Issue - meetings

To receive and consider an extract from the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting that took place on 9 July 2020 which includes recommendations to the Council.

At its meeting on 9 July 2020, the Cabinet considered a request from a member of the public to modify the policy map for policy SP2 (Sampford Peverell).  A copy of the document in support of that request is appended at Appendix A. The Cabinet asked that a briefing note be prepared in relation to this for consideration by Council.  Given the potentially significant implications of any misstep in the adoption of the plan and the introduction of late changes, the advice of Paul Shadarevian QC has been obtained and it is in the public interest that this advice be put into the public domain to enable a full understanding of the issues by all.  It has been drafted and provided on that basis. Accordingly, the advice is appended at Appendix B.

The Council had before it an *extract from the Cabinet meeting of 9 July 2020 with regard to the Local Plan Review.

The Chairman requested that the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration inform the meeting of the history of the Local Plan Review.  The officer stated that the process had started in 2013/14 and that the Local Authority was obliged to keep the Local Plan up to date, this was a continual process of assessing development plans. The report before the meeting was the culmination of this process following several stages of public consultation.  She outlined the role of the Planning Inspector who provided an independent examination role and considered the representations and heard directly from those interested parties at examination hearings.  In December 2019, main modifications to the plan were agreed and consulted upon and then considered by the Inspector.  The Inspectors main findings had been received on 26 June 2020; he had accepted the schedule of main modifications, made some minor updates and found the plan to be legally compliant.  With the schedule of modifications the plan was now capable of being adopted.

Responding to questions from Mr Byrom posed in Public Question Time, the officer stated that the S106 agreement he referred to formed part of the emerging papers for the planning appeal on the site, the agreement had not been signed or sealed, although it had been signed by the landowner and the appellant.  If changes were required they could still be made.  With regard as to whether the QC had knowledge of the S106 agreement, the answer was no, he had not see it, he was only commissioned to advise on whether the map could be amended.  With regard to no officer doing anything in the lifetime of the plan that would allow development of the highest ground at the SP2 site, this was not an undertaking that she could give, there was no planning application that would affect that area and she didn’t know if any application would be received in the future or what it might be for. If an application was received it would need to be considered on its merits..  The adoption of the Local Plan and the wording of policy SP2 would be a material consideration of any such application.

Councillor Miss J Norton had submitted the following AMENDMENT, seconded by Councillor B G J Warren

At the end of recommendation (b), add the following words:

“save that the amended line of the settlement limit, shown by a broken black line on Plan MM45 (Appendix 10), be further amended so that, for policy SP2 it runs along the line of division between the proposed Green Infrastructure and the Proposed Residential (as illustrated by Figure 4 in Appendix A (page 28), thus placing the entirety of the Green Infrastructure outside the settlement limit of Sampford Peverell.”

Consideration was given to:

·         A presentation slide which identified the original settlement limit boundary and that proposed by the amendment

·         Members views  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38

To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration

presenting the Inspector’s Report into, and recommending the adoption of, the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 – 2033 including main modifications and additional (minor) modifications.

The Cabinet had before it a *report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration presenting the Inspector’s report into the adoption of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013-2033 including main modifications and additional (minor) modifications.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that the Council  had received the Inspector’s report on 26^th June in which he set out his conclusions on the examination of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 – 2033.

The Inspector had confirmed that the Local Plan Review provided an appropriate basis for the planning of the district and had set out where 55 Main Modifications were needed in order for the Local Plan Review to be found sound and so that it could be adopted by the Council. Once adopted, the Local Plan Review would replace existing Local Plans for Mid Devon and would carry full weight for the determination of planning applications, as part of the development plan alongside the Devon Minerals and Waste Plans and Neighbourhood Plans.  He stated that it was vital to understand that with an  adopted plan this would safeguard against speculative development and give greater control where development took place.

The Inspector’s recommended Main Modifications concerned matters that were discussed at the examination hearings. They followed from proposed Main Modifications that were approved by the Council on 4^th December 2019 for the purpose of public consultation, alongside an updated Sustainability Appraisal. Habitat Regulations Assessment and Equalities Impact Assessment. The Inspector’s Main Modifications overcame his previous concerns about housing delivery in the early years of the housing trajectory and should ensure a rolling five-year supply of deliverable housings sites. The Inspector had amended the detailed wording of modified policies for new Gypsy and Traveller sites to allow more flexibility for off-site provision to be made where sites were required on the major urban extensions. He had also made clearer why a full Retail and Leisure Impact Assessment was needed for any planning application which includes a designer outlet shopping centre at Junction 27.

A question was raised with regard to the suggestion made by Mr Byrom with regard to the green infrastructure being protected and whether modifications to the map could be made prior to adoption and the implications of any amendments to the plan.

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration stated that whilst the modification may seem minimal and a minor modification,  there would be a consequential main modification to the policy, the site was 6 ha including the green infrastructure and criterion f highlighted the 2.5 ha of green infrastructure.  The text within the policy also referred to the green infrastructure  so if a minor modification was made to the map it would introduce an inconsistency with the policy which would require a main modification.

Consideration was given to:

·         Whether the settlement line and the allocation area (SP2) had the same boundary

·         Whether the Local Plan with regard to green infrastructure was inconsistent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197