Agenda item

Site Allocations Development Plan Document Submission Draft (Regulation 19).

Minutes:

Cllr MacNaughton moved the item, noting that a politically and geographically balanced constitutional Working Group was set up to monitor the work, meeting 16 times in total and providing 8 updates to the Scrutiny Committee for Housing, Planning and Economic Growth.  The criteria used by the group was designed to enable comparison of one site against another to determine the most suitable and developable site in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework. A significant buffer of sites is required especially in the current climate, to ensure the Council can maintain its five-year housing land supply.

 

He noted a recent request by Ardingly Parish Council to remove site SA25 . They have been advised to submit their comments to the Inspector. Should the draft Site Allocation Development Document (Sites DPD) be approved for consultation, it will enable an eight-week public consultation to begin on 3 August. Even after inspection, all sites will still be required to apply for planning permission.

 

The item was seconded by Councillor Peacock who noted that a lengthy and detailed process had been followed and reiterated the crucial need to maintain the Council’s five-year housing land supply.

           

Members of the Working Group thanked Officers for the extensive training and technical detail that was provided to enable them to make informed decisions about the sites, based on fact. It was noted that Members have to view the document at District level, rather than from a parish perspective. It is crucial that the Council maintains a delivery plan as requested by the Inspector as part of the District Plan.

 

Discussion was held on the importance of maintaining biodiversity at a number of sites. The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Council understands the importance of protecting biodiversity, and habitat surveys specific to each site will be required to identify areas that need to be conserved and enhanced.

 

Members raised concern over sites that have been included in areas that have already met the minimum requirements set out in DP6, and that by inclusion in the Site Allocations DPD, it makes it easier for permission to be granted. There was also concern over sites that bordered other Districts and any delay this may cause in progressing applications. A query was also raised on the delivery of an appropriate cycle network. The Cabinet Member provided reassurance that regular contact is made with bordering Local Authorities, with no delays anticipated. He also reiterated that developers for each site would have to submit applications which would be considered against the relevant policies at the time.   Regarding the cycle network the Cabinet Member confirmed that the majority of the network will be provided by Homes England and requested an email on the specific routes that were queried in order to provide a written response.

 

A tabled amendment (published online) was proposed by Councillor Eggleston, seeking to remove site SA12 and SA13 from the Site Allocations DPD, noting a number of objections to the inclusion of these sites, due to traffic impacts. He also noted that the District Plan requires a buffer of 20% available sites, with the Council intending to put forward a buffer of 38%, therefore the removal of two sites would not pose a risk.  The was seconded by Councillor Dempsey who acknowledged the significance of the issue and expressed a motivation to do the best for the District. He reiterated the traffic concerns and issues around potential coalescence.

 

Members discussed the amendment. It was noted by some that development of the two sites in question is not suitable for Burgess Hill and may impact on the biodiversity of the area and the view of the South Downs. Concern was raised over the final meeting of the Working Group, whether neighbouring authorities had been consulted and the fact that Haywards Heath Golf Club was not included as a site, despite the potential for development. It was also queried why the Council was submitting a 38% buffer when only 20% was required.

 

Some Members highlighted the importance of safeguarding the Council’s five-year housing land supply by providing as substantial buffer as possible, noting that by removing sites SA12 and SA13 it would remove 340 of the 484 homes that provide the potential buffer. This would be approximately 70% of the buffer and would provide an advantage for developers to promote other sites. It would also take control away from elected Members on behalf of their residents, as the Inspector would choose other sites to take their place.  It was noted that the developer for Haywards Heath Golf Club requested 900 homes which was deemed to be inappropriate for the area, and their initial planning application has been withdrawn. The Cabinet Member confirmed that sites SA12 and SA13 were assessed and performed well, and the objections proved to be unfounded.

 

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the amendment. 19 Members voted for, 28 Members voted against and 1 abstained therefore the amendment was lost.

 

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the original recommendations which were agreed.

 

RESOLVED

 

That Council:

(i) Approves the submission draft Site Allocations DPD, and supporting documentation, for eight weeks public consultation starting on 3rd August 2020;

 

(ii) Agrees that, following conclusion of the public consultation, the submission draft Site Allocations DPD, and supporting documentation, is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination;

 

(iii) Authorises the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, to make any necessary minor typographical and factual changes to the submission draft Site Allocations DPD prior to submission; and

 

(iv) Authorises the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, to suggest any necessary modifications to the submission draft Site Allocations DPD during the examination process to help secure its soundness (pending further public consultation as required).

 

Supporting documents: