Issues and Options Document

(2) 11 Detailed Policy Considerations

Introduction

11.1 In addition to the strategic priorities and objectives that have been identified in previous chapters, which together support our draft vision, there a number of detailed policy issues that sit behind them. Our current adopted local development plan includes specific, detailed policy requirements which need to be reviewed and updated in line with more recent evidence. This includes the composition of affordable housing products, extensions to homes and businesses in the Green Belt, and signage. Other policy considerations have emerged through national policy and guidance which we need to give consideration to, including how we meet the needs for self-build and custom-build homes, and how we deal with rural exception sites.

(5) Mix of Affordable Homes

Where are we now?

11.2 Our Core Strategy requires that 35% of all new homes on sites of 15 or more units, or on sites that are greater than 0.5 hectares, are required to be affordable depending on viability constraints in exceptional circumstances within policy H4. Of these affordable homes 80% should be social housing to provide homes for those on our Housing Waiting List, and 20% intermediate housing products, such as shared ownership. Of the 257 affordable homes delivered, since the Core Strategy came into effect in December 2011, 213 have been affordable rented homes for those on our Housing Waiting List, and 43 intermediate (shared ownership) homes for those needing help to purchase their own home, as of October 2017. The wider issue of how we deliver affordable homes is considered in more detail in the 'Delivering Homes and Jobs Chapter'.

What are the identified issues?

11.3 Our current policies have delivered affordable homes to meet local need, particularly for those of our residents who are most in need. However the Housing White Paper – which sets out how the affordability of homes could be tackled nationally through changes to the planning system – proposed that the definition of affordable housing be widened. The definition could include starter homes and affordable private rent for example, which would likely reduce the number of properties that are delivered and available for affordable rent. Affordable rented homes are specifically for those households on our Housing Waiting List who are most in need of a home. Until these proposals have been fully considered, and integrated into national policy and guidance, there remains some uncertainty about the potential implications.

11.4 If the definition of affordable homes changes then we would still need, as the body responsible for local housing matters, to ensure that we seek to meet the needs of our residents as far as we can.

What are the realistic options?

11.5 There are three identified options to address the split between affordable housing products.

Option	Justification
(4) Retain the current affordable homes split (80% social and 20% intermediate) where a scheme meets the prescribed threshold	This current policy requirement has delivered 232 affordable homes over the last five years. It particularly provides for those households most in need on our Housing Waiting List.
(1) Amend the split taking into account any changes in national planning policy and guidance (if the definition of affordable homes is widened to include other products)	There is some uncertainty about the direction of national policy and guidance in relation to the definition of affordable homes. This may reduce the number of homes available for those on our Housing Waiting List. However, the mix could favour affordable rent, for example 10% starter homes; 70% affordable rent; 15% shared ownership and 5% affordable private rented, depending on the outcome of the Housing White Paper and local viability testing.
Do not have a prescribed split in a policy	This would increase the flexibility of a policy; and would enable any schemes to meet affordable homes need at the time an application is submitted. However, it would provide less certainty for developers and could mean that there is no guarantee that enough social products are delivered to meet the needs of those on our Housing Waiting List.

(3) Self-Build and Custom-Build Homes

Where are we now?

11.6 Providing more choice for those that wish to build their own homes is a Government initiative which is not currently covered by local policy. There are two types of housing which is supported; self-build and custom-build homes. Self-build housing normally means that a person manages the design and construction of their own home, and may undertake some of the building work as well. Custom-build usually means that a person will work with a specialist developer who will organise the design and construction to help them deliver their new home to their specifications.

11.7 There are currently no self-build plots in the district or plots of land allocated for this purpose; and there are no existing policies to support their development. We are required to maintain a register of interest from people hoping to build their own home^[50], and as of October 2017 we had 44 individuals and organisations on our register. To be included on the register, applicants must confirm that the property – if delivered – would be their sole or main residence^[51]. As a home is designed to suit the needs of the individual, on average, residents are more likely to stay in their home for longer. Such homes can prove to be more innovative – in terms of design and construction – and potentially be delivered more quickly than more traditional methods.

What are the identified issues?

11.8 National policy and guidance requires us to support proposals for self-build and custom-build homes where demand is indicated by registrations on our Self Build and Custom Build Register; and where this demand is realistic in terms of the financial capacity of applicants. This presents a challenge for us, as there are a number of pressures to deliver different types of homes to meet different needs across the district; and the requirement for self- and custom-build homes needs to be considered as part of our wider strategy for delivering new homes. However the NPPF also states that we should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances (paragraph 55).

11.9 Land outside the existing residential areas is allocated as Green Belt land; of those on our Register, only 14% have their own plots of land that they would like to deliver as a self-build project. Allocating land for individual self-build plots in the Green Belt has the potential to lead to sporadic development in the countryside, contrary to the five purposes of the Green Belt (NPPF paragraph 80), and the wider sentiments of the NPPF to retain the character of the countryside. Such an approach could create further pressure which could have an erosive impact on the Green Belt. This would need to be carefully considered, potentially on a case-by-case basis. 

11.10 For those that do not have access to their own plots of land; identifying suitable land or working with land owners to utilise their land for such a use may prove difficult due to the nature of the construction. The profit margin for the land owner may be reduced when compared to a similar traditional build. Consideration also needs to be given to the locations in the district where there is a demand for such plots.

11.11 There could prove to be issues with adequate funding available to those wishing to begin a self- or custom-build project. Banks are usually less inclined to lend to fund such projects, due to the increased risk. However, this is a factor outside the planning system. Self- or custom-build build homes are also exempt from certain contributions such as the Community Infrastructure Levy (or CIL) that we are looking to develop. This could prove problematic to providing the necessary infrastructure to support such development – and could have a cumulative impact on local services and facilities.

What are the realistic options?

11.12 Four options have been identified for the delivery of self-build and/or custom-build plots.

Option	Justification
(1) Require a proportion of self-build and/or custom-build plots to be provided on private market allocated or windfall schemes over a certain size (alongside other types of homes needed) based on the level of local demand. For example, a minimum of one plot per 0.5 hectare to be set aside for these types of homes.	This approach would involve a portion of a private developer's site being reserved for self-builds or custom-builds. There may be implications for private developers in terms of viability, however this would provide greater certainty that a number of self-build or custom-build plots would be made available for purchase, and delivery. The actual threshold for provision of plots could be determined by the level of demand within different locations across the district.
(1) Utilise the Council's assets, wherever possible, or acquire land to allocate plots for the purpose of self-build and/or custom-build, and help match people on the register to the plots.	We do not currently own, manage or deliver homes, and there are limited assets and resources available to do this. There is also a financial risk involved which needs to be carefully considered.
Allocate individual plots in the Green Belt for self-build, where those on the Register have identified that they own the land, and this will be their sole or main residence.	Whilst this approach can provide plots for those with ready-access to land, it has the potential to lead to sporadic development in the countryside, contrary to the five purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach could create further pressure which could have an erosive impact on the Green Belt.
(3) Do not have a policy on self-build or custom-build plots.	This approach is not considered to be appropriate, as the Government requires us to facilitate the delivery of self-build or custom-build plots.

(1) Rural Exception Sites

Where are we now?

11.13 The purpose of rural exception sites is to provide affordable homes to meet local housing needs in rural Green Belt areas, as an exception to other local policies. Rural exception homes must be for households with local connections through living in that area, or having family or working there, and must remain part of the affordable stock indefinitely. Rural exception sites are defined in the NPPF (Annex 2) as:

"Small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity where sites would not normally be used for housing. Rural exception sites seek to address the needs of the local community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection. Small numbers of market homes may be allowed at the local authority's discretion, for example where essential to enable the delivery of affordable units without grant funding."

11.14 It is important that we provide the right amount of rural homes, of the right type and in the right places. National policy and guidance is clear that we should be looking at providing affordable homes, subject to viability, potentially as part of a mix with market homes. The development of isolated homes should be avoided, although there are certain exceptions. The PPG recognises that providing homes in more rural communities can support the rural economy, and help retain local services and community facilities such as schools and local shops. We do not have a current policy specifically on rural exception sites, but have sought to provide rural homes in some of the district's villages. The PPG however recommends that we should avoid blanket policies on restricting the delivery of new homes in some settlements and preventing other settlements from expanding, unless their use can be supported by robust evidence.    

What are the identified issues?

11.15 There is no clear definition of what defines 'rural' as this varies from place to place depending on the size and number of settlements within a particular area. The guidance in the NPPF suggests that 'small' rural exception sites should be promoted in locations where housing would not normally be allowed.

11.16 Although national policy and guidance supports the identification of rural exception sites, with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended to include a wider range of products, which could impact on the ability of affordable homes to meet the needs of local communities. However, within the current definition in national policy we could utilise our Housing Waiting List to analyse demand for affordable homes within rural areas to identify demand, although the provision of intermediate homes is less straightforward.

11.17 Other challenges to the delivery of homes in more rural areas include the potential for homes to be located in more sensitive environments – although this could drive up design standards; potentially a more limited range of landowners which could restrict the supply of sites; and limited amount of brownfield (previously developed) land which could put pressure on land allocated as Green Belt. Such sites however would need to carefully consider local landscape character and integrate green infrastructure.

11.18 It is recognised that rural exception sites are an important policy tool to deliver affordable homes within smaller settlements across the district, which can help to maintain the sustainability of rural communities. However, in some instances the viability of schemes is increasingly becoming an issue for Registered Providers. We therefore need to consider whether allowing some market homes on rural exception sites – in limited circumstances – would allow for more affordable homes to be provided particularly where this meets a local housing need e.g. to enable local people to downsize. This may affect the price paid for the land but we cannot allow this factor alone to justify more market homes on such sites.

What are the realistic options?

11.19 There are a number of different options that have been identified relating to the approach to delivering rural exception sites in the district.

Option	Justification
Introduce a specific policy on rural exception sites to promote the delivery of affordable homes only in rural areas (under 3,000 existing homes), subject to viability	Any schemes within a rural exception site will need to be led by a Registered Provider; the affordable homes would be affordable in perpetuity (however affordability is defined). There could be viability issues on some sites, which would impact on their ability to meet local needs. National policy recommends considering the inclusion of market homes to deliver more affordable.
(1) Introduce a specific policy on rural exception sites to promote the delivery of affordable homes in rural areas (under 3,000 existing homes), with an element of market homes to improve overall viability	Any schemes within a rural exception site will need to be led by a Registered Provider, and solely enable the delivery of affordable homes with no element of profit including no additional uplift in land values. Supporting an element of market homes improves viability, and delivers a mix of homes in line with national policy. However it must be made clear that the subsidiary element of market homes is purely enabling development.
Include rural exception sites into a wider housing delivery policy, accepting that a limited amount of market homes can be delivered to support a greater amount of affordable homes	Any schemes within a rural exception site will need to be led by a Registered Provider, and solely enable the delivery of affordable homes with no element of profit including no additional uplift in land values. This would need to be made explicitly clear within any wider housing delivery policy. Supporting an element of market housing improves viability, and delivers a mix of homes in line with national policy. However it must be made clear that the subsidiary element of market homes is purely enabling development.
The split between the different affordable homes products reflects the overall policy for affordable homes across the district.	This would ensure that there is consistency in the provision of a wide range of affordable homes products that meet the needs of the district's population.
A flexible approach to the split between the different affordable homes products so that it is timely and reflects the needs of rural settlements at a time when a scheme is being proposed.	This would ensure that the requirement for different affordable homes products meets the specific needs of a rural settlement when a scheme is being proposed.
Any policies on rural exception sites is prescriptive on their size and location to ensure that they reflect the size and function of the nearest rural community	Any schemes will need to reflect the size and function of the rural settlement so that they respect the rural character of an area. Taking a prescriptive approach on the size and location of any rural exception sites would provide certainty for local community.
(1) Any policies on rural exception sites is flexible on their size and location to ensure that they reflect the size and function of the nearest rural community	Any schemes will need to reflect the size and function of the rural settlement so that they respect the rural character of an area. Taking a more flexible approach on the size and location of any rural exception sites would enable schemes to be determined on their individual merits as they are proposed. However this could potentially mean ad-hoc schemes being proposed in the Green Belt.
(3) Do not have a rural exceptions site policy	The NPPF requires us to be responsive to local circumstances and plan to reflect local housing needs, particularly for affordable homes, including through rural exception sites where appropriate.

(1) Annexes, Outbuildings and Independent Homes

Where are we now?

11.20 In recent years, we have seen a rise in the number of annexes and outbuildings within the curtilage of existing homes being built and then used as separate accommodation, essentially forming an independent home.

11.21 Annexes tend to be attached to the main home, whereas outbuildings form physically separate buildings to the main home. Outbuildings – within the rules set out by Government – are permitted development, provided they are not used as living accommodation. It is recognised that the challenging housing market, and the shortage of new homes across the country, has created housing issues for some in our communities. Such units can give independence to teenagers, young adults, young families or elderly relatives close to the main home. The use of annexes and outbuildings to live in as independent homes has led to a rise in enforcement cases on this issue in the district.

11.22 Although we have a policy on intensification, infilling and backland development in residential areas (Development Management Plan policy DM3); we do not have a current policy on the treatment of annexes and outbuildings – specifically in relation to dependence on the main home. However local case law has been established and has set a precedent for the treatment of these types of accommodation.

What are the identified issues?

11.23 The key issue is whether an annex or outbuilding (or similar) are independent from the main home. Case law (ref: 15/00020/FUL) suggests that a dwelling dependent on the main home could have similar facilities to an independent dwelling such as a kitchen, living area and separate rooms, which could be used as a bathroom and a bedroom. To be considered dependent, case law has established that it should have the following features in relation to character and appearance and living conditions:

• Shares the same address as the main home
• Utility services and drainage shared with main home
• Shares external space with the main home
• Does not have a separate access to the main home (access in this case was on foot)

11.24 This case found that the proposal, due to its scale, would not have an impact on Core Strategy policies H1 and CP1, or Development Management Plan policy DM1 or DM3. The case also found that because of the constrained area that the outbuilding was in and the view that it was reliant on the facilities of the main home for access etc., the fact that internal space standards did not comply with our standards in Development Management Plan policy DM4 (superseded by the national technical houses standards) was irrelevant.

11.25 The dwelling was permitted on appeal subject to a condition that requiring occupation of the outbuilding to remain ancillary to the main home, with the intention to prevent it from being used as a separate home in the future, as the floorspace, amenity area and access arrangements would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers.

11.26 A further consideration – outside the residential area – would be impact on the Green Belt. This would need to be taken into consideration, particularly with regard to protecting the openness of the Green Belt.

What are the realistic options?

11.27 Two options have been identified for annexes, outbuildings and independent  homes. 

Option	Justification
(1) Develop a policy which sets out clear criteria for annexes and outbuildings (or similar)	We could take a positive approach to the treatment of annexes and outbuildings (or similar) where it can be clearly demonstrated that the dwelling would be dependent on the main home. Such dwellings could be conditioned to require their occupation to remain ancillary to the main home. It would also be useful to include guidance on such development in the Green Belt.
(4) Do not have a policy on this – continue to reply on case law	Case law has provided clearer guidance on how applications for separate annexes or outbuildings (or similar) should be treated in relation to the threshold for a 'dependence' test on the main home.

(1) Basements

Tell Us More D.P1.5: How do we deal with applications for basements within the existing residential area in the future?

Where are we now?

11.28 The development of a basement can be defined as the construction or extension of one or more storeys of accommodation – associated with the home – below the prevailing ground level of a site or property.

11.29 The construction of buildings with basements, and the construction of basements beneath existing buildings, are becoming increasingly popular nationally^[52], particularly in areas with higher land prices or a lack of available space for sideways or 'upwards' development, such as London. The construction of a basement below a building may be desirable for a landowner, because it increases the amount of usable floor space, without encroaching on adjacent land or having an external visual impact.

11.30 The conversion of existing cellars or basements into habitable accommodation is generally considered to not require planning permission, provided it does not form a separate residential unit or require additional external works, such as an external access or light-well. The creation of new basements and the substantial engineering works required to do so would generally require planning permission.

11.31 Policy DM20 of our Development Management Plan sets out our approach to the development of basements within the Green Belt. The policy requires that basements do not exceed the footprint of the original dwelling plus the 25% policy allowance for extensions, and that proposed basements do not give rise to a self-contained unit or accommodation, separate from the building to which they relate. The current policy also requires the removal of permitted development rights for further extensions in order to protect against the over-expansion of homes within the Green Belt, and to prevent any potential harm to the openness of the area.

11.32 The construction of a basement would not generally be considered overly intrusive or bulky, nor would basements in the Green Belt generally be considered harmful to openness. However, the provision of a basement may be considered to intensify a particular use; the provision of a residential basement within the Green Belt may, for example, be considered to introduce further undesired residential activity into the Green Belt.

What are the identified issues?

11.33 The provision of a basement may give rise to an undesirable increase in habitable capacity of a particular home, or even the potential for a separate habitable unit otherwise independent of the original 'above-ground' home. Such an increase may cause issues relating to increased activity on the site, and associated planning considerations such as volume of vehicular traffic, parking, amenity space, and compliance with the National Technical Housing Standards. Other concerns about structural stability of nearby buildings can also be raised as an issue.

11.34 In more densely populated areas such as London, issues such as impact on the quality of life, traffic management and the living conditions of nearby residents as a result of the construction of basements (particularly as several in a road could be constructed at one time) are considered to be material planning considerations. Whilst these are important considerations, in our district we have not seen such an increase in applications for basements as London. In the London Boroughs, such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, there are also concerns about the structural stability of adjacent properties, the impact on the character of rear gardens and impact on sustainable drainage – although in some cases it is permitted to extend a basement up to half of the garden area.

11.35 The external visual impact of a basement is generally quite minor, given that the vast majority, if not all, of the basement is unlikely to be readily visible from outside of the associated home. However, the provision of a basement may require other development such as light-wells, ventilation, external accesses or railings, which have an impact on the character or appearance of a building. Where these are proposed, they could have an impact on visual amenity or the historic environment.

What are the realistic options?

11.36 Two options have been identified relating to the development of basements in the district.   

Option	Justification
(5) Extend the current policy on basements in the Green Belt	This would limit basements in the residential area to the same extent as those in the Green Belt; including in size and its use as a dependent part of the above ground building. Within the residential area, this policy could also take into consideration the impact on the historic environment (such as Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and locally listed properties).
Do not have a policy on basements in the existing residential area	There has not been a significant increase in the number of applications for basements. The justification for such a policy would need to be clearly evidenced. It is still considered to be appropriate to have a policy on basements in the Green Belt however.

(2) Replacement, Rebuild or Extension of Existing Green Belt Homes 

Tell Us More D.P1.6: How do we deal with applications for the replacement, rebuild or extension of existing homes in the Green Belt in the future?

Where are we now?

11.37 For a variety of historical reasons, there are many homes in the Green Belt, and it is entirely reasonable for those living within the Green Belt to be able to extend their homes to meet changing circumstances. However, it is equally reasonable that the scale of such extensions are managed to ensure they do not undermine Green Belt purposes. 

11.38 The NPPF enables proportionate extensions or alterations of existing homes in the Green Belt over and above the size of the original building, which we take as of 1July 1948 or, when it was first constructed, if this is later. The replacement of a building is permitted, provided that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Our Development Management Plan policies DM17 and DM21 provide more detailed criteria for alterations and extensions; through enabling a 25% increase in the floorspace of the original building. Our policies require schemes to be designed to avoid impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt through its scale, mass and orientation, as any increase in the volume of a home will inevitably, by its very presence, impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. We also express a preference for low pitched roofs and do not support applications for derelict or abandoned properties as these are no longer be considered part of the district's housing stock.

What are the identified issues?

11.39 Permitted development rights enable some development to be undertaken without the need to obtain planning permission. These rights have, over more recent years, provided greater flexibility for extensions to homes in the Green Belt, in some circumstances, setting aside the test of what is a 'reasonable' extension for the purposes of the NPPF. Therefore the Council considered that the previous 35sq.m of additional habitable floorspace as set out in historic policies no longer related appropriately to the permitted development rights; so we have applied a revised approach of 25%. However in some circumstances permitted development rights are more generous than our policy and this is reflected in the low number of applications for extensions in particular. The Governments permitted development rights have therefore encouraged piecemeal, oversized and disproportionate extensions in the Green Belt, contrary to the NPPF, with flat roofs which has had a detrimental impact on the character of the area. In the context of the NPPF our current policy to permit a 25% increase is not considered to be disproportionate but it does not encourage submissions of applications for well-designed extensions.

What are the realistic options?

11.40 Three options have been identified to address applications for the rebuild or extension of existing Green Belt homes. 

Option	Justification
(1) Retain the current policies on replacement, rebuild or extension of existing Green Belt homes	On the whole, our policies in the Development Management Plan (DM17 and DM21) are considered to be consistent with the NPPF. However there have been a low number of applications, due to the nature of current permitted development rights.
(5) Amend the extension allowance within Development Management Plan policies DM17 and DM21	Permitted development rights enable generous extensions, contrary to the NPPF, which has encouraged numerous disproportionate, piecemeal, flat roofed extensions. Our current policies could be more flexible to encourage applications for well designed, low pitched roof extensions in line with current permitted development rights. This would take a more 'scenario-based' approach to these types of applications.
Do not have a policy on extensions and rebuilds	There is a need to provide guidance on what is acceptable in the Green Belt, regardless of the permitted development rights. This approach is not considered to be appropriate.

(1) Agricultural, Forestry and Other Occupational Homes

Where are we now?

11.41 We take the approach that the provision of new homes in the Green Belt and wider countryside is considered appropriate, where it can be demonstrated that the existence of on-site accommodation is crucial to the success of an agricultural or forestry business. The NPPF also allows the construction of new buildings for the purposes of agriculture and forestry in the Green Belt. As part of this we require – in relation to Development Management Plan policies DM18 and DM19 – specific information from applicants to consider the functional need for someone to live on the site, whether the enterprise is, or will become financially viable, and whether such viability is likely to be sustainable in the long term, particularly for permanent homes. We also need to carefully consider the size and siting of permanent or temporary accommodation. The size, for example, should be determined by the needs of the business rather than those of the owner or occupier.

11.42 Greater floorspace than that set out in Development Management Plan policy DM18 is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where it can be sufficiently demonstrated to us that the functional need of the business truly requires a larger building. Conditions are also imposed to limit the occupation of all new homes to people who are employed, or were last employed, in agriculture in the locality. This ensures that accommodation is kept available to meet the needs of other agricultural businesses in the area as a whole if, for whatever reason, a home is no longer required to meet the needs of the original business. That being the case, applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances.

What are the identified issues?

11.43 New homes demonstrated to be necessary to support agricultural and forestry businesses have an impact on the purposes of the Green Belt. However, the principle for allowing their development is established through national policy. Our policy for permanent homes (Development Management Plan policy DM18) restricts the size of such buildings to 175 sq.m, which is based on the 25% increase in original dwelling floorspace established within policy DM17. This is considered to be a proportionate response to the NPPF, and is our adopted approach. Permitted development rights are also removed for these types of accommodation, as the size of the building is determined by the business needs. 

What are the realistic options?

11.44 There are two options that have been identified for these types of homes.

Option	Justification
(5) Retain the current policies	Development Management Plan policies DM18 and DM19 are considered to appropriate and fit-for-purpose; and in line with the NPPF.
Do not have policies on agricultural, forestry and other occupational homes	There is a need to provide some more specific guidance on how applications for these types of accommodation would be treated, given the extent of the Green Belt in the district. This approach is not considered to be appropriate.

(5) Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt

Tell Us More D.P1.8: How do we address applications for the development of Brownfield (Previously Developed) Land in the Green Belt in the future?

Where are we now?

11.45 The NPPF at paragraph 89 allows the redevelopment of brownfield (previously developed) sites whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), if the scheme would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and the purpose of including land within it, than the existing development. This was introduced nationally following the adoption of the Core Strategy.  We therefore introduced a policy within our Development Management Plan (policy DM10) to supplement this national position, including further guidance on what is not considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF. 

11.46 Policy DM10 seeks to ensure that any schemes proposing new homes, retail, or other forms of rural diversification, which are not supported in Core Strategy policy GB2, on brownfield land is appropriate, sustainable (in terms of access to roads and services for example), and would not undermine the purposes of the Green Belt. Consideration of potential impact on areas of nature conservation, landscape character or historical importance also needs to be taken into account. 

What are the identified issues?

11.47 Promoting the redevelopment of brownfield land has the potential to conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt through impacting on openness in particular. Other principles such as the need to prevent coalescence or merging of towns and villages needs to be carefully considered as this would be contrary to national policy. This is particularly important when considering, for example, a change of use from a relatively low intensity use into residential as this can impact on the character of an area and have a greater impact on the principles of the Green Belt. The sensitivity of the Green Belt on a strategic level also needs to be considered.  

11.48 Brownfield development, whilst potentially preserving nearby greenfield land, can have an impact on the Green Belt, and the rural, open nature of our countryside, which is important to local communities (as identified through early community engagement in 2016), by encouraging sporadic, piecemeal development in potentially unsustainable locations. This can have a detrimental impact on our wider strategy for delivering new homes.   

What are the realistic options?

11.49 There are two options that have been identified for the proposals for the redevelopment of previously developed land in the Green Belt.

Option	Justification
(4) Retain the current policy on previously developed land	Development Management Plan policy DM10 is considered to be appropriate in supplementing the provisions of the NPPF.
(3) Do not have a policy on previously developed land	Our current policy provides more localised guidance on how applications for the development of previously developed land in the Green Belt in accordance with national planning policy.

Extension of Domestic Gardens in the Green Belt

Where are we now?

11.50 A domestic garden can be defined as a private or semi-private area of open space normally attached to a home. Applications to extend domestic gardens beyond the current designated residential area are considered in relation to Development Management Plan policy DM22, and are permitted only where the impact on the surrounding environment, or visual amenity (the value, attractiveness or desirability of a particular view) for neighbours or the public is minimal. The size of the proposed garden extension is also taken into consideration; it should not be out of proportion with the size of the existing garden, for example it should not be more than double the size of the existing garden area.

11.51 We currently remove permitted development rights to minimise impact on the openness of the Green Belt through the erection of fences, additional buildings and other built structures. Proposals should also not encroach on other areas of open space, consume valuable agricultural land (particularly that which is Grade 1 or 2), or cause unnecessary disturbance to areas which are of nature conservation importance or the historic environment.

What are the identified issues?

11.52 Garden extensions can be harmful to the visual appearance and openness of the Green Belt; particularly given that permitted development rights allow the erection of additional domestic buildings, structures and other domestic paraphernalia. We currently take a restrictive approach and remove these rights. However in practice this can means that the extended part of gardens cannot be used by residents as part of the enjoyment of their home. It can also mean that garden areas do not visually form part of garden areas (for example through the erection of fences).

What are the realistic options?

11.53 There are three options that have been identified for proposals to extend domestic gardens into the Green Belt.

Option	Justification
(3) Retain the current policy on extension of domestic gardens	Our current policy (Development Management Plan policy DM22) – particularly in relation to ensuring that extensions are not disproportionate – is working well. However in practice there are concerns about the removal of permitted development rights, and the ability of home owners to enjoy their gardens.
(1) Allow permitted development rights within extended garden areas	Permitted development rights would enable those who have, lawfully, extended their garden into the Green Belt to erect certain structures. This could have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt but it would enable home owners to enjoy their gardens.
Do not have a policy on the extension of domestic gardens	Development Management Plan policy DM22 provides detailed guidance on how applications for such extensions into the Green Belt would be treated. Having a local policy on this is considered to be an appropriate response.

(18) Parking Standards and Traffic Management

Where are we now?

11.54 Our current parking standards are set out in Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document which are based on evidence developed by Essex County Council in conjunction with the Essex Planning Officers Association. This approach of setting localised parking standards is supported by the NPPF (paragraph 39). Our guidance applies minimum car parking standards to residential schemes, including visitor parking, as we recognised that limited parking availability does not necessarily discourage car ownership and can push vehicle parking onto adjacent roads. This impacts both on the amenity of roads and potentially obstructs emergency and other passenger transport vehicles. This approach also applies maximum parking standards for trip destinations, whilst ensuring that provision is adequate. The intention is to encourage other sustainable ways to travel and to reduce congestion, particularly where any schemes are near to train stations. Our broad policy on parking standards in the district is outlined in Core Strategy policy T8; which is supplemented by Development Management Plan policy DM30.

11.55 We recognise that schemes could have an impact on our highway network. Where this may be the case we want to ensure that there is effective traffic management to create thriving sustainable communities, to improve road safety and reduce air pollution, noise, severance and visual impacts caused by transport and transport infrastructure. Our Development Management Plan policy DM31 requires major schemes (which is defined as a scheme for 10 or more new homes are proposed or the site area is 0.5 hectares or more) to prepare a traffic impact assessment to set out clearly how any impact would be mitigated against through appropriate traffic management measures.

What are the identified issues?

11.56 There is a need to ensure that there is appropriate parking within residential and commercial areas, whilst promoting and facilitating more sustainable ways to travel such as walking, cycling or public transport wherever possible. Parking was raised as an issue during the early community engagement programme that took place in 2016; particularly in relation to inadequate off-street parking for larger properties which can lead to increased on-street parking, and within our town centres. This is an issue which is addressed within the Supplementary Planning Document. The need for additional disabled parking bays within the Hockley area has been highlighted. However, the Supplementary Planning Document has comprehensive guidance and policy on the provision of disabled parking bays in shopping areas. The issue of parking also relates to appropriate traffic management measures within schemes to ensure that safe and efficient movement of people and goods.

What are the realistic options?

11.57 Three options have been identified for parking and traffic management.

Option	Justification
(3) Retain our broad policy on parking standards and remove our Development Management Plan policy	Both these policies support the implementation of our Supplementary Planning Document – which is considered to be fit-for-purpose – as a Countywide strategy for addressing parking standards. It is therefore considered that Development Management Plan policy DM30 does not strengthen the Core Strategy policy T8 so is no longer appropriate.
(1) Retain our current approach to traffic management	Development Management Plan policy DM31 is considered to be fit-for-purpose in requiring appropriate traffic management mitigation measures to be planned for and implemented.
Do not have policies on parking and traffic management.	It is important that local guidance on parking standards and traffic management for new schemes across the district. This approach is, therefore, not considered to be appropriate.

(2) Homes Businesses

Where are we now?

11.58 Modern technology provides greater flexibility for those who want to start their own business, or those who may otherwise be denied the opportunity to work from the comfort of their own home. Our current policy (policy DM33 in our Development Management Plan)however recognises that a balance needs to be struck so that any proposals do not have a negative impact on the surrounding residential area. Not all forms of home working require permission from us – but planning consent is required where there is a material change from the main residential use of a home.

11.59 Policy DM33 does not seek to restrict home businesses to use class B1, which is for general business use, as it is recognised that other uses may be compatible with the main residential use of a home. Any proposals are however considered on a case-by-case basis taking into account the potential impact on neighbours such as amenity, visual character and traffic.  

What are the identified issues?

11.60 The number of home businesses in the district is unknown, as businesses under a certain threshold are not liable to pay business rates. However we are keen to continue supporting these businesses at the most vulnerable stage of their lifecycle through the planning process. We do have a lot of entrepreneurial talent within the district – and a low rate of working age residents who claim out-of-work benefits – with many residents aspiring to start their own businesses. Over half of all businesses starting up in the district were recorded as surviving between 2009 and 2013, which is more positive than the rest of the county. We are actively seeking to engage with home businesses, via our economic development service, to enable a two way communication process, where home businesses are able to access information from us and can contact us easily. There is however a balance that needs to be struck between enabling new start-up businesses within the residential area and protecting the amenity of the local area. 

What are the realistic options?

11.61 There are four options that have been identified to deal with home businesses.

Option	Justification
(4) Retain the current policy	Our current approach in Development Management Plan policy DM33 is considered to be appropriate in striking a balance between enabling businesses to start-up and prosper at home, provided they would not have an unreasonable negative impact on the residential nature of the local area or neighbours.
Take a more restrictive approach to home businesses	We want to continue to support and nurture home businesses in the district. We have the highest survival rate of new businesses in South Essex as identified in the EDNA, and want to continue to improve this trend through supporting start-up businesses. Taking a more restrictive approach to home businesses, which could discourage entrepreneurs in the district and have a negative impact on our local economy, is not considered to be an appropriate approach.
(1) Take a more flexible approach to home businesses	Taking a more flexible approach to home businesses could have a greater negative impact on neighbouring properties through impacting on residential amenity and the local road network for example. As home businesses grow – which we support – there are more suitable locations for such businesses to locate to within the district. It is important that the right balance is struck between supporting and nurturing home businesses and considering the impact on neighbours. The need for grow-on space in the district is considered in more detail in the 'Delivering Homes and Jobs' chapter.
Do not have a policy on home businesses	This is not considered to be an appropriate response to the need to encourage homes business whilst protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Alterations to Existing Business Premises

Where are we now?

11.62 There is an entrepreneurial culture in the district which is reflected within the diverse range of small to medium sized businesses that are located here. Many of these are located within our town or village centres or on land that is formally designated for employment uses. In addition a number of businesses currently operate within the Green Belt – which covers the majority of our countryside – for a variety of historical and operational reasons. These locations are not designated as employment land because they are not appropriate for intensification or additional business uses, as these would negatively impact on the character of the area and would be considered unsustainable. We recognise, however, that these businesses make an important contribution to the local rural economy; although their location still merits Green Belt designation. Therefore an appropriate balance needs to be struck.

11.63 Our current policies support lawfully established businesses in appropriate and accessible locations to encourage the vitality of the local economy and to fulfil the potential of local businesses. As part of this, we enable rural businesses – that are existing and lawfully established – as set out in Development Management Plan policy DM11 to extend their premises based on the original or current building (whichever is applicable) in the Green Belt. On a case-by-case basis we take into account whether the size and scale of proposed extensions are proportionate in terms of the openness of the Green Belt. We do, however, encourage existing units should be utilised, as far as possible, before extensions are permitted. Other considerations such as impact on residential amenity, traffic generation and pollution are also taken into account. Our positive approach to existing businesses in the Green Belt broadly aligns with the NPPF in supporting economic growth and a strong economy in rural areas.   

What are the identified issues?

11.64 Development Management Plan policy DM11 relates to existing businesses in the Green Belt. Whilst the guidance within it is useful, in practice the reference to scale of a proposed extension is open to interpretation which could mean that planning applications are submitted that are much larger than we envisaged for this sensitive area.

What are the realistic options?

11.65 There are three options that have been identified for alterations to existing business premises in the Green Belt.

Option	Justification
(3) Retain the current policy on existing businesses in the Green Belt	Our current approach in Development Management Plan policy DM11 is broadly considered to be appropriate. However, the undefined reference to scale could be misinterpreted.
(2) Include further guidance on the size of extension that would be considered proportionate	This approach would limit the guidance being misinterpreted to potentially allow larger than intended proposals coming forward through the planning application process.
Do not have a specific policy on alterations to existing business premises	The majority of the district is designated as Green Belt land. It is not considered to be an appropriate approach to not have a specific policy on alterations to existing business premises in the Green Belt.

(1) Advertising and Signage

Where are we now?

11.66 Advertising is necessary for the promotion and functioning of the district's commercial activities, but a balance needs to be struck to ensure that this does not have a negative impact on the accessibility, appearance or value of a particular street scenes or buildings.

11.67 Inappropriate signage which is poorly located, designed or excessively illuminated within the context of the surrounding area can detract from the visual amenity, character and quality of the local environment and may present, particularly with inappropriate illumination, a road safety hazard. A proliferation of signage on one building or along one street can create a cluttered street scene which can cause distractions and confusion for the general public. Also some forms of advertising, such as advertising boards, when clustered can cause uncontrolled clutter in the public realm (i.e. along pavements) and can have the potential to restrict and obstruct access, and provide obstacles for people who are blind or partially sighted. The potential for proposed advertising to create access issues needs to be carefully considered.

11.68 Our Development Management Plan policy DM37 provides guidance on the appropriateness of advertising across the district. Specific guidance on advertising in Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas is also provided within policy DM38. This is particularly important as several of our Conservation Areas are valuable commercial centres, where significant commercial activities take place. These areas are, however, more sensitive to the presence, and in particular, the style of advertising employed. This approach is supported by the NPPF.

11.69 Other types of signage include brown tourism signs. It was noted during the early community engagement in 2016 that there are a number of attractions, destinations and businesses in the district, which could benefit from such signage. These have to be approved by Essex County Council, with the approval process being managed by Visit Essex according to specific guidance^[53]. Suitably located brown tourism signs could further enhance the tourism and leisure offer to visitors and help with navigation around the district.

What are the identified issues?

11.70 As most of our commercial centres are also Conservation Areas with numerous Listed Buildings there is a need to strike a careful balance between supporting local businesses through enabling appropriate signage, whilst not undermining the character and value of the historic fabric of the area. There is limited guidance on signage outside the commercial areas, however; for example on roundabouts.

11.71 It is the responsibility of local businesses and other bodies managing a particular attraction or destination to apply for brown tourism signs. Essex County Council's guidance on such signs is clear however that such signage cannot be used for advertising. The intention is to help visitors from outside the local area on the final stage of their journey. We are therefore not responsible for these signs, although we can pro-actively encourage tourism related businesses to apply for brown tourism signage, where appropriate to improve navigation.

What are the realistic options?

11.72 There are two options to consider in relation to advertising and signage.

Option	Justification
(6) Retain the current policies on advertising in the Development Management Plan	We have taken a proactive approach to advertising through Development Management Plan policies DM37 and DM38, which is line with the NPPF. This is considered to be an appropriate approach.
Do not have a policy on advertising	Failing to have a policy on advertising is not considered to be a suitable response to national policy.

(3) Light Pollution

Where are we now? 

11.73 Inappropriate lighting can create light pollution which can affect rural, coastal and urban areas. This type of pollution can have a negative effect on ecology and wildlife, obscure vision of the stars, and introduce a suburban feel into rural areas which can affect local character and cause stress and anxiety for those adversely affected. Paragraph 125 of the NPPF requires local policies to encourage good design to limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. The PPG provides more guidance on how the impact of schemes should be assessed, and notes that formaximum benefit, the best use of artificial light is about getting the right light, in the right place and providing light at the right time.

11.74 Our Development Management Plan recognises that light pollution can take several forms, as defined by Environmental Protection UK; intrusive lighting, sky glow, glare and poor lighting. Our policy DM5 sets out the guidance for addressing light pollution. A key part of this policy is to safeguard the environment from unnecessary light spill through the identification of environmental zones. The environmental zone in which a scheme is proposed dictates the permitted lighting threshold that can be reached. Our policy also seeks to minimise the impact of flood lighting for sports and other leisure facilities.

What are the identified issues?

11.75 Our policy seeks to minimise the impact of light pollution wherever possible. However as noted within the PPG lighting schemes can be costly and difficult to change, so getting the design right and setting appropriate conditions at the planning stage is important. It also notes that some types of premises (including prisons, airports and transport depots where high levels of light may be required for safety and security reasons) are exempt from the statutory nuisance regime for artificial light, so it is even more important to get the lighting design for these premises right at the outset. This is particularly key in relation to the operations of London Southend Airport.

What are the realistic options? 

11.76 There are three options for the delivery of suitable, considerate lighting in the district.

Option	Justification
Retain our existing policy on light pollution	Development Management Plan policy DM5 is fit for purpose, following guidance from professional bodies. It is considered to take into account appropriate factors in determining the suitability of lighting schemes.
(5) Update policy, considering favouring the use of new technologies	Our current policy could be amended to specifically require installation of the best technology (where appropriate) which seeks to reduce the light spillage, glare and sky glow over traditional lighting.
Do not have a policy on light pollution	Such an approach is not considered to be a realistic option as national policy requires us to consider the design and potential impact of lighting schemes at the planning application stage.

(2) Contaminated land

Where are we now? 

11.77 Contaminated land is land that has been polluted with hazardous materials. This may, for example, be due to past industrial uses or storage of industrial substances on land, which means that the issue of contaminated land has the potential to impact upon the reuse of brownfield (previously developed) sites. Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires Local Authorities to inspect land in their area for threats to human health and the environment from land contamination.

11.78 Our Contaminated Land Strategy outlines our inspection regime to identify land that may be contaminated land. The Strategy clearly sets out how land which merits detailed individual inspection within the contaminated land regime, will be identified in an ordered, rational and efficient manner.

11.79 Our current policy in the Core Strategy (policy ENV11) supports the development of appropriate contaminated land provided it can be adequately remediated and made 'fit for purpose' for its intended use. Contaminated land is not considered to be a suitable reason for not supporting the development of a site; the PPG notes that the responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner, although we need to be satisfied that this is the case. The Environmental Capacity Study 2015 also recognises that development can help to remediate contaminated land.

What are the identified issues?

11.80 As we want to encourage the reuse of suitable brownfield (previously developed) sites over greenfield land wherever possible, it is crucial that contaminated land is identified and appropriately remediated. This can however have an impact on the viability and subsequently the deliverability of brownfield sites for other uses. The PPG provides guidance on the role of local development plans where contaminated land has been identified^[54]. However, as of October 2017, we do not have any formally declared contaminated land as defined under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is reflected in the Environmental Capacity Study 2015.

What are the realistic options? 

11.81 Two options have been identified in relation to contaminated land.

Option	Justification
(6) Retain the current policy on contaminated land	Core Strategy policy ENV11 is considered to be fit for purpose in supporting the development of suitable brownfield (previously developed) sites wherever possible, whilst ensuring that appropriate investigation, remediation and mitigation measures are implemented.
Do not have a policy on contaminated land	National planning guidance requires that we address the issue of contaminated land through the plan-making process. Failing to have a policy on this is not considered to be an appropriate approach.