Development Management Submission Document

The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 modifies Section 62 of the 1990 Act to ensure that the information required by a Local Planning Authority at the application stage is "reasonable having regard, in particular, to the nature and scale of the proposed development .....". It is important therefore that Development Management Policies do not introduce requirements for applicants that would not comply with the requirements of the Act.

Policy DM5 seeks information in respect of lighting at the application stage. Specifically it refers to an "appropriately detailed lighting scheme" alongside full planning applications, and "an appropriately detailed lighting strategy" alongside outline applications (para 2.45).

Policy DM5 goes on to state that when making an outline application, the applicant "must submit ..." an appropriately detailed strategy. However, not every application (whether full or outline) has any lighting implications, and therefore requiring details of lighting (whether full details or a strategy) will not always be relevant. The policy should be amended to refelect the fact that such details will only be required where necessary. Requiring lighting schemes for every proposal, regardless of their relevance, is incompatible with s62 of the 1990 Act.

The policy goes on to state that applications must demonstrate "no adverse impact", but as far as we are aware, there is no commonly accepted standard by which an 'adverse impact' can be measured, and clearly there are some forms of development (such as sports floodlighting) where an adverse impact in some form or other is inevitable, but where the benefits of the development outweigh that impact.

Overall, we agree that the impact of lighting is an appropriate consideration in the determination of an application, and that it is important that, where lighting is likely to be a key consideration, information is submitted to enable that impact to be judged. But as currently worded, Policy DM5 and its supporting text appear to be both unduly onerous (or potentially unduly onerous) in the information required at the application stage, and potentially unworkable in terms of the 'no adverse impact' test that is being sought.

Minimum standards for affordable housing are essentially set by affordable housing providers, since achievement of such standards are a requirement of their funding. Such standards do vary from time to time, and therefore the logic of setting a policy in the Rochford DPD to specify these levels, when the requirement could easily change without any recourse to the Council, seems unwise. Furthermore, we do not consider that there is any justification (and particularly no justification specific or unique to Rochford District) to fetter the discretion or innovation of the house-building industry to respond to market requirements for different sizes of private residential properties. Unless there is a specific local justification for imposing floorspace sizes, Policy DM4 and its supporting text should be deleted.

The need for adequate parking in all new development is recognised. However, there are instances where parking provision below the expected minimum standards may be appropriate, and the policy lists two examples (development near town centres and train stations). The stated exceptions could however be usefully expanded to include locations with good public transport accessibility, to add additional flexbility to the application of the policy where appropriate.