To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
Cllr Warren (Willand Parish Council) stated that:
This question relates to item 4 (Local Plan Review) of your agenda.
I find it of considerable concern that it is necessary to ask this question but it has been asked twice before at public meetings and has not been answered.
It is not directed at paid officers as the assumption is made that they are acting on the instructions of elected Members.
It is directed at those Cabinet Members who in 2014 and 2015 voted not to include land at Junction 27 in the Emerging Local Plan yet since that time have persisted in activities which have caused us to be where we are today.
What has happened to bring you to change your position or did your earlier vote not show your true views?
The second part of my question relates to the whole process for the inclusion of land at Junction 27 into the plan. A very comprehensive document has been prepared by officers of over 600 pages on the Local Plan yet after publication of the agenda and report on 16 November 2016 your Members Services Manager had to send out amendments to pages 551 and 552 in relation to the revised policy in relation to Junction 27.
We keep getting told that this is about the allocation of land in the plan at Junction 27 yet every presentation and document has the Eden Westwood vision and proposals all over it, which makes it virtually impossible for another developer/visionary to meet the criteria.
How long are you going to continue to show a lack of respect for the intelligence of Parish/Town Councils and our communities by persisting in this myth that none of this is to do with Eden Westwood?
The following answer was provided by the Head of Planning and Regeneration during the debate: she felt that the first part of the question was directed at the Cabinet Members and therefore she would leave them to answer. With regard to the supplement with amendments to the Junction 27 policy after the agenda had been published: a meeting had taken place with “Duty to Cooperate” partners and strategic consultees with regard to cross boundary issues, concerns had been raised regarding the level of control in respect of retail aspects of the policy, because of these concerns, together with similar expressed by the Planning Policy Advisory Group, the policy had been amended.
With regard to the proposed policy within the plan and whether other developers could meet the criteria, there was a need to strike a balance between control in order for the Council’s aspirations for the site to be met, , whilst ensuring that the development within the allocation could be delivered by a range of developers. She gave examples of where components of the proposed policy had been delivered elsewhere by other developers.
The Leader stated that he had indeed changed his mind since 2014, when the original decision had been made the housing numbers were in 4 figures, this was now not the case.
Cllrs Chesterton and Stanley stated that they had not changed their minds from the original decision.
Mr Asprey (Clerk to Sampford Peverell Parish Council) referring to item 4 on the agenda (Local Plan Review) stated that as Sampford Peverell was designated as a village it should only be available for limited development. The Local Plan Review now stated that 60 additional dwellings should be built at Higher Town, was this compatible with village designation? Can it be assumed that the village school has sufficient capacity for children of families living in the new development?
The following answer was provided by the Head of Planning and Regeneration during the debate: she stated that this issue was addressed at the September meeting of Council, the scale of the proposed allocation and the impact on the village. She outlined the SHLAA process and the call for sites, many large land parcels had been put forward in the area of Sampford Peverell. Tt was felt that 60 dwellings was appropriate in terms of scale. With regard to additional school places, it was forecasted that there would be spare capacity. It would of course be possible as with any planning application that additional contributions could be sought through legal agreements (Section 106 agreement).
Mr Lucas referring again to Item 4 on the agenda stated that a decision had been made in 2014 to proceed with the Local Plan without an allocation at Junction 27 as there was insufficient evidence to include it at the time. The Local Plan had been approved for an 8 week consultation before being submitted to the Secretary of State. In November 2016, the Local Plan Review came forward again including Junction 27 and an allocation of 60 dwellings at Higher Town, Sampford Peverell, why do we have a new revised plan when in 2014 it was approved. If the Local Plan Review was approved for consultation, what weight would be given to the Council’s decision when it came before the inspector.
The following answer was provided by the Head of Planning and Regeneration during the debate: a motion had been put before Council in April 2016 which sought to look at the implications of including Junction 27 within the Local Plan Review, the Cabinet report in September 2016 had outlined the reasons for the delay in submitting the Local Plan, the motion had also overridden the decision to allow the Head of Planning and Regeneration delegated authority to submit the plan following consultation, therefore there was a need for the plan with consultation responses, amendments and additional technical information to come back to the Cabinet who would make a recommendation to Council. She also stated that if approved the Local Plan would go out for further consultation prior to being submitted to the Inspectorate. The weight the inspector would give to the Council decision would be at his or her discretion.
Cllr Milner (Uplowman Parish Council) referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that it had taken two years to finalise the Local Plan Review which now included an allocation at Junction 27. The Local Plan was required to meet the needs of the district, was the professional advice incorrect at that time or had Councillors lost confidence in the original decision? What had changed?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that she had advised of the circumstances which had led to the delay within this and previous reports including technical assessments and further evidence work had taken place.
Hayley Keary again referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that the SHLAA evidence in 2013 had stated that the site at Higher Town Sampford Peverell was unsuitable for development as there were access issues, what had changed as the topography of the land remained the same.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that the SHLAA had concluded that the site would be appropriate for 60 dwellings, the access issues were not so severe as to prevent an allocation. With regard to 2014, the site had not been necessary at that time as Junction 27 was not included. She confirmed that nothing had changed in relation to site topography.
Mr Disney again referring to Item 4 on the agenda stated that not all of Sampford Peverell were against development at Higher Town. He asked why was mitigation required for the Culm Grassland at Hares Down Moor as it was 14/15 miles from Junction 27.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that this was a Special Area of Conservation and because of the additional traffic generation on the A361 there was a need to consider its impact upon the SAC and put mitigation measures in place as there was a need to make sure that the plan was sound.
Mr Byrom, again referring to Agenda Item 4 stated that many aspects of the revised plan have been included because of Junction 27 and we are told they are a package, the housing sites at Blundells Road and Sampford Peverell were both linked to Junction 27 and if the allocation at Junction 27 did not come forward for development the associated housing sites could be deleted? He also referred to the pre app meetings that had taken place but 48 meetings had not taken place, £5,000 a month had been received from May to December, what happened to the thousands of pounds that didn’t pay for the meetings and when would that information be made public?
The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that she had not come across such a restriction with regard to the deletion of a site if another site didn’t come forward, but that she would look into the matter. With regard to the pre app meetings, she suggested that Mr Byrom was referring to the Pre-application Advice Guidance Note. In this case the authority had entered into a Planning Performance Agreement with the developer covering pre-application service. The charge agreed under this document was for officer time. She confirmed that this was a public document which she would make available to Mr Byrom.