Agenda item

To consider Cabinet’s recommendations dated 9 July 2015.

Owing to the scale of the documents, a link to the papers from the Cabinet meeting can be found at http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=9629&Ver=4

Any updates following that meeting will be included in an agenda supplement.

Prior to the presentation of the report, the Chairman invited questions and statements from the public and councillors. The Chairman drew the meeting’s attention to the questions and answers circulated in the supplement to the agenda, and asked if those present had any supplementary questions.

Councillor Toby Sturgis, Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Development Management, Strategic Housing, Property and Waste stated, in response to a supplement to Question 9 from Richard Hames, that should the opportunity for development to come forward, that development should, according to the viability assessment, be able to provide sufficient  financial contribution to fund the road. However, should the opportunity occur to apply for funding from central government the Council would consider it.

Councillor Sturgis stated, in response to supplements to Questions 27 and 32 from Helen Stuckey, that he had suggested that alternative proposals could be put forward, but that these had been considered and that he was satisfied as to the soundness of the plan’s proposals overall.

Councillor Sturgis stated, in response to a supplement from Kim Stuckey, that he was unable to give a guarantee that there would be no proposals for development in the Marden Valley in the future.

Councillor Sturgis stated, in response to a supplement from Kim Stuckey, that whilst it is true that circumstances can and do change , the Council had to submit their report based on the best evidence available at the time. The Secretary of State would appoint an Inspector to consider that evidence and the soundness of the proposals based on it.

Ian James made a statement, circulated with the meeting papers, where he emphasised his concerns regarding the impact of the proposals.

Councillor Sturgis responded to supplementary questions from Councillor Chris Caswill as follows:

• That the decision to write to developers was made in accordance with the Council’s policy.
• That roads suggested in the proposals were needed.
• That the traffic assessment had been a high level assessment; that more detailed work would be done during the planning application stage; and that Highways England had confirmed that they were satisfied with the model.
• That the link road should result in a net reduction in the amount of traffic going down Station Hill.
• That there was not a separate decision to award Atkins the contract for the work and they were asked to undertake the work in accordance with their existing contract.

Councillor  Sturgis, as the responsible Cabinet Member, then presented the report, including a supplement circulated on the 10 July 2015. The Chairman drew Council’s attention to the recommendations of Cabinet which had considered the matter at its meeting on the 9 July 2015.

Councillor Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Fleur De-Rhé-Philipe, that the recommendations of Cabinet made on the 9 July 2015 be adopted by Council with the following amendment to resolution one.

To approve the Plan together with the Proposed Changes, subject to the omission of the new text in change no. 17, for the purpose of Submission to the Secretary of State subject to amendment in.

Councillor Chris Caswill, Chippenham Monkton Division, proposed amendments to the plan.

The Chairman stated that the meeting would adjourn for lunch, which would enable to advice to be sought regarding the implications of the amendments.

The meeting reconvened at 14:15.

The meeting considered the following motions tabled by Councillor Chris Caswill:

Amendments to the CSAP motion (text changes underlined)

1. add to the first recommendation, after "Proposed Changes” : “together with an amendment to Change 6 to para 4.3 of the Plan, which will now read as follows:

“However, figures for housing supply are constantly changing, for example, since these were first published a further large site at Hunters Moon has been granted permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement. Figures also take only limited account of brownfield sites identified in Core Policy 9 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the Chippenham Central Area Master Plan such as redevelopment proposals at Langley Park. In this latter case, no account has been taken of the landowner’s intention to increase the housing provision by at least 150 homes. Nor has account has been taken of the likely development of the Chippenham former police station site or of any forecast windfall developments.  It has been judged preferable to prioritise development on greenfield sites and the latest housing land supply statement therefore reaffirms that the residual requirement at Chippenham is now at least 1,935 homes.”

2. add to the first recommendation, after "Proposed Changes” : “together with an additional change to para 4.21 of the Plan, which will now read as follows:

4.21 Area C (as indicated on figure 2.2), east Chippenham, represents the third preferred area. This area, especially north of the cycleway, represents an area that is open and, like Rawlings Green, will have a wider landscape impact. It is recognised that the large-scale development proposed in these two areas will result in the irreversible loss to Chippenham and to Bremhill Parish of the highly prized environment of the Avon and Marden Valleys .  It is also recognised in the attached Flood Risk evidence is that the selection of Area C will bring development in the area of highest flood risk. In the absence of a sequential flood risk assessment originally requested by the Environment Agency and any independent hydrological survey, the selection of this strategic site depends on the promised ability of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to deliver the improved runoff objective. This is a significant increase in the risk that this Plan will fail to deliver the required housing numbers. In any event, considerable work will be needed to avoid increased flood risks to the Town and elsewhere. On the positive side, the Plan has relied on a study commissioned by the the developers promoting area C, and their assurance that development should reduce rather than increase such risks. This area has no obvious features that form a logical natural boundary. The chosen site option creates a new potential boundary by taking a new distributor road to form a landscaped corridor that would provide visual containment following a similar approach used for the existing Pewsham area in the south of the Town and as proposed at North Chippenham.

3. add to the first recommendation, after "Proposed Changes” : “together with an additional change to the end of para 4.21 of the Plan, which will now read as follows:

The site identified at East Chippenham could accommodate approximately 850 new dwellings and approximately 20ha of land for employment use, partly recognising this will contribute to meeting employment land needs beyond 2026. However, as made clear in 4.20 above, only 450 dwellings are required in order to meet the Chippenham target, and that number will in any event constitute an oversupply once brownfield and windfall figures are taken into account.  Area C will therefore be expected to deliver only 400 dwellings. As a part of its mixed-use development it will provide a distributor standard road crossing to the River Avon and complete an Eastern Link Road for the town connecting the A4 to the A350, mitigating much of the congestion that would otherwise occur.

Later sections of the Plan will be amended to reflect this change.

4. Add to the first recommendation, after "Proposed Changes” : “together with an amendment to the first sentence of paragraph 4.12 of the attached Consultation Statement, which removes the reference to "a protest group" and now reads: “Two lengthy responses were received from a residents’ group, Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in the East (CAUSE 2015) which argued that the Plan allocations CH2 (Rawlings Green) and CH3 (East Chippenham) were unsound in terms of the six selection criteria."

5. Add to the authorisation of the Associate Director for Economic Development and Planning a new first section: “carry out (1) an immediate independent Review of the Transport evidence to ensure that it is adequate for the purpose and has not damagingly underestimated the traffic impact on Station Hill and Cocklebury Road and the Chippenham town centre.

And, should that review raise significant questions about the soundness of the underpinning evidence, bring it to Cabinet, to allow reconsideration prior to submission to the Secretary of State.

6. Add to the authorisation of the Associate Director for Economic Development and Planning a new additional section: “carry out (1) an immediate independent Review of the Sustainability Appraisal evidence to ensure that it is adequate for the purpose and has not (along with the Transport evidence) unsoundly undervalued the potential contribution of Area D to the Chippenham Site Allocation requirements.

And, should that review raise significant questions about the soundness of the underpinning evidence, bring it to Cabinet, to allow reconsideration prior to submission to the Secretary of State.

Motion 4 was accepted as a friendly amendment and formed part of the substantive motion.

Having been put to a vote, motions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were lost.

Issues raised in the course of the presentation and discussion included: that a large response had been received in the consultation period; the ongoing concerns of some members of the community; the benefits of having plan-led development; that the same evidence can be interpreted differently; the implications of the proposals in relation to flooding and traffic; how the criteria upon which each of the sites was assessed against was arrived at; that it was anticipated that the plan would be submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of July and that they would appoint an inspector to examine the plan; and the potential benefits for Chippenham arising from plan.

Having been debated and put to a vote, the meeting:

Resolved

(i)           To approve the Plan together with the Proposed Changes, subject to the omission of the new text in change no. 17 and the incorporation of the text suggest in amend four above, for the purpose of Submission to the Secretary of State subject to amendment in (ii)

(ii)          To authorise the Associate Director for Economic Development and Planning in consultation with the Associate Director for Legal and Governance and the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Development Management, Strategic Housing, Property and Waste to:

(a)          Make any necessary minor changes to the Plan through the Schedule of Proposed Changes in the interests of clarity and accuracy before it is submitted to the Secretary of State;

(b)          Make appropriate arrangements for submission of all documents relating to the Plan, including supporting evidence such as the Equalities Impact Assessment, to the Secretary of State; and

(c)          Implement any consequential actions as directed by the Inspector relating to the Examination.

Admin Note: a summary of the results of the recorded votes made in accordance with this discussion are appended to these minutes.