Agenda item

This report provides further detail on the process for considering which sites should be allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan.

Before introducing Ed Freeman, Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management to present his report the Chair reminded Members of his proposal to change the first recommendation in fear that Members would not be ready to endorse the preferred sites. 

The first recommendation would read as follows:

That Strategic Planning Committee recommend that the proposed site allocations in this committee report may proceed to consultation.

The Committee considered a report from the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management that provided Members with further detail on the process for considering which sites should be allocated for housing development in the emerging Local Plan. 

He addressed the morning’s developer presentations and acknowledged Members key concerns were about landscape designations, environmental impacts, infrastructure provision and the delivery of affordable housing and advised these would need to be mitigated through the planning process and the Community Infrastructure Levy.  A further key concern was about the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and how much weight should be given.  He acknowledged this important issue and referred Members to the reference in the national planning policy framework on page 14 of the agenda.

Members were reminded at the last meeting the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised there had been a significant shortfall in housing delivery.  He referred to the net housing supply forecast table in paragraph 5.3 and advised that following further officer assessments of the towns this figure had now doubled and emphasised the need for Members to be flexible when considering the sites in each of the towns.

The Chair addressed the Committee about today’s meeting and asked Members for a direction of travel and suggested the following recommendations:

That Strategic Planning Committee:

1.    Recommend that the proposed site allocations in this committee report may proceed to consultation, including the second best sites;

2.    Notes that the sites are not agreed by the Council at this stage but are suitable for consultation

The majority of Members endorsed the proposed recommendations advising it was important to try and get as many sites as possible at this stage before considering tiers 3 and 4 which had less facilities.

Members’ comments included:

·         Frustration was expressed about the urban capacity study that lacked the attention needed to the major town centres where value, economy and homes could be delivered;

·         A suggestion was made to look at compulsory purchases;

·         There was a need to have discussions on individual towns before going out to consultation;

·         From the morning’s presentations a concern was raised about the extent of urban sprawl of greenfield development;

·         Concern was raised about inaccuracies in the calculations for the 20 minutes neighbourhood.  It was suggested they should be based on 800 metres to take into account 10 minutes to walk into town and 10 minutes to walk back and not 1600 metres as stated;

·         The Chair sought clarification from the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management about the consultation stage of the Local Plan.  He advised there could be a number of ways of engaging with the public and suggested it could potentially be done as a series of preferred allocations or perhaps the responses for the sites could be collated on an online mapping system which could be viewed by location.  All other allocations would sit in a separate document so as not to overwhelm members of the public wanting to comment.  This would then be fed back to Members by a detailed collated report early next spring;

·         A suggestion was made in addition to the recommendation to have a clear statement about the council’s principles of giving greater weight to conserving Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

·         The new town needs to be considered properly;

·         A suggestion was made to go with officer’s advice on preferred sites and second choice allocations as detailed in the appendices but to also give further consideration to the remaining sites. Taking Axminster as an example in the appendix officers had selected Axmi_01, GH/ED/81 and GH/ED/82 as sites not to be allocated - it would be these sites that Members would further consider and if merited would be put in the ‘yes’ pile and all others discounted.

The Chair, acknowledging that discussing each town would be a time consuming process and raising concerns about delaying the consultation stage sought advice from the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management about whether scheduling an additional meeting early September would leave enough time for the consultation in October.  In response he advised it was possible but would be tight as there was still a huge amount of work still to be done.

The Chair invited Members to comment on whether they agreed with the current rejected for site selections for Axminster or whether they could have potential.

Comments included:

·         Axmi_01 – Land off Musbury Road, Axminster

Agree with officers advice that the site should not be allocated for housing but part of the site used for employment;

·         Axmi_09 – Great Jackleigh Farm, Axminster

Currently listed as a 2^nd best allocation but could come forward to a preferred allocation (issues with an ancient monument and accessibility);

·         Axmi_10 – Scott Rowe Building, Axminster Hospital, Chard Street

Extra care housing could be considered for this site;

·         GH/ED/81 – Land east of Axminster – Site 2

Agree with officer advice that the site should not be allocated.

·         GH/ED/82 – Land east of Axminster – Site 3

As this land sits behind the industrial estate this land had previously been suggested for employment sites with a buffer to protect Weycroft Manor from noise;

·         GH/ED/83 – Land at Chard Road, Axminster

Concerns about flooding and the retention of the permissive path;

Further comments included:

·         Axminster had already seen a 30% of growth and is at breaking point.  It is the smallest town and is expected to take the biggest hit with a further 1,115 houses.  Axminster cannot cope with the volume of houses without a relief road and other infrastructure to support it.

·         There is a need to focus on employment as well as housing;

·         Clarification sought on whether sites would go out for consultation without the landscape sensitivity completed.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management acknowledged some landscape sensitivity summaries had not been completed but confirmed they all would be completed before going out to consultation;

·         Clarification sought on the accessibility assessment and whether being within 1600 metres of services and facilities was correct.  It was advised that the 1600 metres was agreed as part of the methodology of the HELAA and was an accurate measure;

·         Clarification sought about inconsistent housing numbers proposed between the council and developers. It was advised the council’s numbers were calculated on HELAA methodology and some developers had probably calculated their numbers on the basis that infrastructure or mitigation would have been accommodated off-site;

·         There were inconsistences in the assessments.  GH/ED/82 should be used for industrial space for businesses to expand but was turned down due to its proximity to Weycroft but GH/ED/83 was acceptable even though it was closer to Weycroft;

·         A suggestion was made for the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management to bring forward to the next meeting a brief on the new town.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he was happy to provide a verbal update on the new town as well as a verbal update on brownfield sites within town centres.

Councillor Mike Allen and seconded by Councillor Mike Howe proposed the officers’ recommendations for Axminster to go out to consultation including the addition for site GH/ED/82 to be considered for employment purposes.

The Planning Barrister reminded Members to take the vote as a straw poll for each town and that when all the sites had been discussed Members would vote again incorporating all the straw polls.

The majority of Members were in support of recommending the officers’ recommendations for Axminster to go out to consultation including the addition for site GH/ED/82 to be considered for employment purposes.

The meeting was adjourned.