Agenda item

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 the policy, so assumed it would be taken out.  He commented that the policy was not protecting the rural villages for the future as most of the development was in specific areas.  He preferred to see growth in villages to encourage families to move there and to keep the local services and schools going.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor Tilbrook addressed Cabinet.  He stated that in his view due to the size of the document many people would not have read it.  He commented on a number of typos etc in the document.   He also commented that the content would not be welcome to many people, he asked that consideration be given to it being delayed for a few months to enable a better debate on it.

In response the Chairman drew Members attention to the fact that the document was the draft for consultation, not the final document and so typos or any inaccuracies would be picked up in the process.  He reminded members that the bottom line was that if the Council didn’t have an agreed Plan and 5 year land supply there would be a free for all where there would be little control over what was approved.

Councillor Blunt reminded Members of the hours put in by officers and members to reach this point.  He acknowledged that at the Task Group it had been agreed that the additional clause would be sent to the Group for agreement prior to consideration by Cabinet.  He confirmed this had occurred and all members of the Task Group present, except Councillor Parish had agreed the wording.

With regard to the term “at least” he acknowledged that he didn’t want it present, but had been convinced by officers that any flexibility would be lost and the Inspector would declare the Plan not sound and reject it.  Any incremental number of homes had to be justified correctly and in accordance with the Plan and policies and didn’t undermine the rest of the numbers.  He drew attention to the fact that the term was now clearly defined in the documentation.

In referring to the issue of houses in rural areas, Councillor Blunt commented that very few parishes ever wanted more houses, so the Plan had tried to funnel the area of development along the A10 corridor, but that under the NPPF there was the opportunity to develop on the edges of boundaries and infill.

Councillor Blunt drew attention to the new interactive tool which would be available for the consultation process permitting people to drill down and look at allocations etc.  When it was available it was planned to hold a workshop on its use for councillors.

In response to a question on what the development adjacent to development boundaries was led by the Planning Policy Manager explained that the NPPF had more relaxed attitude to development in the countryside and had been useful in delivering development numbers. 

Councillor Beales commented that the points raised were useful, and the fact that when it came to development numbers on a site it was constrained by planning law, he acknowledged that there were mixed views on the subject but not about a free for all for development.  He drew attention to the fact that the document was one for the public to comment on.

Councillor Devereux drew attention to the influence parishes could have on the process through their Neighbourhood Plans.

It was agreed that the consultation exercise should not commence until the new interactive mapping system was available.

Cabinet gave consideration to the additional wording proposed by the Local Plan Task Group. This wording was agreed by Cabinet, which then became part of the substantive motion.  The substantive motion was agreed.

The Chairman thanked the Planning Policy Manager and his team and the Local Plan Task Group for all the work put into the production of the document.

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.