DRAFT Sustainability Appraisal Report for the Emerging Local Plan ...

equired by 2026. A Gypsy and Traveller Sites DPD will update the number of pitches and
plots required, making use of a new local needs assessment, and also identify the locations
for this provision.
16.201 The approach in SP03 takes in to account the detailed assessment undertaken as part of the
SEA indicating no significant difference between the alternatives. For the reasons set out
above the preferred approach is SPO3 that seeks to meet the future needs of the gypsy
community.
16.202 The Local Plan team rejected one alternative to Policy SP03, which was:
SP03‐A1: No additional provision;
16.203 The overall conclusion of SEA as summarised in Appendix 4 is that the preferred policy of
SP03 Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople has a neutral effect. The same applies to
the single alternative considered for this policy.
16.204 The overall conclusion of SA as summarised in Appendix 3 is that the preferred policy has a
mixed effect.
16.205 To summarise, Policy SP03 promotes the safeguarding of existing sites. It suggests additional
provision between the years 2016 – 2026 be considered in a future DPD.
Strategic Policy 4 (SP04) – Provision and Retention of Infrastructure and Services
16.206 At the Issues and Options stage considerable support was received for the proposal that
development should help fund infrastructure and services, for example the Council’s Yellow
Bus Scheme (transport for school children), general bus services, and traffic management
measures.
16.207 During the evolution of the Local Plan, the Council considered the alternative to a policy on
community infrastructure would be to rely on guidance as set out in Circular 05/05 and the
use of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) when it is introduced. It concluded that this
would leave the provision of infrastructure to be dealt with on a case by case basis through
the planning application process. The Council’s involvement in the Surrey collaboration
project and its adoption of the “planning tariff” approach is supported by a policy LF10 in the
SEP. This policy support s the small scale site tariff, and our proposed approach builds on
this.
16.208 It was considered important to address the provision of community facilities at the Local Plan
level as it contributes towards maintaining the sustainability of locations and helps with
community cohesion. However, given the fact that the Government has replaced Circular
05/2005 with the NPPF coupled with the fact that the CIL Regulations 2010 are being
implemented following the adoption of the Local Plan – it is questionable as to the
effectiveness of this policy that largely replicates higher legislation in terms of CIL, s106
Obligations (Planning Act) and Section 278 (Highways Act).
16.209 The Local Plan promotes no alternatives to Policy SP04, going on to state that:
“The policy provides a local perspective on the guidance set out in
The NPPF says in paragraph 179 that it is important that planned
infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion. It is important for
local planning authorities to understand the borough wide
development costs at the time Local Plan are drawn up. For this
reason infrastructure and development policies should be planned
at the same time, in the Local Plan. In paragraph 175 it says that
where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) should be
worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. This is the proposed
approach of the Local Plan. Policy SP04 seeks to set the context for
the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) that underpins the CIL
charging regime with the former being an integral part of the Local
Plan process. It is recognised that the development policies in the
Local Plan will identify the quantum of development and provide
the guidance for assembling the IDP.”
Page | 226 Runnymede BC FINAL Sustainability Appraisal Report – Feb 2013