Agenda item

The above report is on the Cabinet Forward Decision List for 9 September

2015 and has been identified by the Chairman for consideration by the Panel.

The Panel are requested to consider the report and make any appropriate recommendations to Cabinet.

The Executive Director, Development Services presented the Cabinet report and provided a broad overview of its content.  He explained that the report set out the Council’s response to the Inspectors questions which had been raised on the opening day of the Examination.  On the first morning of the Examination the Inspector had looked at the technical aspects of the plan and checked that it met certain criteria.  The Executive Director explained that the Council had to provide a Habitat Regulations Assessment which detailed how the Council would regulate the impact of growth on designation sites and mitigation requirements.

The Executive Director explained that throughout the process of creating the Habitat Regulation Assessment lots of meetings had been held with relevant organisations to determine the way forward to mitigate the impact of growth on designation sites.  On the first day of the Examination one of the relevant organisations which had been involved in the process had expressed a concern regarding the mitigation strategy and how money would be raised to protect designated sites.  The Inspector had therefore raised concern that the issue had not been addressed in enough detail so he had adjourned the Examination so that the Council could formulate a response.

Once the Examination had been adjourned the Council had asked the Inspector for information on any other issues which he was likely to raise, so that they could be addressed before the Examination reconvened.  The Inspector also raised issues in relation to flood risk, the flexibility and delivery of sites and the plan review process.  The Cabinet report set out the Council’s response to the issues raised by the Inspector.

The Chairman thanked the Executive Director, Development Services for his report and invited questions and comments from the Panels, as summarised below.

Councillor Crofts referred to the affordable housing threshold and explained that he had recalled that a recent Cabinet report had changed the threshold to ten, however, the report stated that the threshold was five.  He asked if Parish Councils would be made aware of the change to the affordable housing threshold.  The Executive Director, Development Services explained that the Government had introduced the change in February 2015 and subsequently a report had been presented to Cabinet outlining the changes.  Following the introduction of the legislation several Councils had taken the matter to a Judicial Review as they felt there was no evidence to support the change, it was irrational and the Government had not conducted an adequate equality impact assessment.  Subsequently the policy was thrown out, Planning Policy Guidance changed and the threshold withdrawn.  The Government were not intending to challenge the courts and the Council had no choice but to go back to their previous position.

Councillor Crofts requested, and the Panel agreed, that Parish Council’s be informed of the position in relation to affordable housing and the Executive Director agreed to send out a briefing note.

The Vice Chairman, Councillor Mrs Bambridge referred to the habitat mitigation levy which had been set at £50 and asked how the figure had been calculated.  The Executive Director explained that it was difficult to know how many people would access the protected areas, if there would be an impact and what mitigation work would be required.  In setting the levy the Council had looked at what other Councils had charged and their approaches.  He felt that the figure wouldn’t detract development from coming forward.

The Executive Director explained that a Board would be established to look at what would be required to offset the impact of development and they would review the levy on a regular basis if required.

The Panel was reminded that the Community Infrastructure Levy would also divert funds to where they were needed and would contribute to offset the effect of development.  The Executive Director reminded those present that they could only look at the impact of additional growth, not the existing impact on the protected areas.

Councillor Crofts referred to correspondence, which had been sent to potential developers who had put sites forward to be included in the Plan, to inform them of the adjournment of the Examination.  The Executive Director confirmed that correspondence had been sent out to explain the situation and stated that the developers may wish to seek professional advice.

In response to a question from Councillor Crofts regarding the five year land supply, the Executive Director confirmed that some developers had submitted applications during the adjournment of the Examination and it was within the developer’s right to do so.  The Executive Director explained that ‘flexibility’ information was included within the revisions to the plan, at the Inspectors request, which could assist with the five year land supply deficit.  He explained that the allocation figures set out in the plan were the minimum figures and if an application came forward with more units for development and fit in with the rest of the scheme it would not necessarily be refused.  He explained that the Planning Committee would have a flexible and pragmatic approach when determining applications.

Councillor Mrs Mellish referred to the Board which would be established relating to the mitigation of the impact of development on protected areas.  She explained that the report stated that it would be chaired by a Cabinet Member and include the Cabinet Member for Environment.  She asked if the Cabinet Member for Development would be involved.  The Executive Director explained that this was a matter of detail for the Cabinet to decide at the appropriate time.

Councillor Mrs Mellish highlighted the following sections of the report and asked for clarification.  The Executive Director agreed to make amendments to the documents as appropriate in relation to typos and minor errors:

·         Page 277 – Councillor Mrs Mellish requested that hyperlinks be inserted to the document when referrals to other documents available were made.

·         Page 278 point 3.3.2 – the dates relating to the Visitors Surveys to be corrected.

·         Councillor Mrs Mellish referred to the report header which stated that the Local Development Framework Task Group had been consulted on the report.  In clarification the Executive Director explained that a meeting of the Task Group had been held to update them on the proposed modifications to the plan following the Inspectors comments.

·         Page 426, appendix 5.  It was clarified that this was part of the amendment of the sustainability appraisal which accompanied the plan.  This particular amendment related to aggregate scoring and summary scores, consequent on the various individual policy or site appraisal amendments show elsewhere in the report.  These in turn reflected, for example, more recent information which was now available.

·         In response to a query from Councillor Mellish, the Principal Planner LDF explained that there was a requirement to keep the Local Plan under review.  There was only eleven years left of the current plan and the Council needed to plan for fifteen years in advance so a review would commence soon.  The Inspector required detail on how and when the document would be reviewed and this had now been provided.

In response to a further question from Councillor Mrs Mellish, the Principal Planner LDF clarified that the Inspector had not found the plan not to be sound, he had just requested that additional information be provided in relation to early review, flood risk and habitat regulations.  The additional information had required only a few amendments to the plan and detailed site appraisals.  Most of the information required had already been considered, it had just not been contained in writing within the plan. 

The Executive Director informed those present that the relevant organisations had been consulted on the strategy and it was unfortunate that one of the organisations had challenged the Council’s position on the initial day of the Examination.  The Council had no way of anticipating the challenge.  He explained that the plan had been put forward with the information available at the time and that it would be unfair to comment that in hindsight more information should have been included within the plan as there was no way of anticipating what could happen during the Examination.  He explained that Planning Policy Guidance was in constant flux and it was not always possible to incorporate all changes before moving forward with the plan.

The Executive Director explained that the Secretary of State had recently written to the Planning Inspectorate to encourage them to not block plans from going forward unnecessarily and that they should take a flexible and pragmatic approach.

In response to a question from Councillor Mellish regarding windfall development, the Executive Director explained that this was the most frequent type of development to come forward and was usually the infill or redevelopment of small sites, which were difficult to predict in advance.

Councillor Mrs Mellish asked if the Community Infrastructure Levy was likely to be restrictive to developers.  The Executive Director explained that it as a small levy and viability and costings of sites would be taken into account when applications came forward, he did not think that it would prevent development.  He reminded those present that Section 106 agreements were put in place on large developments and had not restricted the amount of large scale development coming forward.  He reminded the Panel that some of the Community Infrastructure Levy would go back to the Parish Councils and would be used to offset concerns in relation to growth.

Councillor Mrs Mellish referred to the proposed allocation site at West Winch and stressed the importance of providing adequate infrastructure.  The Executive Director explained that infrastructure would installed on sites as appropriate, discussions were held with land owners and it was hoped that as sites came forward they would pump prime development.  He confirmed that the Inspector was working to the allocation figures as set out in the Core Strategy.

The Vice Chairman, Councillor Bambridge referred to page 317 of the agenda and the Executive Director agreed to remove any mention of the development of a marina within the report as this was no longer one of the Council’s aspirations.

Councillor Smith referred to page 200, point 4.2.1 which stated that the Council had potentially lost some capacity from the allocations in the Plan from Lynnsport and Marsh Lane.  The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Industrial Assets confirmed that this capacity had now been lost and the word ‘potentially’ should be removed from the document.

RESOLVED: That the Environment and Community & Regeneration and Development Panel support the recommendations to Cabinet as set out below:

That Cabinet:

1.    Notes the content of the Inspector’s request for further information in respect of the SADMP Examination.

2.    Endorses the content of the Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy.  In particular agrees that:

a)    A Habitat Mitigation Levy at a rate of £50 be introduced for new housing in the Borough.

b)    A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring/Green Infrastructure Co-ordinating Panel be established and chaired by a Cabinet Member from the Borough Council.

3.    Agrees the following actions in respect of a ‘fall back’ position to ensure a flexible and deliverable supply of new housing:

a)    Endorses the use of housing resulting from windfall permissions to count as a source of flexibility bolstering delivery from allocated sites.

b)    Notes the position that potentially more intensive use can be made of existing proposed allocations.

c)    An early review of the Local Plan is proposed.

d)    A site at West Winch be included in the Plan having had regard to the assessments presented with this report.

4.    Notes that the above decisions have been taken having had regard to the effects outlined in the Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal updates for the policies and proposals as new/amended.

5.    Requests to the Inspector that the modifications as proposed and others that may arise at the Examination Hearings, be subject to public consultation once the initial hearing sessions have concluded.

6.    Delegates Authority to the Executive Director Environment and Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Development, in the authority to make minor amendments to enable suitable documents to be presented to the Examination.