Annex A

New Forest District Council

Sandleheath Neighbourhood Plan 2024 to 2044

Regulation 16 Consultation – Response of New Forest District Council

Neighbourhood Plan Policies   

NFDC Comments  

Document layout   

The submission version of the Sandleheath Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) does not currently meet accessibility requirements, and its layout differs from the clear, policy-focused format normally used in development plan documents. Although this is not a legal barrier, it is recommended that the Plan is reformatted so that policies are presented more distinctly, the document has a uniform and accessible appearance, and visual elements are used consistently. At present, the Plan closely resembles other neighbourhood plans submitted to the Council, making it difficult to distinguish visually; introducing a clearer design identity would improve usability. Maps already contain colour, so subtle accessible palettes can be incorporated into tables and text boxes. In addition, the Plan has no front cover photograph; while not mandatory, most neighbourhood plans use a cover image that reflects the parish’s character and provides a distinct visual identity, helping the document stand out and meet expected presentation standards. 

NPIERS health-check  

A NPIERS health-check is recommended prior to Regulation 15 Submission to allow the pre-submission Plan to benefit from independent scrutiny. NPIERS provides comprehensive guidance on the purpose and advantages of this process. While not a legal requirement, the Council encourages parishes preparing neighbourhood plans to undertake a health-check to help ensure the robustness of their submission draft. In this case a health-check was not undertaken. 

Overview of the Sandleheath NDP 

Some policies in the Sandleheath NDP contain restrictive wording, unnecessary duplication of higher tier policies, and internal inconsistencies. The Council therefore recommends the policy-specific modifications set out below. 

Chapter Background (page 5, Sandleheath NDP) 

Para 2.6 needs to be amended to reflect that the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation finishes on 20 March 2026, and an expected submission to government in December 2026. 

SAN1 SPATIAL STRATEGY  

Clause A  

Planning decisions must follow the development plan, so there is no need to restate this legal test within the Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan should be read alongside other statutory elements of the development plan and national policy and guidance. However, if the decision making test is to be restated, the wording should be amended to reflect the NPPF’s requirement for positively framed policies (NPPF §29) e.g. “Development within the defined settlement boundary is supported in principle, subject to the policies of the Development Plan, including this Neighbourhood Plan” or “…supported where they are consistent with the Development Plan…”.  

While the Sandleheath NDP will be examined against the current National Planning Policy Framework, the Draft NPPF (December 2025) signals a clear direction of travel that qualifying bodies should be aware of for future reviews. The draft Framework places stronger emphasis on avoiding duplication of national or higher-tier policies, including a proposed requirement under Policy PM6 that plans should not replicate or restate national decision-making policies unless explicitly directed by national policy. It also reinforces the Government’s broader intention to streamline policy and reduce unnecessary duplication across the planning system. While these emerging changes are not applicable to this examination, the Parish Council may wish to have regard to them in any subsequent update of the Plan to ensure continued alignment with higher-tier policy.  

Clause B 

The wording of Clause B (“will only be supported where…”) reads as a blanket restriction on all development outside the settlement boundary. As drafted, it automatically excludes forms of development that the adopted Local Plan permits in the countryside subject to criteria, such as householder extensions, replacement dwellings, redevelopment of sustainable previously developed land (PDL), rural exception housing, essential utilities and infrastructure, tourism or recreation proposals, and affordable housing-led rural schemes. These forms of development are expressly supported in NFDC strategic policies STR2, STR3, ENV3 and ENV4, none of which operate as absolute prohibitions. Consequently, SAN1(B) is more restrictive than the Development Plan.  

The policy also lacks clarity over how sustainable forms of countryside development should be considered, including the reuse of PDL. The adopted Local Plan provides flexibility to assess such proposals through STR1–STR4 and environmental policies including ENV3 and ENV4. As drafted, SAN1(B) appears not to provide this flexibility.  

Furthermore, the policy does not explain how it should operate when development plan policies are out of date, or where material considerations require a different outcome. NFDC’s Local Plan is explicit that decision-making must be undertaken in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations apply. SAN1(B) does not recognise this statutory context.  

Overall, the Submission Version appears more restrictive than both the Local Plan and national policy. The policy could therefore benefit from clarification to ensure that it:  

1.13.     does not inadvertently prohibit householder development, replacement dwellings or other forms of countryside development normally acceptable in principle;  

1.14.     allows for sustainable PDL proposals outside the boundary; and  

1.15.     explains the relationship with NPPF paragraph 11(d) and the wider statutory decision-making framework.  

Such amendments would ensure the policy remains positively framed, consistent with the strategic policies of the Local Plan, and compliant with the Basic Conditions. 

Clause C 

The phrase “sufficiently prominent” is unclear. While the text in brackets explains how prominence should be judged i.e. by siting or scale, it does not explain when development becomes “sufficiently” prominent to trigger the policy. This creates uncertainty in interpretation and application.  

The requirement that proposals “will need to demonstrate that [they] would not adversely affect the setting” amounts to a zero-harm test. This is more restrictive than both the Local Plan and the NPPF, which apply proportionate, effects-based tests, typically requiring proposals to conserve and enhance landscape character, or to avoid, minimise, and mitigate adverse effects where possible, rather than requiring an absolute absence of harm. 

Supporting Text (Paras 3.4–3.7)  

When read as a whole, Policy SAN1 currently appears restrictive, giving the impression of a development-limiting spatial strategy, even though this may not be the group’s aim. The supporting text reinforces this restrictive interpretation, particularly in relation to Clause B. 

Para 3.4: The statement that development should be “cumulatively proportionate” is unclear and risks implying an additional cap on growth. It does not acknowledge that the Local Plan already manages cumulative growth, nor that the settlement boundary is primarily a focus for directing development rather than a tool for restricting it.  

Para 3.5: The wording comes across as unhelpfully negative and appears to undermine the settlement hierarchy and strategic housing approach. It would benefit from a balanced line confirming that growth is appropriate where it accords with the Local Plan and is proportionate to the role and function of Sandleheath.  

Para 3.6: The text reads as if the settlement boundary has been redrawn solely to constrain development. This reinforces the restrictive interpretation of SAN1(B), rather than explaining that the boundary reflects the Local Plan strategy for directing sustainable growth.   

SAN2: LOCAL GAP     

The policy relies heavily on older evidence (2000, 2005), and it is unclear why a defined Gap is considered necessary now rather than historically. The justification needs to explain the current purpose and relevance of the Gap, rather than relying solely on legacy documents.  

If SAN2 is interpreted as allowing “no development at all”, it effectively functions as a strategic-level Gap policy. Neighbourhood plans cannot introduce new strategic designations of this nature; this is a matter for the Local Plan.  

As drafted, SAN2 reads as a blanket prohibition. The wording that “no development will be permitted in this area” if it results in the closer proximity of settlements amounts to an absolute bar, meaning that any proposal within the defined Gap would be refused, even small-scale or otherwise acceptable countryside development. This approach is not positively worded and does not reflect the proportionate, effects-based approach expected by the NPPF or the Local Plan.  

Overall, SAN2 is restrictive and inflexible, focusing on preventing all development rather than only that which would harm the separate identity of settlements. The policy would benefit from rewording to ensure it is proportionate, criteria-based, and focused on preventing harmful coalescence, rather than imposing an absolute restriction.  

SAN3: DESIGN GUIDANCE AND CODES  

Supporting Text 

Para 3.17: while the use of design codes is strongly encouraged, the statement that “the Code… carries the full weight of the development plan and is not subordinate or supplementary guidance” is incorrect.  

A neighbourhood plan cannot elevate an appendix, design code, or any external document to have independent development plan status. Only the policies of the neighbourhood plan, once made, form part of the development plan. Supporting documents and appendices do not carry the same statutory weight, and the neighbourhood plan cannot grant them that status.  

The Sandleheath Design Guidance and Codes (Appendix A) is currently hosted separately via a weblink.  While this is increasingly common for large documents, weblinks can change over time. Documents that are accessible only online cannot reliably form part of the statutory development plan. Any documents intended to carry development plan weight must therefore be incorporated within the Plan itself, or provided as a fixed, static appendix that will remain accessible for the lifetime of the Plan. 

The supporting text should be amended to clarify that the design code is guidance intended to support interpretation of the neighbourhood plan’s design policies, but it does not independently carry development plan status.  

Note: The existing LP policy ENV3 refers to local distinctiveness SPDs but does not elevate them to DPD status. 

SAN4: HOUSING MIX, TYPE AND TENURE  

Clause A

As set out in the Council’s Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation comments on the Sandleheath NDP, it would be more appropriate to amend the wording to: “Proposals for residential development will be expected seek to”. 

Clause B

As set out in the Council’s Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation comments on the Sandleheath NDP, NFDC would only apply M4(2) or (3) for the reasons set out in paragraphs 0.3 – 0.6 of the Building Regulations Approved Document M. NFDC suggests that if this was policy for all development it could impact the development potential of sites, as both M4(2) and (3) require larger internal areas to accommodate the required adaptions. Requiring all dwellings to meet M4(2)/M4(3) accessibility standards is therefore disproportionate. 

SAN5: SITE ALLOCATIONS  

SAN5 is very prescriptive. Multiple elements depend on third-party landowner consent, such as links requiring permission from Forres Sandle Manor School, which raises deliverability concerns. Both allocations require village hall parking on opposite sides of the road, which appears unjustified and potentially undeliverable, and should instead be framed as general contributions to community parking. The policy is also overly detailed in specifying pedestrian crossings and masterplan-level layouts, particularly in Figure 4, which should be reduced to high-level principles to ensure flexibility.  

Note: Following on from the Council’s Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation response, given that the NPPF no longer defines First Homes as affordable housing and the NFDC Housing Needs Assessment indicates that other affordable homeownership models are more affordable, NFDC is now of the clear view that shared ownership is likely to be more affordable, more accessible, and better aligned with local demand and need. 

SAN6: LOCAL BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT  

Clause A 

The term “compatible” is subjective. Clause A should provide clarity on the impacts being assessed e.g. noise, traffic, amenity to ensure the policy is clear and enforceable. 

Clause B  

The blanket requirement for a transport assessment could unintentionally capture minor proposals. This should defer to Local Plan, national guidance or Highway Authority thresholds, so that only developments meeting the appropriate scale trigger a Transport Statement/Assessment.  

Clause C 

The requirement for either re-provision of employment floorspace within the parish or a fixed 12month marketing period is overly rigid and disproportionate for a small rural settlement. A more appropriate approach would refer to a proportionate marketing period at a realistic price. 

Clause C also currently applies a uniform test to four very different land uses (the village shop, the industrial estate, the independent school and the Rockbourne Road commercial premises) which may not be appropriate given their differing planning functions and policy considerations. 

Clause D is also too prescriptive as it implies applicants must “mitigate” community wellbeing impacts, which is not a measurable planning test; it should instead require evidence on viability and consideration of alternative community-serving uses.  

SAN7: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE  

SAN7 requires some refinement to ensure clarity and deliverability. Parts of the policy currently operate as absolute prohibitions i.e. “will not be supported”, which should be amended to allow proportionate mitigation and biodiversity net gain.  

SAN8 CONNECTING THE VILLAGE  

The policy is overly detailed, repeats elements already addressed through Local Plan transport policies, and includes requirements that lie outside the control of development. Several provisions depend on third-party landowner consent, such as securing enhanced access via Lady’s Walk. 

References to emerging strategic documents, such as the LCWIP and the Bus Service Improvement Plan, should be re-worded to reflect their non-statutory status, with development expected only to have regard to them.  

The Active Travel Network needs to be clearly and unambiguously defined on the Policies Map to meet NPPF clarity and usability requirements. 

SAN9: DARK SKIES  

The policy should avoid binding development to “current” external guidance (such as Cranborne Chase notes or ILP standards). It may refer to these as good practice but should instead require compliance with the relevant standards in force at the time of the planning application.  

Clauses A and B risk operating as a blanket restriction on lighting rather than a proportionate, design-led approach to minimising light pollution.  

Clause F references to internal blinds, smart-glass and other internal lighting controls may be overly prescriptive in requiring specific technologies that may be unviable or conflict with Building Regulations.  

SAN10: MITIGATING EFFECTS OF EUROPEAN SITES  

SAN10 is broadly aligned with Local Plan Policy ENV1 but requires minor wording changes to avoid tying the policy to fixed versions of external documents or technical tools.  

Clause A currently refers to mitigation “as outlined” in the NFDC Revised Habitat Mitigation Scheme, but neighbourhood plan policies cannot lock themselves to a specific SPD that may be updated without examination. The wording should instead refer to the mitigation requirements in force at the time a planning application is determined.  

Clause B similarly mandates use of a particular iteration of Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which may be replaced or revised. The policy should therefore refer to the nutrient budget methodology agreed with Natural England at the time of the application. 

SAN11: NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS  

SAN11 would benefit from minor refinement to ensure full alignment with the NPPF approach to non-designated heritage assets. Parts of the policy read as though these assets are being treated as designated heritage assets, particularly the use of “preserve and enhance,” which sets an unduly high bar. The policy should instead reflect NPPF § 211, requiring decisionmakers to take account of the effect of development on the significance of non-designated heritage assets, applying a proportionate response to the scale of harm and significance.  

Clause B (ii) is also overly prescriptive, implying replication of historic fabric and detailing, whereas design should respond proportionately to significance rather than require pastiche.  

Final Comments   

The draft Neighbourhood Plan contains 11 policies that aim to manage development, protect local character and guide growth, but several require refinement to ensure they are clear, proportionate and consistent with national and Local Plan policy. A number of policies are more restrictive than the strategic framework, some introduce requirements beyond planning control, and others are overly detailed, duplicative or dependent on third party actions. Targeted adjustments to the policies would improve deliverability, reduce ambiguity and ensure that each policy meets the Basic Conditions while still achieving the community’s objectives.