The Independent Examiner's Comments on the N'b'hood Plan

Background to Audlem Neighbourhood Plan's Independent Examination

There was a time recently when it was feared that the ANP might stall at its Independent Examination – a critical phase in its development – and have to undergo significant changes.

Objections from Developers

This fear was primarily due to the 204 pages of convoluted, complex and at times erroneous legal objections, that had been formally raised against the ANP. As a result, our initial Independent Examiner decided that because to their lack of formal legal expertise, assistance was necessary in the guise of a suitably experienced Barrister. Fortunately, several weeks later, we finally received confirmation that, subject some relatively minor modifications (which have now been approved by the Parish Council), the ANP could proceed to referendum.

Many of the Examiner's comments (given in bold text below) aptly demonstrate the aggressive and inappropriate tactics being used by certain developers to block the approval of Neighbourhood Plans:

Of those 204 pages, 164 consisted of representations from Gladman Developments Ltd. These have added substantially to the cost of this examination and the time it has taken to complete it through prolixity and repetitiveness, including repeatedly raising an argument that the High Court has previously rejected without drawing attention to the court decisions involved. The last point is regrettable since many examiners are not legally qualified and most parish councils lack legal support. The repetitiveness is also of concern, particularly where it is coupled with a lack of particulars. This adds substantially and unnecessarily to the cost of a process that is intended to be relatively straightforward for bodies whose members are volunteers seeking to work for the benefit of their communities.

The Examiner further stated:
Gladman have stated that the (ANP) vision provides "an anti-growth strategy that is contrary to the entire ethos of the Framework, PPG and the Neighbourhood Plan Basic Conditions" and is "concerned with the use of 'gradual' as this will effectively delay the delivery of sustainable development coming forward counter to the requirements of national policy". I disagree. Without restraint on development, Audlem would be likely increasingly to become a dormitory settlement for almost entirely private-motor-vehicle based commuting and such development would not be sustainable. The Draft NDP (as modified by my recommended modifications) is part of a positive vision for the future. In such circumstances there is no obligation for it to avoid restrictions on growth. The use of the word 'gradual' is justified.

Existing Approvals

One particularly important clause in the ANP is paragraph 4.1.1 which claims that because of the 146 houses previously approved at Little Heath and Heathfield Road:
"any further allocation of potential development sites is unnecessary at this time".
In other words, Audlem does not need any additional developments outside its settlement boundary. This is particularly relevant since there is least one other such development being considered, off Tollgate Drive.

Compliments from the Examiner

The Examiner also wrote:

I commend the draft NDP for being well written, logical, clear, appropriately concise and intelligible to a reasonably intelligent lay reader with no expertise in town and country planning.

Great praise indeed!!!

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.