The document provides guidance on developing neighborhood plans, including: - Neighborhood plans should be flexible and tailored to local issues but must conform to national and local planning policies. - Policies must be clear, precise, supported by evidence, and address unique local characteristics. Objectives and evidence used should be proportionate. - Effective plans have a clear layout with photos and are easy to follow. Policies must be robust, deliverable, and function as planning policies. - When writing policies, clearly state intent in plain English, use precise planning language, and provide justified evidence to support the intention.

1. #neighbourhoodplanning
Plan
Content
11 December 2013

2. • Flexible tool - no standard template
• Depends on the nature of the area and the issues
communities believe need to be addressed
• Plans should be locally distinctive and add value to the
existing Policy framework

3. Development and use of land

4. A policy in a neighbourhood plan should be clear and
unambiguous. It should be drafted with sufficient clarity that a
decision maker can apply it consistently and with confidence
when determining planning applications. It should be concise,
precise and supported by appropriate evidence. It should be
distinct to reflect and respond to the unique characteristics and
planning context of the specific neighbourhood area for which it
has been prepared. (NPPG beta)

5. Objective & proportionate evidence

6. It is my view that there is more scope for the
better use of map-based plans in the document”
(Independent Examiner, Tattenhall
Neighbourhood Plan).

7. LOOK & FEEL
“….Its overall design, along with the inclusion of interesting
and attractive photographs, helps to provide a document
which holds the attention and is easy to follow.”
(Independent Examiner, Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan)

8. Policy Wording
Conformity
Deliverability
Evidence
Robust & Implementable
Advice and assistance is available….

9. Conformity: Have regard to national policy and
advice and be in general conformity with the
strategic policies of the development plan
Deliverability: Realistic prospect of deliverability demonstrate that the policies and proposals are
deliverable
– E.g. impact of collective policy requirements
Evidence: Appropriate; sufficient justification and
evidence to support the policies
– be proportionate; use existing sources where
possible; think about objectivity
Robustness: statutory Planning document –
policies need to be robust, deliverable and function
as Planning policies rather than statements of
intent

10. Starting to write
Intent
What do you want to do,
and why? Set it out in
plain English
Policy
Use Planning language –
precise, speak to your LA
Justification
What is the evidence to
support this intention?

11. Exeter St James – Policy C1:
Houses in multiple occupation
Halt conversions to HMO; ensure area
stays attractive to all sectors; diverse
population, people at all stages of life.
Intent
Policy
“Changes of use to houses in HMO will
not be permitted unless; a), b)… e)”
Justification
Community balance; rapid increase in
proportion of students; loss of
permanent residents in some areas; 20%
threshold

12. Table discussion

13. Policy 1
New eccentric buildings may be permissible, but
these opportunities will be exceptionally rare, and
their appropriateness is wholly dependent on
specific context and cannot be set out in policy.
Does it meet the basic conditions?
What questions would you ask as an examiner?
What sort of evidence would you want to see?
What modifications might you suggest?

14. Policy 2
Location of Development & Enhancement of the Local Environment
Previously developed sites within the existing extent of the settlements of A,
B and C are the preferred locations for development. The development of
greenfield, infill sites within the settlements will also be supported subject to
the following criteria:
– the proposals would not result in the loss of open space used by and of
value to the community
– the proposals would not result in the loss of open space that is
important to the character and quality of the local environment
Does it meet the basic conditions?
What questions would you ask as an examiner?
What sort of evidence would you want to see?
What modifications might you suggest?

15. Policy 1
Examiners report:
– Policy fails to have appropriate regard to Paragraph 17 of the NPPF due
to the high level of uncertainty introduced by the terms ‘More flexibility
might be permitted in the lesser terraces and mews etc.’ and ‘eccentric
buildings’.
– The policy ends by stating that the issue of eccentric buildings cannot
be set out in policy.
Proposed modifications:
– The word ‘etc.’ should be deleted from Policy N1.
– The scope of ‘more flexibility’ should be defined.
– The term ‘eccentric buildings’ should be defined or the policy reworded
to exclude the term.
•
Evidence required:
– Character assessment – could help define and identify ‘lesser terraces
and mews’
– Design guidance:
• Place check etc
– Under what circumstances would proposals be permissable?

16. Policy 2
Examiner recommendation:
• Insert punctuation.
– Insert “and” to make the criteria inclusive.
– As written the policy would not provide clear guidance for developers
seeking planning permission or planning officers considering a planning
application.
– The imprecision would also be likely to cause unproductive argument
between parties involved in planning appeals.
What evidence would be required?
• What is the housing need?
– Information required in order to determine whether sufficient brownfield
land is available to meet the required housing need.
•
What criteria will be used to determine / assess whether the open
space is used by and of value to the community or important to the
character and quality of the local environment?