Development Management Policies. Topic Paper: Social & strategic infrastructure and cultural facilities

Transcription

1 Development Management Policies Topic Paper: Social & strategic infrastructure and cultural facilities August 2012

2 1. Outline 1.1. This topic paper provides justification for the Social and Strategic Infrastructure and Cultural Facilities policy in Islington s Development Management Policies DPD Submission Draft document. The paper also addresses comments which have arisen from the DPD consultation process. 2. Background 2.1. The Central London Infrastructure Study was commissioned by Central London Forward, a partnership of six inner London local authorities including Islington; the study identified the future need for social and strategic infrastructure in the Central London area Islington commissioned a borough-wide Infrastructure Delivery Plan which, alongside the Central London Study, provided the basis for the infrastructure policy in the Core Strategy, particularly what funded and unfunded infrastructure is required to support the growth set out in the Core Strategy Cultural Matters: a cultural strategy for Islington Council sets out the council s vision for culture in the borough and how cultural facilities can be maintained and developed. This document helped to inform the Core Strategy approach to culture and is intended to be read alongside Local Development Framework documents The council has undertaken an exercise to map all cultural, community and social facilities in the borough, which provides important baseline information to help assess planning applications, and will help monitor the effectiveness of the proposed DM Policy over time Islington started consultation on a draft preliminary charging schedule for the Community Infrastructure Level (CIL) in June 2012, with the aim of adopting the final schedule in early The draft charging schedule outlines what amounts will be charged per square metre of gross internal floorspace on new development; this money will then be used to fund much needed infrastructure in the borough, including social and strategic infrastructure relevant to draft policy DM29. A range of documents informed these predictions of what infrastructure will be required, notably the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. 3. Planning policy context 3.1. Islington s adopted Core Strategy sets the strategic direction for the proposed DM Policy. Section 4 of the Core Strategy considers that infrastructure can be split into two areas - strategic and social:

3 Strategic infrastructure covers transport and the public realm, utilities, and climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Social infrastructure covers education, health care, community spaces, leisure and recreation, open spaces, play spaces, criminal justice facilities and the emergency services The proposed DM policy applies to a wide variety of uses and facilities which collectively make up Islington s infrastructure network. Some of these areas are covered in more detail by other proposed DM Policies, for example, transport, open spaces, telecommunications and utilities Core Strategy policy CS14(A) sets the strategic direction for protecting and enhancing arts and cultural uses London Plan policy 3.16 aims to protect and enhance social infrastructure; the London Plan definition of social infrastructure largely covers the same areas as Islington s proposed DM Policy London Plan policy 3.17 covers health and social care facilities separately to social infrastructure but makes it clear in the supporting text (paragraph 3.92) that the policy complements policy 3.16 on social infrastructure and should be read in conjunction to policy 3.16 when planning for health and social facilities London Plan policy 3.18 covers education facilities separately to social infrastructure but makes it clear in the supporting text (paragraph 3.99) that the policy complements policy 3.16 on social infrastructure and should be read in conjunction to policy 3.16 when planning for education facilities London Plan policy 3.19 covers sports facilities separately to social infrastructure but makes it clear in the supporting text (paragraph 3.109) that the policy complements policy 3.16 on social infrastructure and should be read in conjunction to policy 3.16 when planning for sports facilities. NB: the proposed DM policy would cover sports facilities, but they are also covered under draft policy DM34 and DM London Plan policy 4.6 places great emphasis on the protection and enhancement of arts, culture, sport and entertainment provision, given that they provide many social and economic benefits to residents, workers and visitors in London One of the core planning principles in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to ensure that local strategies to promote health, social and cultural wellbeing are supported (paragraph 17). In addition to this, the NPPF directs local authorities to set out strategic priorities in their Local Plan, one of which is the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities (paragraph 156).

4 3.10. Given the wide range of uses associated with social and strategic infrastructure and cultural facilities, there are numerous other parts of the NPPF which are applicable to the proposed DM Policy: The NPPF directs local planning authorities to plan for cultural and community development in order to ensure the vitality of Town Centres (paragraph 23); generally, cultural facilities are considered to be a main Town Centre use, as are some social infrastructure uses; The NPPF states that provision of social, recreational and cultural facilities are a key factor in facilitating social interaction and delivering healthy, inclusive communities (paragraph 69-70); local planning authorities are required to plan positively for these facilities and guard against unnecessary loss. The NPPF states that local authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess the quality and capacity of various types of infrastructure, and its ability to meet forecast demands (paragraph 162). 4. Policy development 4.1. The DM Policies Issues and Options document (October 2009) option 26 proposed a policy to resist the loss of community and cultural facilities and encourage new provision. This approach was generally supported but there were comments requesting that the policy was suitably flexible to allow change of use where there was no longer demand; changes in level of need; where alternative facilities are provided locally and are accessible for intended users; and where loss is part of a wider strategy for provision of community service in the borough The DM Policies Direction of Travel document (November 2010) followed on from the Issues & Options document by proposing a policy which protected cultural, community and social uses, although the policy also provided criteria detailing when loss of these facilities would be acceptable. The DoT policy also had design and accessibility criteria which new facilities must meet. Comments received during the consultation process were again broadly supportive; one comment requested that the policy be made more flexible in terms of demonstrating lack of demand for continued community use Some minor amendments were made to the policy for the DM Policies Proposed Submission document (October 2011); the policy again received broadly supportive comments from most consultees; requested changes/points of clarity were for affordable housing to be stated as an appropriate alternative use where facilities are lost; for the policy to be flexible to allow loss of facilities where land is surplus to operational requirements; and the inclusion of a specific reference to Community Right to Buy.

5 4.4. Following the publication of the NPPF and consideration of comments received by various consultees and stakeholders, a schedule of changes to the Proposed Submission document was consulted on during May and June Policy DM29 was amended to better reflect the NPPF, the adopted Core Strategy and previous comments received. The policy was retitled Social and Strategic Infrastructure and Cultural Facilities ; the thrust of the policy remained the same (i.e. aim to protect and enhance facilities) but the policy was strengthened to ensure that facilities of particular value to communities in terms of their accessibility where not lost, and to better reflect terminology in the adopted Core Strategy and the London Plan It was considered important to strengthen the policy given that the NPPF encourages plans not to be silent. A subsequent review of the policy showed that it was generally silent on strategic infrastructure; the UDP had specific policies on utilities and public services and it was considered necessary to have a similar policy in the DM DPD, which should be read in conjunction with draft DM policy DM6 on utilities. The amendment to the policy also clarified exactly what would and would not be appropriate in terms of the loss of social infrastructure and cultural facilities, focusing on outcomes and ensuring consistency with relevant parts of the NPPF. 5. Justification for proposed policy 5.1. The provision and protection of infrastructure is extremely important, as it covers a wide range of uses which contribute to making Islington a safe, vibrant and accessible place to live The proposed DM policy has been drafted in a way which enables it to be applied to all types of social infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, etc. It aims to protect social infrastructure by not permitting loss or reduction in social infrastructure uses unless a number of criteria are satisfied. The single policy reflects the fact that use of facilities are often shared and therefore makes sense to have a single policy enveloping all of these uses The UDP had separate policies on a number of social infrastructure uses including education and health. These policies aimed to maintain quality and accessibility of service provision which meets the need of communities across the borough. The proposed single policy has similar criteria to ensure the same outcomes are achieved across all social infrastructure uses The broad nature of the policy, which applies to a wide range of uses, reflects the Core Strategy and the London Plan, which both included a number of facilities and uses within the general banding of social infrastructure.

6 5.5. Applications which would result a loss or reduction in these uses would have to demonstrate that this would not lead to: the loss of a facility which benefits local communities; a lesser standard of facility replacing the existing use; a shortfall in provision within the local catchment area; or less accessible and lower standard replacement facilities New social infrastructure must also meet a range of criteria in order to be deemed acceptable: It must be conveniently located for local communities and accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes; It must be designed inclusively, and adhere to design and space standards which meet the needs of its intended occupants; It must be sited to maximise shared use of the facility, particularly for recreational and community uses; and It must complement existing uses and the character of the area, and avoid adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding uses These criteria are rigorous and will ensure that social infrastructure uses are afforded maximum protection; for new uses, they will ensure that these are provided in accessible locations that will support their longterm success. This is consistent with national and regional planning policy Cultural facilities are also covered under the proposed DM policy. Cultural facilities are extremely important as they add to the quality of life of residents, mostly provide a unique function and often contribute significantly to the economic prosperity of an area. Islington has a long tradition of cultural provision; within the borough there is a range of locally and nationally significant cultural attractions, including numerous theatres, museums and arts facilities. Given their importance, the loss or change of use of existing cultural facilities will be strongly resisted. New cultural facilities must meet the same criteria as new social infrastructure (detailed above) Throughout all the consultation exercises undertaken for the DM Policies DPD, the various iterations of this policy, which all aimed to protect and enhance community and social facilities, have been broadly supported A representation was received requesting that a specific reference be made in the policy referring to the Community Right to Buy. The representation presumed that Community Right to Buy gave communities first refusal to buy eligible premises; in actuality, it only allows community groups extra time to bid for premises as and when they become available. The council considers that the Community Right to Buy is separate from the planning decision-making process and that, consistent with the NPPF, it should therefore not be included within a planning policy. However, it is considered that the proposed policies will support the Community Right to Buy process, and that the proposed

7 policy, amongst other proposed policies such as DM27 (Public Houses), could be used to strengthen the case for nominating community assets (the first stage of the Community Right to Buy process) Applications involving the loss of social infrastructure must demonstrate a lack of demand for continuation of similar uses on the site through provision of two years continuous marketing and vacancy evidence. This is considered an appropriate and acceptable length of time within which to establish whether there is market demand for the existing social infrastructure use whilst avoiding any long-term blight. By providing this information, applicants will demonstrate that there is no demand for continued such uses, which means the policy is flexible, and able to respond to changing circumstances over the plan period A representation was received stating that affordable housing should be prioritised as a suitable alternative use for community facilities, where loss of such facilities is unavoidable. It is considered that it would not be appropriate to amend the policy in this way, primarily because this policy does not have regard to suitable alternative uses (which would be assessed with reference to other policies). Part A of the policy does list rigorous criteria which must be met in order for the loss of facilities to be permitted. The commitment to provide affordable housing is detailed in the adopted Core Strategy and proposed DM Policy DM8, which would work alongside this policy if a change of use application was received Where a site is deemed to be surplus to operational requirements, for example a hospital, the policy has specific criteria which, when met, would allow the loss or reduction of facilities. Proposals would need to demonstrate that the loss or reduction of facilities would not lead to a shortfall in provision or that any replacement facilities would meet the need of the local population. Proposals would also need to show that there is no demand for other social infrastructure uses on the site, and that replacement/relocated facilities are equally as accessible and provide at least the same standard of provision. These are rigorous criteria but they do provide flexibility to allow for change of use where a site is genuinely deemed surplus to operational requirements. It is important that any proposal meets these criteria, given the importance of social infrastructure uses to local communities, and the significant adverse impacts that withdrawal of these uses, without proper replacement, can have on these communities The proposed DM policy also incorporates strategic infrastructure; this includes transport, telecommunications and utilities. These areas are covered in other DM policies, but it was deemed necessary to address strategic infrastructure in general in this policy given that the Core Strategy focuses on Social and Strategic Infrastructure in general in the same section. The proposed policy generally supports the installation, renewal or alteration of strategic infrastructure that requires planning permission but includes criteria specifying where the provision of strategic infrastructure would not be deemed suitable; i.e. if it would

8 result in the loss of land more suitable for employment or residential uses, or would cause unacceptable impacts to neighbouring resident/premises. This will ensure that strategic infrastructure development is supported in a manner that also maximises the delivery of other priority uses, particularly housing.