Decision details

The Leader presented the report of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 February 2018.

Arising thereon:

1.            LOCAL PLAN REVIEW UPDATE

The Leader MOVED, seconded by Councillor R J Chesterton:

THAT the recommendations of the Cabinet as set out in Minute 127 be ADOPTED.

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration was invited to provide answers to questions posed in public question time.

With regard to the robustness of the process, LUC (Land Use Consultants) were asked for an independent assessment, this was undertaken, they did not look at the site assessments, they felt this unnecessary as the site assessments had already considered reasonable alternatives. It was the officers view that they had considered any reasonable alternatives.  Officers were not in the business of making recommendations that were flawed or biased.  Officers were of the view that the findings of the review did not steer the Council to a different conclusion from the previous decision made and the plan as submitted.

She had heard all the representations regarding the use of the alternative site at Mountain Oak however it was felt that the Policy SP2 allocation was appropriate.  There were several questions regarding transport issues, highway safety, access and pedestrian issues; the Highway Authority had not objected to the site.  Improvement would be required to the pedestrian access and a minor modification had been submitted to the Inspector for a further policy criterion proposed with regard to improved pedestrian connectivity. The officer’s view was that we should not change our position with regard to Policy SP2

With regard to the ministerial statement regarding the deadline for submissions:  there was still a Government imperative and advice for the speeding up of plan making. Officers had referenced the end of March 2017 for submission and had identified the risk of intervention to be low.

With regard to the questions received from the Inspector on the major modifications to the plan including site SP2, this was all part of the examination process, officers did not believe that the inspector was indicating lack of soundness.  There had been no request to date from the Inspector for a pre-examination hearing.  Within Planning Inspectorate advice on plan examinations it is stated that Inspectors will seek to identify any fundamental concerns early in the examination process. No such concerns have been raised. Planning Inspectors usually advised if flaws had been found and any issues would have been raised at an early stage; there had been no request for additional information. Policy SP2 meets the standards met by other policies within the plan; the Local Plan was read as a whole and there was a need to have regard to all the policies including Policy DM25.

With regard to the access issues, officers felt that the site was sustainable, particularly with the addition of a new criterion for access and pedestrian issues.

With regard to flood risk from the canal, the sustainability appraisal drew evidence from the strategic flood risk assessment; Officers felt that it would have been an omission if it had not been part of the sustainability appraisal.

The request for an adjournment: legal advice had been received from the  Council’s barrister.   It had been appropriate and proportionate to take the advice and adjourn the process for the independent assessment of the major modifications stage sustainability appraisal.

With regard to employment at J27 and the housing requirement, the recorded information was: full time equivalent of 1186 jobs, the number of additional homes required would be 260 over the Local Plan period, (13 per annum) A live planning application had been submitted on the site SP2 as a response to the lack of a 5 year land supply.

With regard to issues affecting disability, an equality impact assessment had been submitted with the plan.

The Forward Planning Team Leader referring to the use of agricultural land stated that yes, the allocation SP2 was on Grade 2 agricultural land and yes it was best and most versatile land, but it was felt that the parcel of land was not a significant loss in weighing up the merits of the allocation.  He spoke of the engagement between officers and the public and he recognised that local people valued their local place.

Following discussion and upon a vote being taken, the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.

Notes:

i)          Councillor R F Radford declared a disclosable pecuniary interest with regard to Policy SP2 as his brother owned a property on Turnpike and chose to leave the meeting during the discussion thereon;

ii)         Councillor Mrs J Roach requested that her vote against the decision be recorded.