MM71.

Policy to read:
The Councils will respond positively to and support appropriate and well-designed
applications regarding the creation of new health and/or education facilities, and
extensions to existing facilities. The Councils will be supportive of proposals that enable
dual use of new facilities within school/health grounds which can also be used by the
community and agreed under a Community Use Agreement. As expressed in the NPPF, the
Council will apply the presumption in favour of the development. The Councils will engage
in pre-application discussions with promoters to develop a collaborative approach to
suitable applications, and ensure that early years settings and schools are placed in the
best possible location to promote sustainable modes of travel and enable good access.
Where necessary, the Councils will utilise planning obligations to help to mitigate any
adverse impacts of an educational or health development and assist in delivering
development that has a positive impact on the community.

MM57 - Does major development just mean large amounts of residential dwellings, or could it include
infrastructure as well?
Should a new GP surgery or health facility build be seen as major development and be required to
submit a Sustainability Design and Construction Statement then the ICB would like to request that
it be exempt. We request that it be exempt on the grounds that all NHS new builds and significant
refurbishment project that require HM treasury business case approval will be subject to the NHS
Net Zero Building Standard and would provide greater evidence.

MM67 - The ICB would encourage that an addition to the current wording is introduced to reflect the
importance of the IFS and IDP in establishing the suitability of community service infrastructure.
We would like it clearly included in the policy that a project approved through the IFS/IDP has
significantly more weight than that of a project not approved via IFS/IDP. The ICB would also in
addition to this, request that infrastructure classified as “critical” or “essential” in the IDP be
approved by committee unless serious and substantial grounds for refusal can be evidenced.
Looking at section 3 a and c in order:
• a. NHS England undertake a review of a practice should the request be made to close a
facility of any size. The assessment will include community need, list size, boundary of
practice etc, would this be considered independent by the LPA with regards to this
policy?
c. The community need and/or requirement is part of any assessment made before the
closure of a facility, but other factors have to also be considered in this process. If a
facility is deemed unsustainable then the ICB/NHS Trust need to be able to manage their
assets as to how they see fit.

MM70 - The ICB would like to request that before any new development large enough to impact on health
services gets planning approval, a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is completed by the applicant
as part of complying with paragraph 1 in this section. We would additionally ask that the term
infrastructure in this context includes workforce, digital and volunteers and not just the physical
building

MM71 - The ICB ensures that the necessary services are provided in the best possible locations based on
strategies and data. The ICB is supportive of the LPA’s intention of protecting land associated with
health facilities. However, the requirements for health commissioning and the form of provision
must remain a decision for local health commissioners. The NHS needs to preserve the flexibility
to fulfil its health commissioning obligations to meet the needs of the population at any time. As
stated previously, as commissioners, we should be afforded the ability to manage our estate in a
way that aligns with strategies both national and local and this is restricted by both LP28 and LP31. The ICB would request that health is included as part of any Community Use Agreement as
this would align with national and local strategies to utilise community facilities.

As amended, Policy LP31 has been reworded so that reference to ‘pre-application discussions’ and the ‘NPPF presumption’ have been removed. Pigeon supports this modification to the policy.

Amended Wording
“1. Sites proposed, or in current health and educational use, will be protected for that use. The change of use, or re-development of educational establishments and their grounds, will not be permitted unless:
a. It can be clearly demonstrated that the use of the site is genuinely redundant and the use is not viable in its current form, or an alternative economically viable community use(s) cannot be found;
b. Satisfactory alternative capacity and/or improved facilities will be provided; and
c. For educational uses, the area of the site is to be redeveloped is in excess of Government guidelines for playing field provision, taking into account future educational projections; and
d. For healthcare uses/facilities, the loss or change of use of a facility is part of a wider public service estate organisation
2. Further to the above, in order to prevent land-locking, development adjacent to existing schools and healthcare facilities should not compromise its ability to expand to an appropriate size in the future.
This change would directly address the issues outline above; and would ensure that the NHS is able to effectively manage its estate, disposing of unneeded and unsuitable properties where necessary, to enable healthcare needs to be met.

Section 1 of Policy LP31 Health and Education Provision under MM71 states that the change of use or re-development of educational establishments will not be permitted unless (a) it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer viable in its current form, or (b) an alternative economically viable community use(s) cannot be found or an alternative and/or improved facility is re-provided. Section of 2 of MM71 has also added that “in order to prevent land-locking, development adjacent to existing schools and healthcare facilities should not compromise their ability to expand to an appropriate size in the future.”
NHSPS supports the provision of sufficient, quality community facilities, but objects to particular wording within this policy. As expressed in our comments in Policy LP28, we would request that policy wording amendments are also made to consistently support the principle of alternative uses for NHS land and property, where the site has been declared surplus to clinical requirements as a part of NHS estate reorganisation programme.

As discussed in response to Policy LP28 (MM67), NHSPS work with NHS commissioners to ensure that the necessary services are provided in the best possible locations. NHSPS appreciate the Council’s intent to retain health provision for local residents. However, the requirements for health commissioning and the form of provision must remain a decision for local health commissioners. The NHS needs to retain the flexibility to implement its health commissioning strategy to meet the needs of the population at any time. Through confining the form and location of this provision Policies LP31 and LP28 remove the flexibility needed by the NHS to implement its strategy and meet the needs of the community.
MM71 has expanded Point 2 of Policy LP31 to restrict development adjacent to healthcare facilities. NHSPS object to this amendment for the reasons outlined above. The requirements for health commissioning and the form and location of provision is a decision for local health commissioners. As discussed, there are rigorous internal processes to ensure that the right facilities are in the right places at the right time, including through assessing potential future requirements. Therefore, if any sections of a healthcare site are declared surplus to healthcare requirements, there should be a presumption that these sites are suitable for other appropriate uses and should not be subject to restrictive policies.
For the reasons outlined above, we recommend that the wording of Policy LP31 be amended as follows:

Amended Wording
“1. Sites proposed, or in current health and educational use, will be protected for that use. The change of use, or re-development of educational establishments and their grounds, will not be permitted unless:
a. It can be clearly demonstrated that the use of the site is genuinely redundant and the use is not viable in its current form, or an alternative economically viable community use(s) cannot be found;
b. Satisfactory alternative capacity and/or improved facilities will be provided; and
c. For educational uses, the area of the site is to be redeveloped is in excess of Government guidelines for playing field provision, taking into account future educational projections; and
d. For healthcare uses/facilities, the loss or change of use of a facility is part of a wider public service estate organisation
2. Further to the above, in order to prevent land-locking, development adjacent to existing schools and healthcare facilities should not compromise its ability to expand to an appropriate size in the future.
This change would directly address the issues outline above; and would ensure that the NHS is able to effectively manage its estate, disposing of unneeded and unsuitable properties where necessary, to enable healthcare needs to be met.

Please see attached document.

The JLP does not need to contain a policy which inhibits the disposal and redevelopment of surplus school facilities, as there is already a robust legislative process to do so. The policy could unnecessarily delay sites that are deemed surplus to requirements from coming forward as other uses. SCC therefore requests removal of part 1 of this policy.

MM71: Policy LP34 (now LP31)
SCC note that this policy has not been significantly modified following comments submitted under the Regulation 19 consultation. SCC still considers part 1 of this policy to be unnecessary. The JLP does not need to contain a policy which inhibits the disposal and redevelopment of surplus school facilities, as there is already a robust legislative process to do so. The policy could unnecessarily delay sites that are deemed surplus to requirements from coming forward as other uses. SCC therefore requests removal of part 1 of this policy. However, SCC supports retention of parts 2 and 3.