The Panel received a presentation from Deb
Appleby, Development Manager from Locality.
The background to Locality and its role with
regard to Neighbourhood Planning was outlined. With partners, Locality formed part of a
nationwide network which delivered funding and support under the
Department of Communities and Local Government’s
“Supporting Communities and Neighbourhoods in Planning”
programme to help communities produce neighbourhood plans.
Neighbourhood Planning came about due to changes to the Planning
process arising from the Localism Act
2011.
Key points of the presentation and subsequent
discussion included:-
- Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) were a
legal document that could be used as a tool to empower communities
to identify local issues / solutions and influence aspects of land
use and development.
- NPs had to comply with European,
national and local planning policies and strategies, be community
led, evidence based and could not be used to stop growth.
- Government regulations required that
a forum be set up to prepare, publicise and manage the process for
creating a Neighbourhood Plan.
- Local planning authorities had a
statutory obligation to support Neighbourhood Forums (NFs) with their NP.
- As Southampton had no town or parish
councils (which could produce their own NP) they would have to be
via Neighbourhood Forums which had to consist of at least 21
residents or workers and include a locally elected councillor.
- There were no specific boundaries
for a NP/Forum – it could be based on an existing ward
boundary, or predefined area chosen by communities and could
encroach into other LA areas but the area did have to be designated
by the LPA.
- There were three main stages to the
process of producing a NP:
- Designation – by the LPA
- Independent examination (by a
locally appointed examiner agreed by both the Local Planning
Authority and Neighbourhood Forum).
Examiners could be appointed from a national register; they could
be local and should be suitably qualified. They could be used to provide guidance and
ultimately would recommend whether or not the Plan should go
forward to referendum, with or without modifications, and who
should vote in the referendum.
- Referendum - where 51% or higher
vote of support meant the adoption of the NP. Referendums represented substantial cost for local
authorities but funding could be drawn down for this and there was
a limit on the number of referendums that could be held for any
plan.
- There were approximately 1,000 NPs
at varying stages of development with 17 plans at examination stage
and seven having become part of their local development plan.
- It was felt that development
pressure led to the popularity for NPs being higher in the South
East than anywhere else in the country
- It was emphasised that there had to
be strong local interest for the NP to succeed – where the
community recognised the need for development and wished to shape
it – it could also be used as a tool for regeneration in
deprived areas.
- Several examples were cited
including:-
- rural Cumbria which had held the
first referendum 12 months ago and whose focus had been using
redundant buildings for housing purposes;
- Exeter St James where the NP was
already in place – this example was said to demonstrate
amongst other things how costs could be saved by involving highly
skilled volunteers in the Forum and was a relevant example for
Southampton sharing many issues as a university city trying to
create a balanced community.
It was
highlighted that a number of case studies were available on the
Locality website mailto:info@locality.org.uk.
- The timescale taken to develop a NP
was proving to be around 12-18 months but could take considerably
longer – three to four years in one example.
- It was reported that university
towns and cities had demonstrated many creative and cross
generational collaborations using a variety of communication
tools.
- With
regard to funding in particular, it was reported that:
- Locality was currently helping over
500 groups and had awarded over £2.5m in grants.
- Funding was available to assist
groups to develop NPs (up to £7k) but groups can also access
the Big Lottery scheme ‘Awards for All Scheme’ (up to
£10k).
- The local authority drew down from
central government funding for the referendum which represented a
substantial cost for the local authority - estimated at around
£12k
- The
Designation stage was the trigger for a £5k grant to the
LA.
§
The best NPs had given consideration to what communities wanted for
their area, thought longer term aims (eg - 15 years ahead) and included consideration of
sustainable growth. They also sought
advice from their LPA at an early stage.
Dr Chris Lyons, Planning and Development
Manager, outlined the Council’s approach to
Neighbourhood Planning. Key points
included:-
- Southampton had two up-and-coming
Neighbourhood Plans: Bassett NP and the business led East Street
NP; although the latter has currently stalled. Basset NP had passed designation stage, was
awaiting independent examination and it was likely the referendum
would be towards the end of this year. Chris Lyons had attended a
number of meetings.
- Although funding (of around
£30k) was available to a local authority the legal advice had
been that referendum costs could be twice the funding
available.
- Advice
was available from the Planning Team regarding existing policies in
relation to what the forum / plan wanted to achieve, how they
wanted to shape and influence development in the area.
- There was a difficulty in providing
local (ward) information. For example
the City had an overall target of 16,000 additional homes - 5,000
of which in the inner city whilst the remainder was not broken down
into areas.
- There could be difficulties for SCC
Planning Policies if an NP crossed with other LA boundaries,
especially where Planning Policies conflicted.
- The Council website had useful
information on NPs.
- Although the Planning Authority was
happy to talk with the NF, the reality was that staffing cuts had
left just three Planning Policy Officers. It was not possible for the team to be involved in
any technical work which therefore needed to be community led.
Councillor Les Harris,
Southampton City Council, and Chair of the Bassett Neighbourhood
Forum, gave a verbal update on the Forum’s progress and
approach to Neighbourhood Planning.
It was reported that
development of the Forum and its NP had started two years ago and
was now in the designation stage prior to consultation and
examination and hoping to move to a referendum by the end of the
year.
A lot of consideration had been
given to the area that the NP should cover which eventually was the
whole of the Bassett Ward which included active residents’
associations who became part of the Forum. In areas where there
were no regular residents’ associations there had been
house to house canvassing by
councillors on behalf of the forum.
The Forum considered that it had
ensured good representation in the area and drawn together the
consultation responses and mini-plans developed by the
residents’ associations into one overall development plan
that had community ownership.
The Panel were
informed that the NP area had a very mixed population and that
there was a wide variation of housing styles in the ward.
The Forum’s consultation with
residents, land owners, local developers,
businesses, Southampton University and the Hospital, had resulted
in three key themes:-
- housing
density (including loss of family housing to flats and the impact
on the character of housing in the area);
- HMOs
– the statistics given highlighted the feeling of residents
that the balance between family housing to HMOs was at tipping
point; and
- parking
issues – parking problems were felt to affect every street in
the area. Whilst it was
recognised that parking issues were not planning issues and thus
could not be dealt with as such in the NP; the Plan encouraged any
new development to include adequate off street parking.
It was reported that the Forum would monitor
the NP but also take up the issues raised from the consultation
which could not be included in the Plan.
The Forum had recognised the need to have
planning expertise within the membership of the Forum particularly
with regard to understanding planning law. There had been regular contact with the
Council’s Planning Department and planning advice had been
from Planning Aid England (Bristol).
Funding had been received from Locality
(£7k) following designation of the NP in December
2013. Funding prior to this had been
from the residents’ groups.
Overall, it was felt to have been a worthwhile
community project which had left most residents feeling they could
have influence over their local environment.
Jerry Gillen (Highfield Residents’ Association) was present
and with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The Chair thanked everyone for their
contributions to this enquiry and confirmed that the final meeting
on 8th May would agree the draft report and recommendations.