Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

To consider and comment before decision by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor

 

i. To agree the content of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) (Appendix A to the officer’s report);

ii. To agree that if any amendments are necessary, these should be agreed by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee.

 

Reason for Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the The Planning Policy Manager, Principal Planning Policy Officer, and the Planning Policy Officer.

 

The Committee welcomed the report and made the following comments in response:

             i.        Questioned how the impact of large multi-national companies moving to the area, such as AstraZeneca, were managed. 

            ii.        Questioned the impact of devolution on the Local Plan. 

           iii.        Highlighted “land-banking” by developers as a risk to housing supply in the area and requested that an analysis be undertaken that identified where the development of sites had been delayed by developers. 

          iv.        Sought an update regarding the NIAB site that had been delayed considerably and whether the planned bus service for the site had been delayed. 

           v.        Questioned the use of policies from the emerging Local Plan and their reporting within the Annual Monitoring Report. 

          vi.        Questioned whether a financial viability check was undertaken on developers. 

         vii.        Asked whether the Design and Conservation Panel still operated and clarification of its role within the planning process. 

       viii.        Sought clarity regarding paragraph 7.14 of the Annual Monitoring Report.   

          ix.        Clarified what constituted the use of a planning policy and asked whether there was software available that could capture when specific planning policies were applied.   

 

The Planning Policy Manager, Principal Planning Policy Officer, and the Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members questions:

i.     Explained that although AstraZeneca moving to the area was unusual, it has contributed towards meeting the jobs growth forecast set out in the emerging Local Plan.it 

ii.    Explained that the impact of devolution needed to be scoped and the next Local Plan would be prepared to be consistent with the aims of devolution.

iii.  Agreed to provide an analysis to Members that identified the length of time between a site being released for development and the development taking place that included commentary on why development had been delayed on specific sites.

iv.          Officers explained that the development proposals first came forward on the NIAB site in around 2007 just before the recession that greatly affected the construction industry.  It has a large consortium of landowners, which also makes it more complicated to deliver development.  Recently, the developer was affected financially by Brexit, and is now looking to other developers to bring forward the NIAB scheme.  The Council’s New Neighbourhoods team is working with the developer and representatives of the consortium of landowners to deliver the site.  A deed of variation to the existing Section 106 agreement is likely to be presented at Joint Development Control Committee early in 2017.  This will address timing of delivery of some of the site’s infrastructure.  The developer is still legally committed to providing the site-wide infrastructure.  The intention is to start these works in May 2017. A written response to Member concerns regarding the planned bus route would be circulated to Members in due course.

v.   Explained that the 2006 Local Plan was the current plan and the emerging Local Plan would not be reported on through the Annual Monitoring Report until it was adopted. 

vi.  Explained that a high level viability assessment was undertaken to inform the development of policies in the Local Plan and the Community Infrastructure Levy requirements.  There was no requirement on the Council to undertake a detailed viability assessment of individual developers’ proposals at the plan-making stage.

vii.         Confirmed that the Design and Conservation panel was still in operation and met on a monthly basis, providing a forum for presentation of, briefing for, and expert advice on, major or otherwise significant development proposals (both at pre-application and application stages).  The advice of the Panel forms part of reports on planning applications.;

viii. Agreed to investigate and provide further information regarding paragraph 7.14 of the Annual Monitoring Report..

ix.  Explained that all planning application reports were reviewed to identify the policies that were used.  Work was ongoing regarding software that could capture the data more easily.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.