Agenda item

Councillor Walker introduced the report as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for Housing, Planning and Economic Growth. He highlighted the importance of the document in increasing the Council’s 5 year housing land supply and providing protection against unwanted development in the District. He also provided context, confirming that the document was developed at the request of the Planning Inspector following the examination of the District Plan. A politically and geographically balanced constitutional Working Group was set up to monitor the work, meeting 16 times in total and providing regular updates to the Scrutiny Committee for Housing, Planning and Economic Growth.  The report was seconded by Councillor MacNaughton.

A number of Members raised concerns regarding particular sites contained in the report, particularly SA12 and SA13, due to traffic impacts. Clarification was sought on what traffic assessment had been carried out. Concern was also raised around site SA24 due to potential involvement of the Secretary of State in active planning appeals. The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Council had commissioned transport consultants to carry out transport assessments in the development of this document. These had included sites SA12 and SA13 and are considered to be the most up-to-date and sound assessments on which to base a decision to include the sites. Regarding SA24, he confirmed that decisions on appeals were beyond the control of this Council and that developers could address issues raised through new applications.

Members of the Working Group commended the Officers on the amount of diligent and factual work that has gone into preparing the document for consultation, and urged the Council to support the recommendations. It was noted that this was not the end of the process, as there would be two public consultations, followed by an examination in public by a Planning Inspector.

Some Members expressed concern regarding the decisions made by the Working Group at the most recent meeting held in August, noting that this meeting was held after the May 2019 election and did not seek to replace Members of the Group who were not re-elected. It was felt that this adversely affected the geographical and political balance of the group in the final stage of decision making. Discussion also concerned the number of sites being put forward.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that advice was sought from the Council’s QC regarding the Working Group. The advice was to proceed with the original Members for consistency. The Working Group was advisory only.  A full opportunity for detailed debate had been available at the Scrutiny Committee. He also confirmed that it was on advice from officers and the Scrutiny Committee were recommending option 2  as a prudent approach to ensure that there is a ‘buffer’ of sufficient sites to maintain the 5 year housing land supply should the Council encounter any issues with challenge or delivery of a particular site. To reduce the numbers would place the Council at risk of being unable to maintain a 5 year housing land supply.

A tabled amendment (published online) was proposed by Councillor Alison Bennett who noted that whilst she was content with the employment sites set out in the DPD she had concerns regarding the openness of the final meeting of the Working Group and the lack of political or geographical balance. She moved to convene a new working group to carry out the final stage of the work. It was seconded by Councillor Hatton, a Member of the Working Group who was unable to attend the final meeting and raised concern that local knowledge was missed, by not including a geographical balance of those in attendance.

Members discussed the amendment.  It was noted that to convene another Working Group would have a significant impact on the ability of the Council to deliver the consultation in the time available. It was reiterated that a robust process had been followed. There had been ample opportunity for Members who could not attend the last Working Group meeting to make their comments and to meet with Officers. An opportunity for a full debate, in public, had taken place at the Scrutiny Committee. At that time, the absent Members of the Working Group’s views had been put forward and the minutes reflect that they were taken into consideration. The public consultations and subsequent Scrutiny Committee meeting would also allow further scrutiny of these issues prior to an independent public examination.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the amendment which was taken by a show of hands. 18 Members voted in favour, 30 Members voted against and 2 Members abstained, therefore the amendment was lost.

The Chairman referred Members to the original motion. It was acknowledged that consideration would be given to improving the maps and that a Member’s request for an amendment to one map had already been actioned. Discussion covered the merits of the options presented.  It also covered the site assessment results contained in the report, and the Housing Delivery figures.

Seconding the original recommendation, Councillor MacNaughton reiterated the importance of progressing the Site Allocations Development Plan Document to public consultation and highlighted the level of scrutiny that had already been carried out in the preparation of the document.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations which was taken by a show of hands. 32 Members voted in favour and 16 Members voted against, with 2 Members abstaining. Therefore the recommendations were approved.

RESOLVED

That Council:

(i)         Approved the Mid Sussex District Council Site Allocations Development Plan Document for public consultation (Regulation 18) commencing 9th October to 20th November; and

(ii)        Agreed the publication of the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment for public consultation (Regulation 18) commencing 9th October to 20th November; and

(iii)       Authorised the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, to make typographical, minor factual and formatting errors to the Draft Sites DPD, the Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment along with the supporting documentation prior to the commencement of the public consultation.