Agenda item

Councillor Giles-Medhurst moved the policies for the Regulation 18 Consultation into Part 1 for discussion.

Members received a verbal update on the policies included within the Regulation 18 consultation document and the implementation of amendments that had been proposed at previous Local Plan Sub Committees.

Members expressed concern with the Regulation 18 consultation being discussed in part 2 with the exclusion of the press and public and felt that the item had already been consulted on and is therefore already a matter of public record. It was noted that following the resolution of the Local Plan Sub Committee, the restricted documents in part 2 would become public documents following the conclusion of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting.

It was noted that consultants from Edgars Limited had offered to attend the meeting virtually, but members decided against this as answers could be sought before Regulation 18 was brought to Full Council.

Members queried amendments with a focus on exemptions to householder applications as this had been discussed at a previous Local Plan Sub Committee but had not been taken forward into the report. Officers clarified that advice had been sought from the Consultants from Edgar Limited and that the suite of net zero policies had been amended to clarify that only policies C and E were relevant for householder applications . Members were reminded that there would be further chance for amendments following the consultation.

Some members felt that Policy XA should be amended to state net zero should be sought where it is technically viable to achieve and householder applications should be able to skip off setting if it would be unviable. Members noted this had not been taken forward following discussion in the previous Local Plan Sub Committee. Members also queried the affordability of a whole building approach where the planning application may just focus on a part of the building and the cost to the applicants.

Committee Members expressed concern on the cost consequences for homeowners of significantly older properties, such as properties in the Victorian era or with thatched roofs and the requirement to retrofit the entire house. Concern was also raised in respect of the policies being found sound at the examination stage. Officers clarified that advice had been sought from consultants Edgars Limited and bioregional and amendments had been taken forward from the Local Plan Sub Committee with the advice from consultants. Members were reminded that for full answers to be given to technical questions Officers would require time in advance to draft responses.

Members queried whether independent legal advice had been sought regarding the policies outlined. It was noted that expert advice had been sought through the consultants from Edgar Limited, it was further noted that advice from other councils undertaking Regulation 19 may be sought and plans would be adjusted accordingly.

Members thanked the Head of Planning Policy and Conservation and Councillor Jon Tankard for their contribution to the work on Regulation 18. The standards proposed in the policies would mean consistency throughout the district towards working to Net Zero. Councillor Mitchell proposed that the policies go to consultation.

Members debated Policy XE with focus on the requirement to have considered the environmental policy before submission of a planning application. Some Members felt that properties with a negative contribution to Conservation Areas should be defined within the respective Conservation Area Appraisal and properties that have a negative contribution to Conservation Areas should be demolished and rebuilt as there would still be a potential to have a negative contribution following retrofit. Officers clarified that it would be a political decision to decide whether demolishing and rebuilding to enhance the built environment, or the protection of the environment is more important.

The Committee debated the merits of including a policy proposing retrofitting and the refurbishment of a property over demolition, with demolition being a last resort. A feasibility assessment for demolition had been suggested. Members further raised concerns that demolition can be more harmful to the environment than a house with a minor negative contribution.

Councillor Cooper proposed an amendment;

“Buildings can be demolished where the building has been identified in a Conservation Area appraisal as making a negative contribution to that Conservation Area or otherwise does harm to a heritage asset and where demolition would reduce that harm”

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Edwards.

The amendment was put to the vote and with 4 votes in favour and 9 against, was DEFEATED.

The substantive motion was put to the vote and with 9 votes in favour and 4 against, it was RESOLVED

To approve the policy as set out in the appendices.