing needs, including needs for the neighbourhood area, in accordance with Policy LPRSP10. It is noted that Policy LPRHOU5 sets out a minimum standard of 30 dwellings per hectare at sites within or adjacent to Rural Service Centres, which includes Headcorn.

119

HNP Policy 5

HNP Policy 5.I.(I.3) is considered to be too restrictive in enabling development to come forward within the Headcorn Rural Service Centre and is therefore not in general conformity with Policy LPRSP6. Specifically, it sets out exceptions to the location and types of development that may be permissible outside of site allocation policies, and these do not accord with those requirements set out in the LPR.

120

HNP Policy 5 

HNP Policy 5.II.(II.5) sets out requirements on affordable housing tenure mix, with priority given to affordable home ownership (at a 50% target for this tenure type). This is not in conformity with Policy LPRSP10, which sets a target of 75% for social / affordable rented and 25% intermediate or affordable home ownership. The LPR policy has been informed by a robust Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

120

HNP Policy 5

HNP Policy 5.III 9 sets out a threshold for the number of units (25) permissible for residential development outside of site allocation policies. It also includes a size threshold for community self-build projects (9 units). It is not clear how the threshold numbers have been derived and the extent to which they are underpinned by technical evidence; whilst the policy supporting text provides justification and narratives around local character, with some housing delivery statistics included, it also relies heavily on resident survey and agent survey information. MBC also has concerns that the threshold approaches may preclude appropriately located and well-designed development from coming forward within Headcorn in order to meet identified housing needs.

129

HNP Policy 6

HNP Policy 6.C effectively requires that funding must be provided to restore land where development involving commercial energy generation has ceased or equipment has become redundant. It is not clear how this policy can be implemented effectively.

130

Glossary

The definition of ‘Community Self-build Scheme’ should be amended to align with the legal definition set out in legislation.

131

Glossary

The definition of ‘Dwelling’ should be amended having regard to the distinction with accommodation types set out in the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

132

Glossary

The definition of ‘Gypsy and Traveller Pitch’ should be amended to align with that set out in the Government’s Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

142

Appendix 2

The Appendix should be updated to reference the strategic policies contained within the adopted Local Plan Review, rather than those in the Local Plan 2017, which has been superseded.