The report is at item 5 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Monday 19 June 2017 and its three appendices are in the agenda supplement.
It is anticipated that the following recommendations will be made by the Cabinet earlier in the day to the Council at this special meeting:
RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL
That the Council approves:
(1) The amendment of the Local Development Scheme 2017-2020 by adding the key dates for the Local Plan Review set out in paragraph 6.3 of the agenda report.
(2) The Local Plan Review Issues and Options documents presented as appendices to the agenda report being the subject of a six-week period of public consultation from 22 June to 3 August 2017.
(3) The Head of Planning Services being authorised, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the consultation documents prior to their publication.
Minutes:
The Council considered the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day as set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes), the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 13 to 21 of the agenda for that meeting and also in the three appendices to the report on pages 1 to 118 of the agenda supplement. All CDC members had received a copy of the Cabinet agenda and agenda supplement.
Mrs Taylor (the Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the recommendations of the Cabinet which had been made earlier in the day and this was seconded by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council).
Mrs Taylor said that this review of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP), which had been adopted in July 2015, was imposed by the planning inspector in pronouncing the CLP to be sound. The requirement for a review within five years was due to the annual housing figure in the CLP of 435 homes per year falling short of meeting the objectively assessed need (OAN) at that time of 505 homes per year. Satisfying the OAN was a particular challenge for Chichester District since 70% of the area fell within the South Downs National Park and so outside the CLP area. A portion of the remaining 30% was either in the AONB or subject to environmental constraints eg flooding. In addition Chichester District was adjacent to other large urban areas with growth in employment and housing requirements, particularly in Arun District Council and Havant Borough Council areas. Moreover, it was evident from recent examinations of other local authorities’ local plans that councils had to plan for very substantial increases in housing numbers and CDC could not assume that it would be exempt at the review examination. Despite not being able at this stage to estimate the scale of development for which CDC would be required to allocate land, the plan-making process had to be commenced now. The timetable was set out in appendix 1 (page 9) and would require close adherence in order to ensure adoption was completed within five years ie by July 2020. The absence of a new local plan could render the CLP area vulnerable to speculative development in inappropriate and even damaging locations instead of the most suitable sites which balanced meeting demand with minimising harm to the area’s wonderful natural heritage.
The first main stage of the review process was the Issues and Options consultation which was due to run from 22 June to 3 August 2017, using a questionnaire to engage the community (parish councils and their residents) and drawing out comments and information to help CDC draft a strategy and preferred policy options to be included in the CLP review document. Community engagement was a very important process. The possible locations for housing development listed in the consultation were described only in broad terms at this stage. As the plan-making process progressed, the options would become narrower in range and more clearly defined.
The consultation would be accompanied by a sustainability appraisal (SA) which would deal specifically with the locations in questions 11 and 14. A SA assessed inter alia the social, environmental and economic impacts of the development options in the CLP review. At this preliminary stage this SA provided only an outline summary of the positive and negative impacts of options.
The consultation documents were amended in the light of comments made by CDC’s Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel on 3 May 2017 (para 6.9 of the report).
The consultation on the SA and the Habitat Regulations Assessment would run in parallel with the issues identified in the CLP review questionnaire.
During the ensuing discussion (full details of which are available via the audio recording on CDC’s web-site) members made comments and asked questions about various matters and received where appropriate answers from Mrs Taylor or officers, namely Mr Allgrove, Mr Carvell and Mr Frost. The subjects included:
(a) The need to enable participation by everyone including those who did not have access to the online consultation facility – hard copy responses would be accepted; there was at this early stage of the review process no need to arrange public meetings; parish councils should consider arranging a special meeting if the consultation dates did not conveniently fit in with the usual cycle of ordinary meetings.
(b) The importance of building to higher density levels where appropriate and avoid a ‘sprawl and expansion’ approach – this was an issue for later in the consultation.
(c) The significant contribution to the consultation process that could and should be made by the local councillor and political parties – such participation was welcome.
(d) The absence of any explicit reference in the consultation document to (a) the likely number of additional houses that the Local Plan Review will have to address, bearing in mind that the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Issues and Evidence Report in appendix 3 to the Cabinet agenda report referred to at least a further 3,500 new dwellings and (b) how that number was derived – a benchmark figure (which was not definitive) was necessary at this stage for the purposes of the consultation and was calculated in accordance with a set formula details of which could be provided after this meeting.
(e) The reason for a cut-off figure of 500 dwellings between strategic and non-strategic sites given that the current CLP referred to a lower number being considered strategic – a suggested baseline figure had been selected at this change but it was not definitive and could be changed later.
(f) The quality and inconsistency of the SA in appendix 2 to the agenda report was a cause for considerable concern since the SA had been cited against CDC at a planning appeal inquiry the previous week. The lack of depth with respect to issues such as cumulative impact on the Medmerry site was reminiscent of problems experienced with CDC’s SHLAA document in the lead up to the CLP – concerns about the SA could be submitted during the consultation but officers considered it to be a high quality, comprehensive document; reference to Medmerry (which was treated as if it were a Special Protection Area) was made on page 107 in appendix 3 to the agenda report; note should be taken of the text for Next Steps on page 117.
(g) The Local Plan Review process would take two years to undertake and (a) it would be open to scrutiny by developers once CDC published its updated OAN figures, which might then be used by the development industry in planning appeals and (b) the clear direction of travel by the government to increase rates of housing delivery which again could be used to argue for higher levels of development than envisaged in the CLP – CDC’s CLP was currently up-to-date, there was a plan-led process and developers and planning inspectors would be expected to conform to and uphold the CLP.
(h) The target audience for the consultation should be identified as it was desirable for responses not to be principally limited to individuals – it would have a wide ambit but replies from individuals were welcome.
(i) The reference to the needs of older people was pleasing.
(j) The review was an extensive undertaking and there needed to be a sufficient willingness to compromise in order to achieve an overall satisfactory outcome.
(k) The statement on page 117 in appendix 3 was not easy to understand - what it meant was that the Habitats Regulations Assessment would be reiterated and updated during the course of the Local Plan Review process.
(l) The local planning authority would need to give increasing weight by 2019-2020 to the emerging numbers while also continuing to pay regard to the extant CLP.
At the end of the debate the following decision was made by the Council.
Decision
The Council voted with respect to the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet and on a show of hands it was in favour of making the resolutions set out below, with no votes against and two abstentions.
RESOLVED
(1) That the published Local Development Scheme 2017-2020 be amended by adding the key dates for the Local Plan Review set out in paragraph 6.3 of the agenda report.
(2) That the Local Plan Review Issues and Options documents presented as appendices to the agenda report be approved for a six-week period of public consultation from 22 June to 3 August 2017.
(3) That the Head of Planning Services be authorised following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to make minor amendments to the consultation documents prior to their publication.