Agenda item

Having complied with the Motions Procedure as set out in the council’s Constitution the motion attached will be proposed by Cllr Jonathan Brown and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting.

 

Please note that a report from the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel has been included in the pack in relation to this item.

Cllr Oakley requested an update from the Chair on the Motion he had submitted relating to the lease on a site on Florence Road. The Chair explained that the item will be on the agenda for the Cabinet meeting in September instead.

 

Mr Bennett was invited to clarify the position for members relating to interests. He explained that where members are appointed to other bodies they should declare a personal interest but are entitled to stay in the room, fully debate the item and vote so long as they are content that a member of the public would not deem them to have an interest which will bear weight on their decision. Cllr Sutton asked whether a position on a council would make a difference to that advice. Mr Bennett explained that members are entitled to speak on behalf of their parish council. Members can choose to step away if they feel their role was prejudicial to their decision making.

 

Cllr Brown proposed his motion. This was seconded by Cllr Bangert. The Motion was as follows:

 

Following the withdrawal of Southbourne’s Neighbourhood Plan Review from examination, and with only a marginal 5 Year Housing Land Supply, Chichester District Councillors are deeply concerned at the prospect of unplanned development being permitted in Southbourne Parish.

 

Councillors believe that all parts of the District should be treated equally and fairly within the Local Plan Review (LPR) and that Southbourne should not – along among the Parishes in the Development Plan area – be identified as a ‘Broad Location for Development’. Rather, this Council resolves to progress a strategic allocation for development at Southbourne within the LPR.

 

To avoid unnecessary delay to the LPR, work on this allocation should take place in parallel with other work on the LPR wherever possible and should seek to incorporate, update and reconsult on the Neighbourhood Plan evidence base wherever appropriate. Whichever location or locations may ultimately be selected for development, this should maximise the chances of any and all development in Southbourne over the life of the fifteen-year LPR being properly master planned.

 

While the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) regularly considers evidence and options and makes recommendations on the way forward, this is a decision of such importance that it is appropriate that it be made by Full Council and be subject to public scrutiny.

 

It is therefore recommended that: Council resolves to progress a strategic allocation for development at Southbourne within the LPR.

 

Cllr Brown outlined his Motion. He clarified that his Motion was not about a site or housing numbers but how sites are selected. He drew attention to the evidence base that had been used for the withdrawn Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan and asked officers to consider its use. He explained that he did not wish Southbourne to lose the option of a bridge over the railway line. He explained that his Motion set out to provide Southbourne with the ability to plan for future growth and defend against speculative applications.

 

As Cabinet member, Cllr Taylor was invited to respond first. Cllr Taylor requested a recorded vote. Cllr Lintill, Cllr Plant, Cllr Oakley and Cllr Sutton provided the required number of supporters for the request.

 

Cllr Taylor responded by explaining that the Motion would delay the Local Plan Review by adding a site allocation. She added that officers do not have the capacity to work on the Local Plan Review and on the evidence base for a site allocation. She clarified that the evidence collected to date only relates to the eastern side and further evidence collection would require a further consultation. With regard to the submission of evidence to support the Local Plan, Cllr Taylor advised that  all major evidence would have to be included at the point the plan is submitted for examination. She added that the additional detailed evidence required by a site allocation at Southbourne would add approximately 6-8 months to the overall programme.

 

Peter Home, External Consultant was invited to speak by the Chair. He explained the nature of the Broad Location for Development (BLD) can be substituted in place of a site allocation. It must come forward as a policy but does not have to be included in a policies map. Once adopted it carries as much weight as any other strategic policy in the Local Plan.

 

Cllr Purnell asked members to listen to the planning officers advice to avoid delay to the Local Plan Review. She asked members to consider how they would defend a decision to support the Motion if it led to speculative application in their ward.

 

Cllr Bangert drew members to the work of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and asked them to look at this work to see how the Group would like development to be planned.

 

Cllr Oakley asked members to consider whether the Local Plan Review timetable would be extended by supporting the Motion. He concluded that additional evidence gathering would be required. He asked officers if a separate consultation would be required for a site allocation. If that is the case, it would extend the process further.

 

Mr Frost explained that the BLD could be worked in with existing work and cause no significant delay. However, a site allocation would cause a long delay due to site identification and selection, technical studies as the Neighbourhood Plan studies are for the site to the east only and consultation. A consultation would be required along with a viability assessment and a sustainability appraisal. The series of milestones could take 10-12 months which would be a significant delay.

 

Cllr Brisbane asked if there is evidence elsewhere for council’s to defend a broad location of development approach. He also suggested the use of consultants could speed up the additional work required.

 

Mr Home clarified that the BLD approach is widely used across other local authorities.

 

Cllr Hobbs wished to note previous criticism about delaying the Local Plan Review when the Motion could cause delay. He explained he would not be able to support the Motion.

 

Cllr Sutton addressed the issue of speculative development. He raised concerns that the Motion would cause a greater level of speculative development during the delay in the Local Plan Review outlined by officers.

 

Cllr Sharp asked which option provides the best infrastructure long term. Mr Whitty explained that the BLD would allow the Masterplan process after the Local Plan Review. He explained that would be the best option in his professional opinion. He added that officers were proposing to add the allocation to Southbourne via the BLD with the detail to then be decided following the Local Plan Review.

 

Cllr Moss explained that he had sought advice (this was later clarified to be informal advice following a clarification request from the Monitoring Officer). He asked if the officers had read all the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan documents, what else is required and have officers met with prospective developers. Mr Whitty explained that he was familiar with the documentation. He explained that there are a number of technical documents which only cover land to the east. The other sites would need to have the same level of technical documents. In addition some of the technical documents such as ecology would need updating. He added that officers have met with prospective developers to the east and west setting out the BLD option.

 

Cllr Briscoe asked members to consider the district as a whole and how the BLD could reduce the timescale for speculative applications before the new local plan is adopted. He explained he could not support the Motion.

 

Cllr Plant explained she could not support the Motion following all that she had read.

 

Cllr Lintill explained that she could not support the Motion raising concerns of speculative development to the whole of the district for a longer period.

 

Cllr Brown in summary noted a third of the overall housing to be provided by the Local Plan Review falls in Southbourne. He raised concerns that the BLD policy does not have as much detail as a Masterplan and therefore would be easier for developers to comply. He also questioned officers support during the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan examination.

 

Mr Bennett drew attention to Cllr Taylor to be able to sum up as portfolio holder.

 

The Chair allowed Cllr Taylor the opportunity to comment. Cllr Taylor in response to Cllr Brown refuted the comments relating to officers support during the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan examination quoting officer advice that any Neighbourhood Plan proceeding ahead of the Local Plan Review was at risk.

 

Cllr Tim Johnson raised a point of order to allow Cllr Brown to respond. This was confirmed by Mr Bennett as Monitoring Officer.

 

Cllr Brown clarified that he felt that officers had given support up until the point of the examination. This was in relation to backing up comments made leading up to examination.

 

Members requested a recorded vote as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Absent

Cllr Barrie – Absent

Cllr Bell - Against

Cllr Bowden - Absent

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – Absent

Cllr Graves – Against

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr D Johnson – For

Cllr T Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – Absent

Cllr McAra – Absent from vote

Cllr Moss - For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Page – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – Absent from vote

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

Totals:

 

For = 11

Against = 18

Abstentions = 0

Absent = 7

 

The Motion was therefore not carried.