Major Modifications

**WARNING**
This webpage has been converted from Classic Google Sites to the new version of Google Sites.
All the data should be here but the layout has not been tidied up.
Links are underlined but the text is black rather than blue.

Core Strategy - Major Modifications

Return to the top level Core Strategy page.

NCC have announced that comments received during the Pre-Submission Draft consultation have been reviewed and it is considered appropriate that the document should be amended before it is submitted for independent examination.

NCC will be consulting on a revised Pre-Submission Draft.

As with the original Pre-Submission Draft, this is a statutory stage of consultation and comments submitted at this stage must be made in relation to the ‘soundness’ of the approach or whether it meets the relevant legal requirements.

See the NCC news article Cabinet agrees plan modifications for consultation

The article says "The major modifications only affect some sections of the strategy and some parts of the county – for the vast majority of Northumberland there are no changes at all."

It identifies key changes for Hexham, Ponteland, Morpeth, Cramlington, Ashington and Alnwick.

Due to the level of modifications proposed for Hexham and Morpeth, there will be consultation events in these towns on the following days and times:

• Morpeth Town Hall on 6th July, 2pm to 7pm; and

• Hexham Queens Hall on 7th July, 2pm - 7pm.

Summary of Comments

The key question is about the soundness of the plan:

Local Planning Authorities should submit a plan for examination which is considered to be ‘sound’.

To be sound, the plan must be: positively prepared; justified; effective; and consistent with national policy

Do you consider the Plan has met these tests?

As of Oct 30th, 788 comments from 263 people have been posted on the NCC's Consultation Portal.

The Further Major Modification documentation says the Council received almost 810 comments from almost 290 respondents.

Of the 788 comments that can be seen, 64% of the comments say the plan is not sound, 20% say it is sound and 16% don't say either way.

This compares to Pre-Submission Draft where there were 1,848 comments from 390 people with 73% of the comments saying the plan is not sound.

The first graph shows how the comments are distributed across the sections - with the same scale as the Pre-Submission Draft chart.

The second graph shows how the number of comments has changed over successive consultations.

Timetable

• 6 week consultation on Major Modifications : June 15th - July 27th 2016

• Cabinet : October 2016

• Full Council : November 2016

• Submission of Core Strategy for Examination : December 2016

• Examination : Spring 2017

• Adoption : Summer 2017

Major Modifications Compared to Pre-Submission Draft - Summary of Changes

Detail of Changes

Land for economic development

Significant changes to the portfolio of allocated employment land which will decrease the total land supply from 381ha to 305ha, but the general employment provision is to increase from 179ha to 205ha.

Housing numbers

Housing number for Hexham increased from 720 to 900 to increase focus on Main Towns and provide greater certainty about delivery;
Housing number for the Rest of Central Delivery Area reduced from 1,020 to 840 mirroring the above;
Clarification that housing delivery will be monitored at the Delivery Area level and that lack of delivery at this level will trigger a plan review;

Green Belt

Hexham – amendments to the supporting text and Figure 7.2 to reflect the changes proposed to Green Belt deletions for the town. Instead of five small deletions for housing it is proposed to have one larger deletion at Shaws Lane to the west of the town to ensure there is capacity to meet the housing development needs of the town within the plan period and beyond and to provide an alternative site for a new school;
Ponteland – amendments to the supporting text and Figure 7.3 to reflect the changes proposed to Green Belt deletions for the town. An area adjacent to Prestwick is proposed for release within the Plan period for employment development. The safeguarded employment land near to the Airport shown in the previous version of the plan has been removed. In the South East Ponteland area, the safeguarded land has been amended slightly and there is no longer a delineation of where the housing, education and leisure uses would be located;
Prudhoe – amendment to the supporting text to make reference to the fact that master planning will be required for the Green Belt release sites;
Morpeth – amendments to Figure 7.5 to reflect the changes proposed to the allocated land for the town. The safeguard land to the south of the A196 has been removed. The area allocated for employment uses to the north of Morpeth has been relocated to be nearer to the north west corner of Lancaster Park. The area previously identified for employment uses in the Plan period is now safeguarded employment land; and
Small Settlements – minor amendment to the inset boundaries at Pegswood (neighbourhood plan consistency) and Heddon on the Wall (correcting a mapping error) and a more substantial change to the inset boundary at Stannington Station.
[Note: These are the only inset boundaries that are part of this consultation.The Longhorsley inset boundary has not changed and is not part of this consultation]

Onshore Wind Energy

The policy for onshore wind energy has been amended to reflect a Ministerial Statement last year and National Planning Policy Framework and the strategy says that suitable areas for wind turbine development will be addressed in a separate Development Plan Document and/or through neighbourhood plans
They are consulting on a Renewable Energy SPD - Scoping Document which sets out their initial views on the proposed scope and content.
This consultation also runs until July 27th.

SHLAA Update

The supporting documents for the Major Modifications consultation include a June 2016 update to the 2015 SHLAA. (See Major Modifications Documents below)

There will be a new 2016 SHLAA and new Five Year Supply Report "early summer" 2016.

The update has new sites new sites for Hexham, Ponteland, Medburn and Stannington Station where Green Belt boundaries are proposed to be revised.

The total for suitable SHLAA sites 2015-2031 has increased from 28,020 to 28,686.

With the 3,185 completions 2011-2015 it brings the total to 31,871 for the plan period compared to a target housing increase of 24,320.

The definition of precise inset boundaries was identified in the Pre-Submission Core Strategy document.

Further changes to the Green Belt boundaries are proposed in the Major Modifications consultation. (See Detail of Changes above)

All sites located outside of the infill or inset boundaries are identified as not suitable in the SHLAA.

For Longhorsley this means the Church View West and Whitegates West SHLAA sites are shown as not suitable - as they were in the original October 2015 SHLAA.

The Reivers Gate and Shoulder of Mutton SHLAA sites have planning approval for part of their SHLAA sites and these parts are within the Longhorsley inset boundary.

The SHLAA has been updated to exclude the areas outside the inset boundary.

Purpose and Scope

It is a formal, statutory stage in the production of the Core Strategy, as set out in Regulations.

The ‘major modifications’ stage is a formal statutory stage and signifies levels of change that require further consultation.

People will be able to comment on its soundness during the six week consultation.

Alongside the major modifications there are also some minor modifications, primarily to the wording of the document.

These will be available to view but can’t be commented on as part of the consultation.

Comments can be made on the major modifications only and not the whole of the Core Strategy document.

For this stage responses must be based around the 'Tests of Soundness' that require the Core Strategy to be ‘Positively Prepared’, 'Justified', 'Effective' and consistent with national policy.

To be positively prepared, the Core Strategy must be:

• Prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements; and

• Consistent with achieving sustainable development.

To be justified, the Core Strategy must be:

• Founded on a robust and credible evidence base; and

• The most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.

To be effective, the Core Strategy must be:

• Deliverable;

• Flexible;

• Based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

• Able to be monitored.

To be consistent with national policy, the Core Strategy must: