Agenda item

To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing an update on the Local Plan Review, specifically information on the findings of the review of Mid Devon District Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Update 2017 (SA Update 2017).

The Cabinet had before it a report * from the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration providing an update on the Local Plan Review, specifically information on the findings of the review of Mid Devon District Council’s Sustainability Appraisal Update 2017 (SA Update 2017) carried out independently by a consultant.  This had been commissioned to advise whether the SA Update 2017 met the legal requirements and to consider matters of reasonable alternatives.

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report, reminding Members of the context for why the report was before the meeting and why the resolutions sought were important to Mid Devon.

 

Mid Devon needed an adopted up to date Local Plan. There was a legal requirement for this, and a public expectation that the new local plan was adopted as soon as possible.

 

The new Local Plan would be used to guide the development of new homes, jobs, and the infrastructure that was needed to the right places across the district. It would help to protect valued countryside from speculative unplanned development. It would help the Council to achieve its corporate priorities.

 

He reminded Members that decisions taken by the Council on 22^nd September and 1^st December 2016 had given approval for the content of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review (incorporating proposed modifications) and for the submission of this plan to the Planning Inspectorate for examination.

 

He said that he accepted that not all Members had supported all aspects of the plan, but he wished to make clear that the decisions taken reflected the position of the Council as a whole. The Council had approved what it believed to be the best plan for Mid Devon.

 

The preparation of the new Local Plan had involved significant work by the Council, and had already been subject to extensive consultation with the Mid Devon community over the last 4 years. There had been ample opportunity throughout for comments to be made on this plan. There had been ample opportunity for Members to consider the plan as this had evolved, to have their say and shape its content. He asked Members to recognise the need to progress this through its examination without further delay.

 

The Cabinet Member further explained that the report in front of them was regarding process and procedure in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal. It was about additional work that had been undertaken by officers in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal. The Sustainability Appraisal was technical evidence that was required to support the Local Plan.

 

This had followed a Barrister’s legal advice to the Council, and a need for confirmation that the Sustainability Appraisal work that had helped shape proposed modifications to the Plan and decisions taken on these had complied with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA regulations).

 

The Cabinet Member stated that Members would recall that the Local Plan was subject to proposed modifications approved by the Council, prior to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate. The Plan was modified to include proposals for mixed use tourism, leisure and retail uses on land adjacent to Junction 27 on the M5. This proposal had made it necessary for the Plan to make provision for some additional housing over the Plan period – 13 new homes each year. These had included land at Higher Town, Sampford Peverell (SP2), and at Blundell’s School (TIV16). Where the content of the Plan had been contested, objections would be considered through the examination process and cases heard at examination hearings.  The Inspector would consider matters of planning merit, as well as ruling on the Plan’s legal compliance.

 

The Cabinet Member reminded Members to note that the Plan was submitted in March 2017 to the Planning Inspectorate. The Plan was technically at its examination and would be the subject of forthcoming hearings. The precautionary approach had caused delay to the examination hearings but the work undertaken was justified. It reflected due diligence by the Council in meeting its obligations and this would help the examination process and participants at the forthcoming hearings.

 

The report drew from the conclusions of an independent assessment of the Sustainability Appraisal work.  LUC (Land Use Consultants) were commissioned by the Council for this purpose. LUC’s report formed part of the suite of documents with the report before Members.

 

LUC had concluded the work carried out for the Sustainability Appraisal update for the proposed modifications to the Plan “was proportionate and appropriate to meet the SEA regulations”.

 

Land Use Consultants had advised it had not been necessary to undertake additional SA work in relation to sites or other options, but that it would be helpful if the Council could sign-post where the requirements for a Sustainability Appraisal were met in each of the previously published Sustainability Appraisal reports and where reasonable alternatives were considered. This was due to information being spread between different existing documentation.

 

The Council had updated the Sustainability Appraisal in light of Land Use Consultant’s review. The updated Sustainability Appraisal Report and associated work included sign-posting, re-ordering and clarification of its content. This work was shown in Appendix 2 as the completed SA Update 2018.

 

An Executive Summary of SA Review process (2018) had also been prepared which set out the changes made to the previous SA Update (2017) and the reasons for them (Appendix 3).

 

A schedule of amendments made to the SA Update (2017) and included in the SA Update (2018) had been prepared (Appendix 4).

 

The Cabinet Member informed Members that he wished to make clear the findings of the independent review.

 

In light of the Land Use Consultant’s findings there was nothing which would appear to steer the Council to a different conclusion to that reached in its previous decisions on the proposed modifications made to the Mid Devon Local Plan Review Submission Version (the plan as submitted) and hence there was also nothing arising from this review that would steer the Council to a different position at the examination of this plan.

 

The Cabinet Member talked through the next steps that would be required, should the recommendations be approved which included:

 

The suite of documents for the Sustainability Appraisal review be published as set out in the report.

 

A 6 week period of public consultation would be held at the earliest practicable date for the Schedule of amendments made to the Sustainability Appraisal update (2017). The scope of this consultation was the schedule of Amendments and not the unchanged contents of the submitted Plan.

 

The suite of documents and all representations received be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate where they could be considered together with all previous consultation responses received to the Mid Devon Local Plan Review Submission Version (incorporating proposed modifications).

 

This focused consultation was therefore not an opportunity to revisit previous consultations of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review Submission Version (incorporating proposed modifications).

 

A proposed timetable was set out as follows:

 

·         6 week public consultation - February – April 2018

 

·         Submission of the suite of documents and consultation responses - April 2018

 

·         The Council would write to the Planning Inspectorate to update them on the above timetable, but it was for the Inspectorate to determine when the examination hearings should be reconvened, having considered the findings of the additional Sustainability Appraisal work together with all previously submitted documentation.

 

·         The restarting of the examination timetable would require a 6 week period of public notification prior to the commencement of the examination hearings.  Officers estimated that examination hearings would take place during summer/autumn 2018, but stressed that decisions over timing rested with the Planning Inspectorate.

 

·         Through informal contact with the Planning Inspectorate it was understood that examination dates would not be scheduled until the consultation period had elapsed and associated documentation and responses had been forwarded.

 

In response to questions raised at Public Question Time the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration provided the following responses:

 

In response to Mr Drew’s question the officer informed the Cabinet that in terms of the SA process both the NNPF and National Planning Guidance said that the Sustainability Appraisal process should only focus on what was likely to be needed to assess the likely significant effects of the Local Plan. It should focus on the environmental, economic and social impacts of the sites that were likely to be significant. That it did not need to be done in any more detail or using more resources than was appropriate for the content and level of detail in the Local Plan. In relation to the Grand Western Canal Conservation Area officers did take it into account through this process but the critical issue was that it was not felt to have a significant impact upon it, accordingly it had not formed part of the written inclusions within the SA in relation to impacts because those impacts were not considered to be significant. Accordingly it was also not referred to specifically within mitigation measures, again because the impacts were not considered to be significant. There was therefore a fundamental difference of opinion with Mr Drew in relation to the SA process and the degree of impact in the terms of Policy SP2 and the relationship with the Grand Western Canal conservation area.

 

David Pickhaver, Planning Officer from Torbay Council and Project Manager of the SA independent review process, agreed that the historic environment appraisal did consider the Grand Western Canal and did not identify any substantial harm. The Land Use Consultants were asked whether the process undertaken had considered reasonable alternatives and their advice had been that reasonable alternatives had been considered and therefore there was no reason to reassess the sites in detail. Their advice was that the work had been proportionate to meet the requirements of the regulations. In relation to the question regarding Historic England’s advice, this advice only came out at the end of 2016 so some of the SA work had been carried out before that.  The legal requirements had been met.

 

With reference to the question asked by Cllr Holland, the officer said that the updated information before Members went into detail about whether there were any reasonable alternatives and the conclusion from that process had been that, with planning judgement, SP2 was still considered to be the most reasonable of those sites and that there were concerns in relation to the others. The sites to the east were not seen to be reasonable alternatives. One of the issues being scale, the sites on the east were being promoted for larger scale allocation and were less acceptable in how they could be scaled up or down and there were affects and impacts with those other sites.

 

Mr Pickhaver confirmed that LUC were asked whether or not it was necessary to rerun assessments for other sites put forward and their advice had been that those sites had already been considered and rejected. He said that it was a matter of planning judgement and that sites on the east side would result in a larger village extension, which would affect the overall Plan strategy.  This was a legitimate reason to reject those sites.

 

With regard to questions asked by Mr Byrom the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration said that as already explained officers had considered both conservation areas and in the case of the Grand Western Canal did not consider there to be significant effect. The officer referred to page 476 of the papers which showed criteria to be included in the policy to ensure that landscaping and design that affected the setting and design of the area. This was where it said conservation areas and this was where Mr Byrom had picked up on the plural by use of the ‘s’. The officer did not think that this fundamentally affected the basic premise that had already been explained. She explained that officers would look carefully, prior to Full Council, at the question raised by Mr Byrom over the use of the plural rather than singular this part of the report.

 

With reference to the question asked by Dr Chesney the officer informed the Cabinet that there were no designated dark sky areas in Mid Devon and that in relation to the SA process this was not considered to be significant.  Detail regarding items such as lighting would be considered at application time rather than during the SA process.  She did not consider this to be a significant impact.

 

Mr Pickhaver added that he did not recall the LUC being asked specifically about light issues but they were asked whether the sustainability impact appraisal had met the legal requirements and had not picked up that anything to do with light pollution had been missed from the work done.  The effects of light pollution would relate to other sites as well and would be picked up within the planning process.

 

With regard to the number of dwellings the officer explained that in relation to the strategy of the plan and distribution of development it was felt that 60 dwellings was not counter to the strategy of the plan which sought to direct the majority of development towards Tiverton and Cullompton. The allocation of 60 dwellings at Sampford Peverell was not seen as counter to the Plan, and taking into consideration the current size of the village and the facilities available was considered to be acceptable.

 

With reference to questions asked by Mr Dumble the officer said that the scope of the review was very much around the modifications stage of the Plan. This was that stage at which the Council resolved to add Junction 27 and associated housing sites not only at Sampford Peverell but also at Blundell’s Road, Tiverton, these being the major modifications to the Plan. The SA review by LUC did look specifically at this stage of the process and did take into account the SA work in relation to those allocations. This was indeed where the focus of LUC’s commission laid. It was an independent process and their outcomes are within the report.

 

Mr Pickhaver confirmed that in section 1.3.1 of the report LUC advice was that they considered it appropriate and proportionate to SA the modifications rather than revisiting the whole SA process.

 

Referring to the question asked by Mrs Byrom the Forward Planning Team Leader stated that the alteration to the scoring had come about as a result of additional information received and that the situation according to Devon County Council Highways Officers was that it was feasible to get a reasonable means of access into the SP 2 site and footway improvements to the centre of the village.

 

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration added that there was already recognised to be a slight negative impact in terms of Sampford Peverell Conservation Area in the scoring in the SA. The SA framework for sites methodology was used and the scoring becoming more positive as a result of clarification of the likelihood of a technical solution for access to the site.

 

In response to the question asked by Mrs Kearly the officer explained that the funding received for Junction 28 was not to deliver longer term strategic highway improvements, but to unlock some planned for development at Cullompton at an earlier stage.  This award did not affect the constraints on further growth at Cullompton due to the road network.  The bid funding did not introduce alternative sites in Cullompton and still left a requirement for the site at Sampford Peverell.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         The public could make comments through the examination of the plan;

 

·         The need for detailed papers in order that Members could make an informed decision;

 

·         Land at Jersey Farm (north of A38) was not included in the Junction 27 allocation;

 

·         Housing needs figures were confirmed as 7860;

 

·         The proposed SP 2 allocation criterion that development would not take place until access works for the A361 had been completed;

 

·         The risk of not having a 5 year land supply and speculative applications coming forward.

 

A request from Mr Drew to meet with the Cabinet Member and Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration prior to Council was agreed.

 

RECOMMENDED that:

 

Council notes this report and its appendices and having regard to their contents;

 

a)    Reaffirms its decisions of 22nd September 2016 and 1^st December 2016 regarding the Mid Devon Local Plan Review (incorporating proposed modifications) and instructs officers to liaise with the Planning Inspector to restart the examination process as quickly as possible subject to (2) and (3) below;

 

and, in accordance with part 4 of this report

 

b)    Approves the publication of the LUC SA Update Review (2018), the Schedule of amendments  made to the Sustainability Appraisal Update (2017), the Sustainability Appraisal Update (2018) and the Executive Summary of SA Review process (2018);

 

c)    Approves a 6 week public consultation on the schedule of amendments made to the Sustainability Appraisal Update (2017). 

 

(Proposed by Cllr R J Chesterton and seconded by Cllr P H D Hare Scott)

 

Note: - Report * previously circulated and attached to Minutes.