Issue - meetings

This report seeks member agreement of the updates to the draft Local Plan policies from the Draft Local Plan Regulation 18 Part 1: Preferred Policy Options document in response to changes to national planning policy, comments received to the Regulation 18 consultation and consideration at Local Plan Sub-Committee meetings in 2022 and 2023

Recommendation:

That the Local Plan Sub-Committee note the contents of this report, and recommend to the Policy & Resources Committee the following policy updates:

·        Green Belt Policy (Appendix 1)

·        Development in the Green Belt Appendix (Appendix 2)

·        Housing Density Policy (Appendix 3)

·        Design Criteria (Appendix 4)

·        Affordable Housing Policy (Appendix 5)

·        First Homes Policy (Appendix 6)

·        Employment and Economic Development Policy (Appendix 7)

·        Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy (Appendix 8)

·        Retail and Leisure Policy (Appendix 9)

·        Open Space, Play Space, Sport and Recreation Policy (Appendix 10)

·        Health and Wellbeing Policy (Appendix 11)

·        Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy (Appendix 12)

·        Trees, Woodlands and Landscaping Policy (Appendix 13)

·        Waterways Policy (Appendix 14)

·        Broadband and Electronic Communications Policy (Appendix 15)

·        Sustainable Transport and Travel Policy (Appendix 16)

Marko Kalik, Head of Planning Policy and Conservation, presented the report and appendices.

Appendix 1 – Green Belt

It was noted that the policies map would be updated once the sites had been agreed and the boundary changes known.

In the final report document, the appendices would be formatted together rather than formatted individually.

Members discussed the relevance of paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 and whether they should be deleted. Some Members felt that the evidence base was out of date and would undermine the Council when it went to examination. Officers explained that they were still relevant. The Urban Capacity Study provided evidence when justifying why the Green Belt boundary may change in exceptional circumstances. If the evidence was disregarded, further evidence would need to be sought and would delay the Plan.

Councillor Cooper moved, seconded by Councillor Hearn, to remove paragraphs 1.3 after the first sentence and paragraph 1.4. The voting was 7 Against and 2 For. The motion was NOT CARRIED.

The Chair moved, seconded by Councillor Nelmes, to incorporate in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 accordingly, the additional sites and additional information relating to other studies undertaken and to make reference to all infrastructure in paragraph 1.4. The voting was 7 For and 2 Abstentions. The vote was CARRIED.

RESOLVED: to incorporate in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 accordingly, the additional sites and additional information relating to other studies undertaken and to make reference to infrastructure in paragraph 1.4.

Appendix 2 – Development in the Green Belt

Members requested that the wording in paragraph 2.44 be in the same vernacular as the others and the word ‘should’ changed to ‘must’.

Officers clarified with Members, the wording required for paragraph 2.24. Officers would review the wording.

Members requested that ‘in the area’ was removed from paragraph 2.4.

Officers to review wording of paragraph 2.20.

Appendix 3 – Housing Density

Jon Bishop, Chorley Wood Residents Association, addressed the meeting and raised the following points.

• Would the minimum density apply to all sites, no matter how small? What about where an existing dwelling on a large plot is being demolished and rebuilt? Did this need to be defined?
• To deliver the required new homes whilst minimising the impact on Green Belt, it was understood that we need to increase the density of new developments. However, was 50 homes the correct minimum level when this was approximately the current maximum density in the district?
• If this was the level to be adopted, then we believe that policy point 3 needs adjustment to include reference to allowing lower densities where the minimum defined density would result in a significant disconnect in character with the surrounding area (mentioned in the supporting text but not the policy). This would allow for a more gradual increase in density across a site to provide a more joined up feel between the new development and the existing settlement. For example, where a site was immediately bordered by an area with an average density of 15 homes/hectare, the new development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38