Draft revision to Castor NP

Review of the Castor Neighbourhood Plan (CNP)

 (This note is intended to be approved for consultation with Phil Hylton at Peterborough City Council Planning department prior to formal procedures. The one change proposed is in paragraph 26)

 Introduction

 The CNP was adopted in December 2017. The plan includes a statement that it will be reviewed every 5 years.  This is to ensure it is kept up to date and carries the most possible weight in determining planning applications.

1. Clarification has been sought from Peterborough City Council Planning Department on how this review should take place. A summary of this advice is contained in Appendix 1 below.
2. This note provides a written review of the Policies in the CNP and, as a consequence of that review, a proposal to make a “material modification” which does not change the nature of the Plan.
3. The vision for the Parish, as stated in the CNP in 2036 remains the same.

Review of Policies

CH1 Criteria for all building development within the parish

5. Since the adoption of the Plan there is no longer a scheduled bus service through the village. There is, however, a limited bus service available through a call and connect arrangement.
6. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and there is no reason to change the policy.

CH2. Housing Growth

7. The Plan allows for a total of 30 new homes between 2017 and 2036, which should be designed in accordance the village character.
8. To date:
   • 1 new dwelling has been granted planning permission at 35a Peterborough Road
   • The development of the Castor Lodge care home (C2 use) has been granted planning permission at Woodlands and counts as the equivalent of 49 new homes (using a 1.5 ratio as indicated by Peterborough City Council Planning Department)
   • As part of the same planning permission the conversion of the existing Woodlands building to C2 use counts as 16 units.
9. Applications for homes at 45 Peterborough Road and on Mill Lane have been refused as they did not fit the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.
10. The purpose of this policy was to limit the number of new homes to a level higher than that envisaged in the Local Plan through carefully chosen development adjoining the village envelope., rather than just within the village envelope. The number of new homes planned has been exceeded through the development of Castor Lodge.  This was supported by the parish. While we have therefore exceeded our target before the end date of the Plan, this is not seen as a reason to specifically increase this target. This is especially the case for three reasons:
    1. The homes granted permission have not all yet been built and may take a while to be completed.
    2. The policy does allow for exceeding the target if there is clear community support.
    3. Local Plan policies will continue to allow suitable development within the village envelope, though not outside the envelope. As there are still potential sites within the village envelope there is still the potential for further new homes.
11. Therefore the policy still seem relevant and appropriate and there is no reason to change the policy.

Policy CLU 1 Environmental Impact

12. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CLU2 Wildlife corridors

13. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CLU3 Open Spaces

14. Planning permission has been obtained for a new cricket pavilion on the Castor Recreation Ground. This was supported by the parish council as a necessary improvement to the existing recreational use.
15. The Parish council has completed improvements, including tree planting and pond creation, to the wildlife habitat at Tween Towns.
16. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and there is no reason to change the policy.

Policy CLU4. Protection of the historic environment

17. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CSE 1. Retail and business development

18. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CSE 2 Working from Home

19. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CSE3 Education

20. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CSE4. Health care

21. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CRV1. Rural recreation and sport

22. Since the adoption of the NP planning permission has been granted for the change of use to, and development of, C2 use (residential care) on part of the Woodlands site. This has involved the construction of an entirely new building on the south side of the original Woodlands Sports and Leisure building and the intended conversion of the original building. The new build has been completed and is occupied but the conversion has not yet been implemented. A condition of the planning permission was that temporary changing facilities, to replace the loss of the changing room facilities in the original building, needed to be provided to serve the outdoor playing fields. The Planning Officers report recommending approval of the Care home application concluded that the development would “enable the redundant Woodland Centre to be brought back into beneficial use providing sports facilities to be used by local residents and the wider community”.
23. Temporary changing facilities have been provided and the outdoor playing fields are used to a greater extent than previously.
24. It is therefore considered that the proviso for development indicated as attracting support in the third paragraph of policy CRV1 has been achieved.
25. Therefore the quantity of “some” development in the third paragraph of Policy CRV1 is considered to be the existing C2 use and development (as granted planning permission, or as varied to be similar in impact). Any further development is unlikely to be supported unless accompanied by evidence of clear local community support for the proposed scheme (demonstrated through a thorough and proportionate pre application community consultation exercise).
26. In line with Policy CH2, in respect of proposals which might exceed expectations, it is therefore proposed to add the following wording as a modification to policy CRV1:

“As a consequence of planning permission having been granted for C2 use and development on the Woodlands site the quantity of “some” development in the third paragraph of Policy CRV1 is considered to be the existing C2 use and development (as granted planning permission, or as varied to be similar in impact ).  Any further development is unlikely to be supported unless accompanied by evidence of clear local community support for the proposed scheme (demonstrated through a thorough and proportionate pre application community consultation exercise).”

Policy CRV2 Footpaths, cycleways and bridleways.

27. No matters relating to this policy have changed. The policy still seems relevant and appropriate and

therefore there is no reason to change this policy.

Policy CRV3. Visitor Access

28. A substantial part of the Nene Park Rural Estate has been moved from arable farming to Sheep pasture. It is not considered that this has any significant implications for access.  The policy still seems relevant and appropriate. It is considered therefore that there is no reason to change this policy.

Appendix 1

Informal meeting held on 21 July 2022 re- Castor & Ailsworth Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) 

Present: David Shaw, CPC; Phil Hylton, PCC and John Hodder

APC & CPC had each informally considered the policies in their respective NPs during 2021 and recorded in the summary of their joint informal meeting held on 30 September 2021 that they were content that the non-housing policies in each were operating effectively.  Recent planning approvals for Ailsworth also indicated that its housing policies were also on track and the Care Home development in Castor also meant that its NP housing target was catered for.

At the subsequent joint meeting on 8 June 2022 it was confirmed the joint village fete would be held in July and provide villagers with an opportunity to comment on PC matters including the NPs. The PCs also agreed that early contact with the NP adviser at PCC would be needed to clarify what a review process might entail.  On behalf of the two PCs David Shaw arranged an informal meeting with the current PCC point of contact for NP matters, Phil Hylton, to cover an outline agenda as numbered below.

1. Clarify what the latest regulations are re-NPs and what specific requirements there are for NP review.

The NP Act and Regulations continue to be subject to frequent updates and change and can be found at:

Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017

Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 as amended

NP Guidance is also available at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning–2

Phil confirmed that there were no requirements for a NP to be formally reviewed if it was considered to be functioning properly.

2. Both NPs conclude by stating that they will be reviewed every five years.  When last discussed both PCs seemed to feel that the plans were working well and didn’t envisage the need for change, so how formal does the review need to be and who should be consulted?

Even though both the Ailsworth & Castor NPs refer to review every five years this could be a relatively informal process.  For example, each PC could formally consider their NP at one of their usual public meetings and if no change was considered necessary simply record the fact in their minutes.  The nature of each review would depend on the extent of any changes that might be proposed and there were three types of modification which could be made.

• Minor (non-material) modifications which would not materially affect the policies in the plan, which may include correcting errors, would not require examination or a referendum.
• Material modifications would require examination but not a referendum if they are not so significant or substantial as to change the nature of the plan.
• Material modifications which do change the nature of the plan or order would require examination and a referendum.

3. CPC may wish to clarify the interpretation of one of the Castor NP policies without altering its original intent. 

David outlined that policy CRV1 of the Castor NP might require clarification of the reference to “some development of parts of the Woodlands site” in the third paragraph.  Phil’s view was that this would fall in the second category of modification and would require examination but not a referendum.  He suggested the best approach would be to add a new NP policy to cover the point rather than simply adding words of clarification.

It would not need a detailed consultation process but he suggested that CPC should consult with the various owners of Woodlands on the proposal and hopefully gain their acceptance.  It should also be discussed, agreed and recorded at a formal CPC meeting prior to submission of a short paper outlining the  position to PCC, for their consideration under the second category of modification.  Phil would be happy to comment on proposals as they were developed.

4. A sentence is missing from the Heading ‘Housing Growth’ in section 7.4 of the final version of the Ailsworth NP.

The following sentence was somehow omitted from the final version of the Ailsworth NP:

“The Parish Council will work with developers and the Local Authority to deliver the envisaged incremental growth over the Plan period.”

This could be added to correct the omission and in Phil’s view was a minor (non-material) modification, i.e. it would not require examination or a referendum.  It would need to be discussed and recorded at a formal APC meeting and the PC would then need to submit a statement to PCC to consider and make an appropriate amendment to the adopted NP.

5. When will the 2021 Census figures for the two parishes be available?

Some 2021Census information was now available but not detail at parish level.  It was anticipated that it would become available in 2023 and would be available online.

Finally, Planning services at PCC were currently being reorganized and a review of the Peterborough Local Plan would probably commence next year. PCs could register their interest in having an input to proposals.