Issue - meetings

Report of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to members. He presented each of the three pillars set out in the consultation document one by one taking questions after each one.

Pillar 1: Planning for development

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that a member [ML1] had raised a question prior to the meeting about the response to question 5, in relation to areas designated as one of three categories. The member had raised concerns about the wording of the second paragraph and after discussions, officers agreed that a slight change to the wording was required. Therefore it was proposed that an amendment be made so that the paragraph  reads:-

“Such an approach also does not provide sufficient flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. For example, if an area is identified as being Protected but a major proposal arises for the creation of a significant number of new and well paid jobs as a result of inwards investment, and the Council representing the local community wished to support it, then such a proposal could not be supported. The wording at page 29 of the White Paper suggests some development might be permissible in Protected areas. If this is what is intended, how is this different to the current approach? “

The member in question thanked Mr Nelson for the slight change of wording, even though in his opinion it was not 100% satisfactory, he was happy to support the proposed responses. The member raised concerns about the the amount of flexibility suggested within the White Paper in respect of Protected areas. He felt that the authority should not find itself back in the situation that it had found itself in with the current Local Plan where there were too many caveats in relation to the protection of the countryside.

The Planning Policy Team Manager understood  these concerns and highlighted that page 29 of the White Paper seemed to suggest that some development would still be permissible, although further clarity was required from Government.

Thanks were conveyed to Mr Nelson for addressing the concerns that had been received and for the excellent responses that had been provided to the 25 questions. He accepted that planning legislation needed updating but noted that there was countrywide concern over the White Paper. He felt that the paper put the developer first and hoped that the final consideration of the changes did not get put back. He hoped that following all the hard work of the officers, Cabinet would support the response to be submitted to Whitehall and that Whitehall would take  note of the responses and work across the political parties to develop a planning act fit for the 21^st Century.

A member noted that there was no inclusion in the paper about nature accessible green spaces in the new proposed Growth or Renewal areas and that wildlife was the foundation of nature. It was further  noted that the paper sought to abolish the legal duty of care.  The member queried, how safe  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18