Agenda item

The report sought Members endorsement to the proposed methodology as set out in Section 4 of the topic paper to consider a small number of sites within the National Landscapes to ensure that any proposed allocations within a national landscape are assessed in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Questions and comments received from Members included:

Ø  Reassurance was sought that the same methodology would not be used for the Green Wedges and boundaries methodology.  In response the Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he was mindful of the issues from the Green Wedge methodology and suggested that if Members were so minded the recommendations could be amended to ‘note’ rather than ‘agree’ until the findings are presented.

Ø  Clarification was sought on what constitutes ‘major development’ as it is not defined in the NPPF.  Although a definite answer could not be given as national landscapes were all very different in character it was suggested it related to site specific and was left to councils to interpret each case on its own merits.

Ø  Support was expressed for the methodology but it goes against council policies and opinions of the planning officers.  In response it was advised that all sites would need to be robustly considered for the Local Plan to be found sound.

Ø  A query was made about the tilted balance and the housing land supply if by the time this Local Plan was submitted for examination the council was required to consider the five year housing land supply.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that there would be an issue if the current 4.25 housing land supply dropped which would mean the tilted balance would apply but this would not change things in terms of national landscapes.

Ø  Clarification was sought on what the difference would be if a development was classed as ‘major’.  The Assistant Director – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that fundamentally any major development would need to be justified as exceptional circumstances for allocating housing in the national landscape.

Ø  A concern was raised about the wording in Section 5 bullet point 2 as the wording for the Spatial Strategy appeared to be ‘set in stone’ and did not appear flexible.

Councillor Mike Howe proposed two slightly amended recommendations as follows, seconded by Councillor Bethany Collins.

1.     That Strategic Planning Committee note to adopt the approach set out in Section 4 of the topic paper to identify whether any of the allocations in the national landscapes proposed in the local plan constitute ‘major’ development for the purposes of paragraph 183 of the NPPF.

2.     That Strategic Planning Committee note to adopt the approach set out in Section 5 of the topic paper to establish whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would justify individual allocations that are ‘major development’ in the public interest.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the approach set out in Section 4 of the topic paper to identify whether any of the allocations in the national landscapes proposed in the local plan constitute ‘major’ development for the purposes of paragraph 183 of the NPPF be noted.

2.     That the approach set out in Section 5 of the topic paper to establish whether there are any exceptional circumstances that would justify individual allocations that are ‘major development’ in the public interest be noted.