POLICY DP6 Mitigating the impacts of development

Transcription

1 POLICY DP6 Mitigating the impacts of development 1 Purpose of policy To ensure that developments provide appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts that they may have and additional needs that they may generate. In addition, the policy approach defines the particular exception criteria that will need to be satisfied in order for a development that would have an unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance to be permitted. 2 Salford s current role / status in relation to policy issue 2.1 Policy DEV5 Planning conditions and obligations within the Salford Unitary Development Plan sets out that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of acknowledged importance or would result in a material increase in the need or demand for infrastructure, services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are put in place. The policy approach of Policy DP6 in the Publication Core Strategy takes forward this principle, but is necessarily wider in its scope as it sets out four key criteria that must be satisfied for development proposals that would have an unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance to be permitted. 2.2 In addition, the city council has an adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 1 which provides additional guidance on the use of planning obligations within the city and sets out a standardised approach to the calculation of planning obligations on the basis of the number of bedspaces (for residential uses) and floorspace (for non-residential uses). 3 Issues and Options Options identified The document proposed a single development management policy (P2). Across all four options, the development management policy proposed the following approach. Where development would have an unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance, it will only be permitted where: a. There is a clear and demonstrable need for the development; b. There are no practicable alternative solutions that would have a lesser impact, either on the proposed site or on reasonable, suitable and available alternative sites; 1 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document Salford City Council (March 2007). 1

2 c. The benefits of the development clearly outweigh the negative impacts; and d. Mitigation measures are implemented to fully address and/or offset the negative impacts. Key issues raised during consultation There were no representations made in relation to this policy issue. Key conclusions from the SA / SEA One of the identified sustainability objectives within the SA is to protect and enhance amenity. In relation to this objective, the SA noted that the proposed development management policy specifically requires development to not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity or privacy of existing or proposed developments. The SA found that this should generally help to protect and enhance amenity (p91). 4 Alternative Options No alternative options were proposed by stakeholders in relation to this issue. 5 Draft Policy approach The document proposed a single development management policy (DM1). Amongst its various provisions, the policy set out that where development would have an unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance, it will only be permitted where: a. There is a clear and demonstrable need for the development; b. There are no practicable alternative solutions that would have a lesser impact, either on the proposed site or on reasonable, suitable and available alternative sites; c. The benefits of the development clearly outweigh the negative impacts; and d. Mitigation measures are implemented to fully address and/or offset the negative impacts. The policy also identified that where appropriate, conditions, planning obligations and/or the Community Infrastructure Levy will be used to mitigate negative impacts. Key issues raised during consultation No representations were made in relation to these specific elements of the policy. A number of representations did however make a general expression of support for the development management policy as a whole. 2

3 Key conclusions from the SA / SEA, HIA and CIA One of the identified sustainability objectives within the SA is to protect and enhance amenity. In relation to this objective, the SA noted that the proposed development management policy specifically requires development to not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity or privacy of existing or proposed developments. The SA found that this should generally help to protect and enhance amenity (p91). The SA, HIA and CIA did not make reference to this specific policy issue, although they did consider the general approach set out in the single development management policy (DM1) would deliver positive outcomes. 6 Pre-Publication The issues covered by this policy were not dealt with at this stage. 7 Publication 7.1 There has been a consistent policy approach in relation to the issues addressed by Policy DP6 of the Publication Core Strategy through the Issues and Options, Draft and Publication stages. Where this was previously addressed within the single development management policy at earlier stages of production, for the purpose of the Publication Core Strategy it has been identified and expanded as a specific policy in its own right. There have been no representations made in respect of this policy issue at earlier stages, and the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, Health Impact Assessment and Community Impact Assessment have not identified any areas for concern / improvement in relation to this policy issue. 7.2 This development management policy is broad in its scope and is an important policy that could be applied in relation to a wide range of development proposals in order to ensure that developments provide appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts that they may have and additional needs that they may generate. 7.3 The key elements of the policy approach are set out below. Key elements of policy approach 7.4 There are two key elements of the policy approach, the first relating to the requirement that all development should provide appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts that it may generate, and secondly that where a development would have an unacceptable impact it will need to satisfy four defined criteria in order to be permitted. Each of these elements is discussed in turn below. 3

4 All development should provide appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts 7.5 This element of the policy approach applies to all development, and requires that where a development would have any negative impact or generate additional needs, that appropriate mitigation should be provided. 7.6 The range of potential mitigation measures are necessarily very broad in scope, and will clearly derive from the nature of the negative impacts or the additional need that would be generated. Examples could include: o Design-related mitigation measures for example, the treatment of fenestration or the obscure glazing of windows in order to prevent overlooking of surrounding residential uses. There are clear links here to the design policies within the Publication Core Strategy. o External mitigation measures for example boundary treatments and screening to mitigate the visual impact of development. Again, there are clear links here to the design policies within the Publication Core Strategy. o Infrastructure-related mitigation measures where a development proposal would place an unacceptable pressure on existing infrastructure, mitigation measures could include the expansion of infrastructure capacity, for example highway junction improvements or a new access road. Another example of infrastructure-related mitigation measures could be funding the physical extension of a primary school where a new housing development would create a demand for primary pupil places that could not be met within the existing capacity of local schools. o Operational mitigation measures for example limiting the hours of operation of the development proposal, or restricting heavy goods vehicle access to specified highway routes to minimise negative impacts on the highway network and local amenity. o Other mitigation measures the scope of potential mitigation measures is very broad and it is not practical to cover all eventualities in this context. However, examples of other mitigation measures that the city council has previously secured via s106 planning obligation include: a financial contribution towards the implementation of a residents parking scheme where a development would generate an unacceptable impact in terms of staff and visitor on-street parking outside residential properties 2 ; the funding of an annual public transport travel pass for the first occupier of each residential unit in order to encourage public transport use 3 ; and 2 Planning application reference 06/53290/REM: Salford Royal Hospital, Eccles Old Road. 3 Planning application reference 05/50913/FUL: Clippers Quay, Salford Quays. 4

5 the funding of a shuttle bus service to connect an out-ofcentre retail development proposal with a nearby town centre The policy makes clear that where appropriate, the city council will use planning conditions, planning obligations and/or the Community Infrastructure Levy to secure and deliver mitigation measures. The mechanism utilised will clearly be contingent on the scale and nature of the mitigation measure. 7.8 Where the mitigation measure involves a financial contribution from the developer, the city council will secure this via a s106 planning obligation. In doing this it will clearly have regard to the guidance in Circular 5/05 Planning Obligations 5 and the three tests that were made statutory from 6 April 2010 via the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) In relation to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), it is likely that the city council will seek to adopt a charging schedule in advance of April 2014 when the limitations on the pooling of s106 planning obligations come into effect, and therefore funding secured via CIL could in future represent an additional funding mechanism to deliver mitigation measures. Development that would result in an unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance 7.10 The starting point for this element of the policy approach is that development that would have an unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance will not normally be permitted. Recognising that there may be instances where it is impossible to fully avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of a development and that in some instances the positive impacts of a development could outweigh potentially significant negative impacts, the policy sets out four criteria that would need to be satisfied for such development to be permitted. All four of these criteria would need to be satisfied, and each is discussed in turn below. Clear and demonstrable need for the development 7.11 Where a development would have a clear unacceptable impact on an interest of acknowledged importance, it will be important for the applicant to demonstrate that there is a demonstrable need for the development. As a result of their unacceptable impact, such development should only be permitted if absolutely necessary and not 4 Planning application reference 09/57457/FUL: West One Retail Park, Eccles. 5 Circular 5/05 Planning Obligations Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (July 2005). 6 Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 HM Government (April 2010). 5

6 simply because there is a demand from developers. In terms of interpreting need the city council will take an approach that is reasonably related to the scale and nature of the development proposal. In relation to housing, the Draft NPPF identifies that authorities should plan to address the need for all types of housing 7. The case for need in relation to housing would have to be made in relation to housing need across the city and the delivery of the housing trajectory. There are therefore clear links here to Policies H2 and H3 of the Publication Core Strategy. In relation to town centre uses, the issue of need is also well established in the context of planning policy. PPS4 recognises that authorities should plan proactively to meet the need for town centre uses 8, and the Draft NPPF continues this approach 9. There are clear links here to Policies EC2 and TC3 of the Publication Core Strategy in relation to the need for office floorspace and retail and leisure floorspace across the city. In relation to other uses, the issue of need is less clearly defined, and in these instances the city council will take an approach that is reasonably related to the nature of the development proposal. No practicable alternative development solutions 7.12 This criterion requires that there are no practicable alternative development solutions that would have a lesser impact, either located on the proposed site or on reasonable, suitable and available alternative sites. In terms of alternative solutions on the proposed site, this will relate to the position of the development within the site and its form. Through appropriate positioning and design of the development (for example in terms of building height, separation distances, or avoiding identified habitats that exist on the site) in many instances it will be possible to minimise any negative impact in this regard. There will however be instances where the negative impacts relate to the principle of the use rather than the design and positioning of the development proposal itself. In such instances where repositioning or redesign would not overcome these negative impacts, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites that are reasonable, suitable and available to accommodate the development proposal In this context, the reasonable area of search will be interpreted with due regard to the need identified under criterion 1. In demonstrating need, it will be necessary to consider the geography of that need and the appropriate area within which it needs to be met. This will necessarily define the appropriate area of search. Sites outside of the 7 Draft National Planning Policy Framework Department for Communities and Local Government (July 2011) para Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth Department for Communities and Local Government (December 2009) para EC Draft National Planning Policy Framework Department for Communities and Local Government (July 2011) para 76. 6

7 appropriate area of search would not properly meet the identified need and would not therefore represent practicable alternatives The definition of suitability is well established in planning policy. In relation to housing sites, PPS3 identifies suitability as one of the three core requirements for a site to be considered deliverable for housing. It defines suitability as where the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities 10. Suitability is also defined in the context of the sequential approach to town centre uses within PPS4 and its companion guide. This defines suitability as with due regard to the requirements to demonstrate flexibility, whether sites are suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the proposal is intended to meet 11. This is considered to be an appropriate definition in the context of this criterion within Policy DP6 of the Publication Core Strategy The definition of site availability is also well established in planning policy. In relation to housing sites, PPS3 defines availability as one of the three core requirements for a site to be considered deliverable for housing within the first five years 12. Availability is also defined in the context of the sequential approach to town centre uses within PPS4 and its companion guide. This defines availability as whether sites are available now or are likely to become available for development within a reasonable period of time (determined on the merits of a particular case, having regard to inter alia, the urgency of the need) 13. This is considered to be an appropriate definition in the context of this criterion within Policy DP6 of the Publication Core Strategy. If a site is not currently or likely to become available then it cannot realistically be considered to be a practicable alternative This is an important criterion that applicants will need to address in relation to development proposals that would have an unacceptable negative impact, in order to ensure that there are no appropriate alternative options that could have a lesser impact. It takes a pragmatic approach in terms of ensuring that the amount of work developers are required to undertake to assess alternative sites is reasonable and proportionate. 10 Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Department for Communities and Local Government (June 2011), para Planning for Town Centres: practice guide on need, impact and the sequential assessment Department for Communities and Local Government (December 2009), para Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing Department for Communities and Local Government (June 2011), para Planning for Town Centres: practice guide on need, impact and the sequential assessment Department for Communities and Local Government (December 2009), para

8 Benefits of the development outweigh the negative impacts 7.17 The policy approach recognises that in some circumstances, it will be impossible to fully avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of a development, but it is appropriate to permit the proposal because its positive impacts would outweigh those disadvantages. In such circumstances, it is likely to be the case that the negative impacts are felt locally (for example in terms of impacts on the local highway network, or the amenity of adjoining uses) whilst the benefits are experienced more widely (for example in terms of employment creation, or enhanced provision of services or facilities to meet the needs of the community). This is a central tension that the planning system frequently has to mediate. This criterion is therefore important to enable the city council to balance these wider impacts in its determination of planning applications which would have an unacceptable impact. Mitigation measures are implemented to minimise the negative impacts 7.18 Where a development has satisfied the first three criteria of the policy approach, it will have been established that there is a demonstrable need for the development, that no reasonable alternatives exist, and that the benefits of the development outweigh the negative impacts. In these circumstances, the principle of the development will have been established and it is then about ensuring that mitigation measures are implemented to minimise and compensate for the negative impacts as far as possible. This is addressed within the fourth criterion, and detail on the range of mitigation measures which may be considered appropriate is set out above in relation to the first key element of the policy approach. 8