Agenda item

Report of the Director of Services

The Planning Policy Team Manager presented the report to Members. He advised Members that they were now starting to get down to the potential detail of the plan. He explained that the existing proposed limits to development were prepared twenty years ago and that they needed to be reviewed. He stated that having boundaries was the right way to go as it gave certainty. He informed Members that they were taking the Core Strategy as a starting point in terms of which settlements might require the identification of limits to development. He suggested that a workshop be held to allow all Members to provide comments.

 

Councillor C Large queried what the role of the SHLAA was in terms of identifying limits to development?

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised Members that the intention was to look at what was on the ground and that if more sites were required then they would look at the SHLAA when allocating sites.

 

Councillor J Legrys welcomed the report, but did not agree with sections three and four. He raised concerns about changing Limits to Development as this was understood by most. He stated that the report sets out pros and cons, but it was not clear leaving some settlements with no boundaries and it did not talk about overlaps with the South Derbyshire District areas. He advised that he was not happy with recommendation 2 stating that changing the name would lead to confusion. He added that it was not clear in what the Authority was trying to achieve and requested that limits were put on the Green Wedge and Charnwood Forest, and would put this as an amendment.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager reminded Members that they were looking at what was on the ground now and that Charnwood Forest would need to be reviewed and a boundary defined separately. Following an additional question from Councillor J Legrys about the Green Wedge, he advised that the western section of the wedge was outside of limits in the existing Local Plan, but the central and eastern section were within the limits as it was surrounded by development.

 

Councillor R D Bayliss stated that whatever it was called, it would be criteria based on a case by case reason. He added that it would be difficult for criteria based to work in tandem with a neighbourhood plan.

 

The Director of Services stated that criteria based did not give certainty on judgements, however having a boundary did.

 

Councillor C Large stated that the authority should not change the name and that the Green Wedge Limits to Development could be amended.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised that this could be looked at and what was behind the policy as the Green Wedge was not considered as countryside, but Members could now decide that it would be outside the limits.

 

Councillor J Legrys stated that recommendation 2 needed to be amended. He went on to ask officers for a timescale for the process and that the workshops were held at suitable times. He added that Town and Parish Councils should also be invited to the workshops as he had been lobbied by many over the process.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager stated that it was hoped to find a suitable date before the next meeting and that the workshops would be held between 4pm and 8pm. He went on to advise Members that it was envisaged that the workshops would be held for District Councillors first before rolling out to Town and Parish Councillors.

 

Councillor D De Lacy expressed that he felt the current plan was a waste of space as it had been ignored, due to the 5 year housing land supply, as many applications had been submitted outside the limits and that limits were needed in the new plan with arigid approach. He added that he supported the idea that the name shouldn’t be changed and that he agreed that each settlement should have a boundary. He went on to state that the workshops were crucial and that decisions should not be made before consultations.

 

Councillor R D Bayliss requested that when Town and Parish Councils were invited to attend workshops, this be extended to non elected members of any neighbourhood plan groups.

 

Councillor C Large stated that if the limits were being drawn using the SHLAA and based on the current applications, it was not showing the growth or predictions and therefore would be out of date very quickly.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager stated that allocations would be done as part of the plan and that the workshop would cover the areas of development as they were now, but in the event of allocations being made it would be necessary to tweak the limits from those proposed.

 

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was unclear on what was trying to be achieved and stated that they could not put approved sites in as they were currently outside. He added that the authority needed 7,000 homes and that currently the council had approved 5,500, therefore the authority only needed to find 1,500. He added that he preferred the limits in the 2002 plan.

 

The Director of Services advised that allocating sites would provide a tool to be used on applications over the next 25 years and that part of the preparation of the plan would be revisiting the Limits to Development if it was required during the process.

 

Councillor C Large stated that consultation was needed on the Limits to Development and that they needed to look at sites, but it did not require two rounds.

 

Councillor V Richichi asked officers if a site was put forward that was brownfield, but outside the limits to development would it get planning permission.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager stated that each application would be considered on its own merit and as it stood it may not be granted it was not sustainable.

 

Councillor J Legrys stated he was unable to vote as he thought it was very misleading and that he preferred Councillor C Large’s approach that it needed to be clear and precise.

 

The Consultant advised Members that he understood that they were trying to involve everyone and helping officers to go forward as soon as possible, however if the Limits to Development were not agreed it would delay and be hard to keep to the programme.

 

Councillor S Sheahan asked officers what the consequence of not agreeing the limits now and if there was another way of progressing.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised Members that when a draft plan had been formulated and a complete picture formed it would be put out to consultation.

 

Councillor J Bridges agreed with going to the next stage and that in deciding the limits it was a case of picking up what the authority already had and see what was left, he added that Members did not want to slow down the process and they were not intending to block the process, but felt that they could not commit.

 

Councillor C Large stated that she agreed with the wording change, but was concerned at just looking as it currently stands and then looking at it again a few months down the line.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager confirmed with Members that they wished to amend the recommendations to read “Limits to Development”.

 

Councillor J Legrys expressed concern that the Authority be abundantly clear to all during the process and agreed with Councillor C Large that it should all be wrapped up in one process. He stated that there was a lack of trust in the planning process and added that Members needed to be clear that officers were trying to kick start the process.

 

Councillor S Sheahan felt that the issue was not being presented right and that Members should consider deferring the decision to the next meeting if they weren’t sure it was right. He asked what the implications would be if it was deferred.

 

Councillor D De Lacy stated that limits needed to be in the plan and that he was happy with recommendations 1 and 2, however if there was to be big changes he agreed that it should be deferred, if there were to be no changes then it should go forward for officers to prepare the plan and then bring back to Members.

 

Councillor J Bridges raised concerns if there was a delay in bringing the report back at a later date.

 

The Planning Policy Team Manager advised Members that the next meeting would be in October.

 

The Director of Services advised Members that they needed to prepare bespoke issues and focus attention on this, discussing with others at a later stage, otherwise they were in danger of going back to the old process whereby officers prepared a draft plan in isolation from members and then it was issued for consultation.

 

Councillor S Sheahan suggested that the workshops be held for the District Councillors and that a further report be brought back to Committee following the outcome.

 

By affirmation of the meeting it was

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The Advisory Committee:

 

1.    Notes the limitations of settlement boundaries, particularly where there is no up to date plan or the lack of a 5 year supply of housing land;

 

2.    Recommends that the Limits to Development settlements be defined as part of the new local plan;

 

3.    Agrees that officers prepare draft Limits to Development for those settlements listed in paragraph 4.5 of this report:

 

4.    Notes that workshop(s) will be arranged to allow all Members to be involved in discussion and guidance on the preparation of settlement boundaries.

 

5.    Following the Member workshop(s) a report be brought back to the Advisory Committee to agree the next steps.