Issue - meetings

RESOLVED:1)       That the draft Local Plan Review be endorsed for consultation subject to the addition of the wording to section 4.1.16 submitted by the Task Group.

2)       That the final consultation version of the document and methods of public consultation be agreed by the Executive Director Planning and Environment in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Development.

3)       That the consultation period runs for not less than 6 weeks, but not to commence until such a time as the interactive mapping tool is available for public use.

Reason for Decision

To consult on a draft Local Plan Review, and ensure an efficient process is used to gauge public opinion.

Councillor Blunt presented the report which explained that the current Local Plan consisted of two separate documents, the Core Strategy (adopted in 2011) and the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies plan (‘SADMP’ adopted in 2016).  

The Planning Policy Manager explained that when the Inspector agreed the SADMP document and modifications he inserted a policy which proposed an early review of the Plan. The document presented was a draft plan which combined and updated the Core Strategy and SADMP taking the end date to 2036.

This was the first stage in the preparation of a new plan, relating to the information gathering and early consultation.

The Local Plan Task Group had proposed an addition to wording in 4.1.16 of the report set out below which the Task Group had been invited to confirm.  All except Councillor Parish had agreed the amendment:

New text at the end of paragraph 4.1.16:

“All the allocation policies include the words ‘at least’ before the proposed number of dwellings.  This reflects the need for the Local Plan to be positively prepared.

Should it be found that an allocated site could not accommodate the proposed level of development because of local issues, it is important that the Local Plan incorporates sufficient flexibility to address such a situation.  To this end it is important to ensure that the wording of each allocation policy incorporates sufficient flexibility.

It is also important that the best use of land is achieved but that this should not be at the expense of other considerations such as the provision of open space, and local amenity considerations. If a proposal came forward for a planning application in excess of the specified figure, it would have to demonstrate carefully how it meets design, amenity and other safeguards (with explicit reference to relevant policies, including; LP16, LP17, LP18 and LP19) and clearly state how the additional units could be accommodated without detriment to the locality.”

Under Standing Order 34 Councillor Moriarty attended and expressed concern that the minutes of the Task Group had been published prior to members agreeing the wording.  In referring to the Local Plan document he considered that it was being rushed to this point, and that the inclusion of the additional policy points within the documentation were not required.  He was not happy with the inclusion of “at least” in the documentation and asked that as it was such a huge document the matter be deferred to give Councillors the opportunity to read it fully.

Under Standing Order 34 Councillor Parish attended.  He drew attention to his dislike of the words “at least” being included in the documents as he considered it doubled the number of properties developed on sites. He acknowledged that the amendment to the wording put forward softened the implication but still left it in.  He considered that the electorate would not be happy with the inclusion.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor Joyce drew attention to Councillor Blunt’s comments that the term “at least” should not be in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121