Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
subsequently. (As with any other form of development, applications may be made at any
time and will be assessed against the policies currently in force.) In practice however
there are several reasons why highway authorities and other transport promoters are
likely to be affected by the provisions of the plan and hence will want to influence its
content, particularly as far as major schemes are concerned:
• Transport agencies will want to ensure that the future volume and pattern of
travel implied by particular spatial proposals can be accommodated satisfactorily
on their networks and is consistent with their own aspirations. (Demonstrating
practicability in this respect will in fact be an important part of the testing of the
spatial plan.)
• The spatial planning policies establish a context with which individual schemes
will need to demonstrate consistency (and preferably offer a positive contribution)
as a criterion for gaining planning permission and - in the case of major schemes
- central government funding.
• The inclusion of named major schemes in the RTS is an important first step along
the way to securing public funding.
• The inclusion of individual transport proposals within development plan
documents more generally represents acceptance of their justification in spatial
planning terms and (given the principle of the 'plan-led' system) reduces potential
uncertainty and delay subsequently in securing their implementation.
Highway authorities are formal consultees in the preparation of plans. They and
other interested parties also have the opportunity of making representations on draft
strategies/plans and may be invited to participate in the Examination in Public (EIP)
to discuss issues raised.
In the case of RSS the EIP Panel is charged with satisfying itself that the strategy
is 'sound'. This requires that it is evidence based and internally consistent and fulfils
the Government's requirements in both its substance and manner of preparation. The
Panel's recommendations for changes in RSS are submitted to the Secretary of State
(DCLG) for his or her consideration and possible amendment prior to publication of
the final document.
The full list of criteria to be used in assessing RSS are set out in PPS11 (ODPM
2004a) and summarised in Box 22.1. These apply to the RSS as a whole (i.e. including
its RTS component) - in this case there is no separate guidance issued for transport
policies and proposals.
A similar set of criteria are set out in PPS12 for testing the soundness of local
development plan documents (ODPM 2004b para 4.24). A distinctive requirement
of DPDs is that they must be in 'general conformity' with the regional spatial strategy
(or in London the spatial development strategy). Regional planning bodies and the
London Mayor therefore have the opportunity to identify any ways in which they
consider this requirement is not met - in which case these must be investigated and
adjudicated on by the Inspector. Inconsistency with or omission of individual policies
is not itself reason to justify amendment, rather the question is how significant the
inconsistency is from the point of view of delivering the strategy.
The issue of consistency is particularly relevant to the integration of land use and
transport policies and proposals. For example the content of spatial plans might be
examined to determine whether
Search WWH ::




Custom Search