Responses to examiner procedural matters and questions

Examination Ref: 01/DAS/BMNP.

19 June 2024.

Response to the Examiners Letter Brighton Marina Neighbourhood Plan 28

May 2024 by Brighton & Hove City Council (Questions 1 to 3).

Question 1: Re. Local Policies (page 13)

Can the City Council please confirm that the Review of the City Plan Part 1 is proceeding in accordance with the following timetable, as contained in the current Local Development Scheme (2023), which I note includes a Regulation 18 Scoping Consultation in Spring 2024?

• Assessment of Need for the Review
• Evidence Gathering and Scoping - 2023
• Scoping Consultation (Reg. 18) - spring 2024
• Preferred Strategy Consultation (Reg 18) - spring 2025
• Pre-submission Consultation (Reg 19) - spring 2026
• Submission of Plan to Government - autumn 2026
• Public Examination - winter 2026/2027
• Adoption – 2027

Question 1: Brighton & Hove City Council response

A review of the need to update policies in CPP1 was reported to the council’s Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee in March 2021. The key evidence-gathering and scoping stage commenced in 2023.

The City Plan Review Scoping consultation did not take place in Spring 2024. Agreement to proceed with the consultation is expected at the council’s Cabinet meeting, in September 2024. 

Once the decision is taken there will be clarity on the exact timing of the consultation and subsequent stages of preparation. The Local Development Scheme will then be updated.

Question 2: Re. City Plan Part 2 (pages 14 and 26)

It's stated in the draft plan on page 14 that the City Plan Part 2 was adopted in October 2022. On Page 26, it states that “the Inspector’s report has recently been received in relation to Part 2 of the Plan”.

Can the City Council please confirm that the entry on page 26 is not correct, and presumably dates from a point in 2022?

Question 2: Brighton & Hove City Council response

The City Council can confirm that the City Plan Part 2 was adopted on 20 October 2022, therefore the forum’s reference on page 26 that the ‘Inspector’s Report has recently been received’ is inaccurate.

Question 3: Re. City Plan Policy DA2 Re. Proposed Primary School (page 14)

Certain representations question the need for a new Primary School within or in the vicinity of Brighton Marina, as there's considered to be surplus capacity at some existing primary schools.

Can the City Council please provide me with an update on this element of policy DA2, and whether or not a site has been identified for the proposed new Primary School?   

Question 3: Brighton & Hove City Council response from Richard Barker - Head of School Organisation

DA2 Brighton Marina and Black Rock falls within the adjoining education planning areas of City East and The Deans. The Council’s current forecast of pupils requiring a starting school place up to 2027 compared to the number of school places available in those planning areas shows approximately 80 surplus places in City East and 100 surplus places in The Deans. 

The council’s overall forecast position for starting school places continues to show a decline in the number of pupils expected to require a school place and the decision has recently been taken to close 2 one form entry primary schools in the city and reduce the Published Admission Number of 6 other primary schools from September 2025, in response to the forecast drop in pupil numbers.

Taking account of these proposed changes the council forecasts that in 2027 there will be 584 unfilled places in the city with fewer than 2000 pupils requiring a school place.

DA2 falls within adjoining secondary school catchment areas of Longhill High School and Varndean School/Dorothy Stringer School. Both catchment areas are forecast to have space in their catchment areas up until 2023 other than in 2028 in the DS/V catchment area. There are over 70 spaces each year forecast in the Longhill area.

The total number of unfilled places in our secondary schools is forecast to rise from 281 in September 2025 to 549 in September 2030 which follows the impact of falling numbers being experienced in our primary schools currently.   

The council therefore does not consider there to be a need for a new primary school due to falling school rolls across the city and therefore no site has been identified for the proposed new primary school in the DA2 area. 

20 June 2024 

Derek Stebbing

Examiner

Intelligent Plans and Examinations (IPE) Ltd 

By email to: steve.carnaby@intelligentplans.co.uk

Cc. Brighton & Hove City Council

Dear Mr Stebbing, 

RE: Brighton Marina Neighbourhood Development Plan. 

Thank you for your letter of 28 May; we write to address question 4 of the Annex. 

Neighbourhood Plan Forum comments on the City Council’s representations at Regulation 16 Stage

General

The Forum has been grateful for Brighton and Hove City Council’s (BHCC’s) comments and support throughout the Plan preparation process. 

After the consultation process on the pre-submission Plan, the Forum incorporated Brighton & Hove City Council'’s suggested changes where the Forum considered that they were necessary to ensure that the Plan met the basic conditions. This was in the context that the Forum has always been very clear what it did and did not want to include in its Plan. 

Responses to Brighton & Hove City Council’s comments on the submitted Plan

The Forum’s comments on the most recent representation made by Brighton & Hove City Council are set out below: 

Policy BM1

• para 4 – agreed
• last paragraph – agreed
• first bullet point – not considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions
• second bullet point – agreed
• third paragraph - not considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions

Policy BM2

• safety paragraph – the representation largely revises the words used in the Plan, the Forum is relaxed with either version
• attractiveness paragraph – as above
• antepenultimate paragraph – as above
• general comments - not considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions

Policy BM3

General comments (X4) - not considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions.

Policy BM4

• all comments on policy- not considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions
• comments on supporting text - agreed

Policy BM5

• first three points – agreed
• proposed new sections on Biodiversity and Climate Change - not considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions, in addition, the Forum has sought not to repeat or restate national legislation within the submitted Plan

Policy BM6

The Forum has included the policy to acknowledge the special circumstances which exist at the Marina.

In addition, it's not unusual for a neighbourhood plan to incorporate a policy on such uses when a similar (and more general) policy is included in an adopted Local Plan.

The Forum would like the policy to remain.

Policy BM7

Three points – all agreed. 

Policy BM8

As with Policy BM6, the Forum has included the policy to acknowledge the special circumstances which exist at the Marina. In addition, it's not unusual for a neighbourhood plan to incorporate a policy on such uses when a similar (and more general) policy is included in an adopted Local Plan.

The comments in the supporting text are included to support the policy. They relate directly to the evidence base of the Plan.

The Forum would like the policy to remain.

General comments

The Forum notes Brighton & Hove City Council'’s comments on the remainder of the Plan. However, it does not consider that any of the comments made are necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions.

Most of the work on the Plan was finished before the September and December 2023 updates to the NPPF. The Forum would welcome a recommendation from the examiner to update the reference to the date and the paragraph numbers of the NPPF in the document. 

Brighton & Hove City Council suggests that the Plan should include a Principal Residency Policy. This is not a matter which the Forum wanted to pursue. This acknowledges that the scope and content of any Plan is determined by the qualifying body concerned. 

Summary

The Forum hopes that these comments assist the examination of the Plan. It's happy for the examiner to recommend changes either to the policies or the supporting text should this be considered necessary to ensure that the Plan meets the basic conditions.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Knight, Chair of Steering Group, Brighton Marina Neighbourhood Forum.