INFRASTRUCTURE

21st May 2004

REPORT

To consider the policy framework for Infrastructure in the plan review in response to comments received on the Key Issues Paper.

BACKGROUND

In July 2003, the Borough Council published its Key Issues Paper as a preliminary consultation exercise pending the review of the adopted plan (June 2001).

In relation to Infrastructure, a total of 7 Key Issues were identified and views canvassed in order to inform the review process. The key issues relate to the following:-

• Relevance of current adopted Local Plan objectives;
• Requirements for developer contributions to wider community benefits, including flood protection schemes;
• Shortfalls in essential community facilities;
• Protection of community facilities from other uses;
• The development of renewable energy sources; and
• The need to improve air quality.

There were over 130 responses received on these issues, the details of which are outlined in the next section together with officer responses and recommendations.

Question 9.1

Officer response

Four key omissions have been highlighted in the responses in relation to noise pollution/light pollution (English Heritage, PCT Shrewsbury and Atcham Area), waste/recycling (Environment Agency) and foul drainage systems (Environment Agency). Furthermore, The Borough Council's Housing and Environment Strategy Manager requests an additional objective in respect of development generally not having any detrimental impact upon services and facilities enjoyed by existing residents. Each of these points is accepted and it is recommended that they be embraced within the overall objectives in relation to infrastructure in the plan review.

On the issues raised in relation to scale of development and the adequacy of surface water systems (Gough Planning Services), it is accepted and recommended that this should be "as proposed" rather than "as existing".

Question 9.2

Officer response

There are a mixed range of views amongst the responses to the question of wider community benefits and this is to be expected, particularly amongst developers. The Government are currently engaged in consultations on planning obligations and planning gain and the final published guidance should clarify what can reasonably be required by Local Planning Authorities from new development in terms of wider community benefits. What is clear is that any contributions should be subsidised by lower land values rather than developer profits so the system should be equitable if developers do not have existing land banks (Mr E Higginbottom). There is also an issue about "additionality" on top of Council Tax premiums and remedying shortfalls in existing provision (Pooks, Kemberton Consulting for Morris Properties, Shropshire Homes), but there are some infrastructure proposals (i.e. major road schemes, flood defences etc) which may be considered to be of such strategic importance that all developments should contribute, possibly with the exception of affordable housing on brownfield sites requiring expensive remediation.

Question 9.3

Officer response

The two key areas identified relate to Bomere Heath (doctors surgery, recreational ground) and Condover (car parking) in terms of local facility provision. These requests should be investigated as part of the plan review and where appropriate, sites identified for safeguarding from alternative development proposals.

Another key response from Leith Planning for Morris Property highlights the critical need for a range of health care facilities for the community, namely intermediate care, post op rehabilitation, respite care, palliative care, terminal care, convalescence, frail elderly care and residential care. Officers are aware of the high cost of competing land/sites for such uses in and on the edge of the Shrewsbury Urban Area; it is therefore considered to be a fundamental requirement of the plan-led system to identify potential sites for such health care uses and protect them from competing development, principally open market housing and retail. It is therefore recommended that potential sites be investigated for inclusion in the plan review.

Question 9.4

Officer response

There is overwhelming support for this approach, hence it is recommended that appropriate policies be drafted for inclusion in the plan review.

Question 9.5

Officer response

There are a wide range of views in response to this question, though the majority view appears to support no development in flood risk areas or alternatively allowing open space/recreational uses in order to maintain or enhance the flood plain (CPRE, Mr J Manley, Civic Society). In some instances however, development may be permitted in flood risk areas, particularly on brownfield sites where regeneration and enhancement of the built environment are key objectives. This will bring additional costs to site development if defences are required which may, as one respondent observes, result in "no go" areas where investment or redevelopment becomes prohibitive (PCT Shrewsbury and Atcham Area). The Environment Agency recognise the complexity of this issue and raise concerns over future maintenance of protection schemes if indeed such schemes are feasible. There are clear linkages with Q9.2 in terms of wider community benefits which may be levied on development and there is a need for clearer guidance from Government as to how reasonable it is to require such provision

Question 9.6

Officer response

Although there have historically been few renewable energy schemes developed in the Borough, this is likely to be an issue in the plan review and a policy framework will need to be formulated. There appears to be diverse views expressed on this issue with fairly strong resistance to wind turbines, especially in sensitive landscapes (CPRE, Civic Society, Mrs C Yarham) but a general level of "in principle" support for renewable energy schemes. This will be a matter to be addressed in response to the findings of the work being undertaken on Landscape Character Assessments. It may be that certain areas will be able to accommodate wind farms better than others in terms of visual impact and scale. It is however acknowledged that energy efficiency can be addressed via building techniques and building control in terms of design, layout and orientation (Economic Wellbeing Group).

Question 9.7

Officer response

Several of the issues raised (e.g. driver behaviour, cleaner fuel, tyre/engine noise) go beyond the scope of planning control, but there seems to be a common thread in the responses to generally reduce extraneous traffic movement, particularly the private car and hence improve air quality. However, the prospect of introducing underpasses/underground routes (Mr J Manley) is highly improbable and may not in any event provide any long-term solution. In essence, the issue would best be addressed in terms of traffic management and by seeking to steer development away from sensitive areas and in this regard, the Council's Green Travel Plan for its new Frankwell HQ goes some way towards not exacerbating current problems.

Infrastructure – General

Officer response

One of the key issues raised, which was not in the original questions, is telecommunications masts and although there are views expressed about the need for careful control, the operators (BT and Orange) feel that mobile phone masts provide one of the fundamental elements to achieving sustainable development objectives. It is acknowledged that new technologies in this field could have impacts on reducing the need to travel and facilitate more home working, but the location of telecommunications infrastructure does need to be carefully controlled, particularly in sensitive landscapes (Friends of the Earth, CPRE). It is therefore recommended that the policy framework in the plan review be reviewed in the light of more recent Government guidance contained in PPG8.

Conclusion

The infrastructure questions arising from the Key Issues Paper have elicited a wide range of views which provide a context for taking forward the review of the plan.

Further work will need to be undertaken on some of the issues, most notably the potential contributions which may be sought from developers in respect of major infrastructure schemes. This will be examined via Supplementary Planning Guidance as part of the 'finer grain' of the land use policy framework.

Moreover, a car parking strategy is currently being prepared for presentation to Cabinet in June and consideration will be given to the issue of planning obligations meeting the need for additional car park/transport infrastructure.

MINUTES

The Planning Policy Manager provided feedback on the responses to the Key Issues paper with regard to Infrastructure. In relation to infrastructure, a total of seven 'Key Issues' had been identified.

• Relevance of current adopted Local Plan objectives;

• Requirements for developer contributions to wider community benefits, including flood protection schemes;

• Shortfalls in essential community facilities;

• Protection of community facilities from other uses;

• The development of renewable energy sources; and;

• The need to improve air quality.

Several issues from the consultation were noted as follows:-

• Sheltered housing was identified as an issue by both the consultees and the group. The Planning Policy Officer would provide the group with papers from Shropshire Care on future development within this area;

• Concerns were raised over the visual impact of wind farms being introduced and other forms of renewal energy sources should be looked into for future development;

• Air quality issues were identified. Members were informed that an air quality strategy had been produced with an action plan;

• Concerns over telecommunications masts had been noted, but the operators felt that the supply and development of communications technology is one of the fundamental elements to achieving sustainable development objectives by helping to reduce the need to travel.

Members were informed that in conclusion the infrastructure questions arising from the Key Issues paper provided a wide range of views which provide the context for taking the review of the plan forward. In addition to the broad principles recommended for acceptance, the Principle Planning Policy Officer suggested need for an additional objective relating to the provision, retention and improvement of community facilities and services.

RESOLVED:

1. To add a new objective to read 'To protect new development from the adverse impacts of noise and light pollution';

2. To add a new objective to read 'To promote the availability of enhanced community waste collection/recycling facilities';

3. To add 'the proposed surface water and foul drainage systems; in objective five;

4. To add a new objective to read 'To ensure that new development does not have a detrimental impact on the services and facilities enjoyed by existing residents';

5. To investigate the allocation of land in Bomere Heath (doctor's surgery, recreational ground) and Condover (car parking) for inclusion with the plan review;

6. To draft appropriate policies for inclusion in the plan review in respect of the protection of existing community uses from alternative uses;

7. To review the policy framework in respect of telecommunications masts in the light of Government guidance contained in PPG8;

8. To take into account any relevant findings emerging from the car parking strategy; and;

9. To add a new objective relating to securing the provision, retention and improvement of community facilities and services to meet the needs of the existing and future population of the Borough.