Issue details

The purpose of this decision is to action the decision of Cabinet at its meeting on 26 July 2018, in respect of the Councils’ response to the Pre-Submission Uttlesford Local Plan consultation. Cabinet’s decision 1 says: “That the Planning Policy Manager be requested to review and clarify the intent of the wording in revised paragraph 55 as presented to the meeting and that the Deputy Leader of the Council be authorised to confirm the wording of that paragraph having regard to the professional advice of the Planning Policy Manager.”

Paragraph 55 relates to the impacts of the proposed North Uttlesford Garden Community (NUGC) on the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It refers to the significant harm regarding the NUGC identified in the report in relation to transport and landscape.

Paragraph 55 in the report considers whether a revised NUGC could address the identified landscape harm on South Cambridgeshire by amending its boundary. It says that the Council does not offer a preference for an alternative site and that the issues for South Cambridgeshire District Council is the impact of the current NUGC proposal on its area. However it says that the examination of the Local Plan will need to establish that there are no reasonable alternative options to accommodate development which would eliminate the harms identified to the three dimensions of sustainable development or that the level of harm can be satisfactorily mitigated. To clarify, the paragraph should be read as a whole and the intent of the final sentence referring to reasonable alternative options to accommodate development refers to the boundaries of the NUGC proposal.

A question was raised at Cabinet whether the Council’s comments to the previous draft of the Uttlesford Local Plan, paragraph 96 in Appendix B of the Cabinet report, should be included in the proposed response to the current consultation, and offered an interpretation that those comments were intended to say that the Council were arguing that reasonable alternatives for entirely different sites elsewhere in Uttlesford district should be considered. Having reviewed paragraph 96, those comments referred to whether alternative boundaries for the NUGC had been considered that would have a reduced impact on the landscape, and not to whether completely different sites elsewhere in Uttlesford had been considered.

Cabinet also considered a supplementary report tabled at the meeting which proposed an alternative wording to paragraph 55. This wording was proposed by the Principal Planning Policy Officer who authored the report, following an accompanied site visit after the report was published that provided access to an area of the site not previously visited, and as a result of which he considered that his advice to members should be revised to better reflect the potential landscape impact on South Cambridgeshire and how it may be possible to mitigate the identified impacts. He concluded that the top of the plateau is very flat and there may be potential for development on parts of the plateau away from the edges facing towards South Cambridgeshire to be screened from views from South Cambridgeshire by planting.  However the north west facing slopes of the site facing the A11 enjoy extensive views into South Cambs and the reverse case must also be true. Much of this land is scheduled for built development.

Whilst the amendment to paragraph 55 considered by Cabinet dealt with this updated information, the Planning Policy Manager has reviewed the proposed revision to paragraph 55 as requested by Cabinet and a refinement to the wording in the supplementary report is proposed for the purposes of clarity and robustness and making clear that it will be for Uttlesford District Council to provide appropriate evidence that landscape harm to South Cambridgeshire could be avoided and that any landscape mitigation would be consistent with the landscape character of the area. The revised paragraph 55 would read as follows (the changes are shown to the version in the Supplementary report considered by Cabinet):

"55  Paragraph 152 of the NPPF in regard to plan making states that local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and states that: ‘Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued’. However a number of significant harms regarding the NUGC have been identified in regard to transport and landscape. In terms of landscape and visual impact, the proposed allocation would not be acceptable unless Uttlesford District Council can demonstrate convincingly (a) a means by which A a revised NUGC development within that allocation would reduce its avoid landscape and visual harm in views from South Cambridgeshire and (b) that this could be achieved consistent with the existing landscape character. To avoid unacceptable levels of harm, it is critical that built development is precluded on the north , west and eastern edges of the high plateau facing towards South Cambridgeshire / ridgelines on the site or and on the slopes facing towards the A11. This could be achieved by reducing the overall scale of the new settlement to that which could be so accommodated within the south- west and south facing valleys of the site or by amending its southern boundary. The Council does not offer a preference for an alternative allocation boundary or an alternative developable area; the issue for South Cambridgeshire District Council is the impact of the current NUGC proposal on its area and demonstrating a means by which the NUGC development may be made acceptable is the responsibility of the plan making authority. However, possible means by which this could be achieved are by excluding from the allocation areas where built development would cause landscape and visual harm to South Cambridgeshire (as identified above), or by making clear in the Local Plan the areas where built development may not occur within the existing allocation boundary. This latter option may be appropriate if, for example, the excluded areas are required for strategic landscaping; however any  form of strategic (or other) landscaping which may be proposed to address impact must be demonstrated at this stage to be capable of being delivered in a form which is consistent with existing landscape character and is otherwise acceptable.

If addressing landscape and visual harm  results in a reduced number of homes, the option to extend the southern boundary of the allocation could be considered. The examination of the Regulation 19 Local Plan will need to establish that there are no reasonable alternative options to accommodate development which would eliminate the harms identified to the three dimensions of sustainable development or that the level of harm can be satisfactorily mitigated."