Agenda item

To receive a report from the Chief Executive.

 

Please note that the attached report will be considered by Cabinet on 11 July. Following Cabinet, the minute of that item and any updates to the report/recommendations will be circulated in a supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor Nick Botterill, Cabinet Member for Finance, Development Management, and Strategic Planning, to present the pre-submission Draft Plan as set out in the Summons and supplementary documentation. Councillor Botterill proposed a motion to endorse the pre-submission draft plan, subject to minor modifications as set out in the agenda supplement, and approve it for Regulation 19 consultation, as well as appropriate delegations to officers to undertake document finalisation and consultation arrangements. This was seconded by the Councillor Richard Clewer.

Councillor Botterill noted that preparing a Local Plan was one of the most important functions of the council. He drew attention to the large reduction in housing coming forward in the plan compared to the previous consultation , with much of the amount on sites already developing or allocated, as this was felt to meet the reasonable need identified. Provision of 40% affordable housing had been included, along with new details to address the council’s zero carbon ambitions, with tougher standards for new buildings. There would be allocation of employment spaces in the right areas to go alongside new homes, as a failure to anticipate and provide for future business need would see the council area miss opportunities.

 

It was emphasised that the Plan process is evidence led, and that a failure to progress and approve a Plan which could be approved by an inspector, would result in many negative consequences for the residents of Wiltshire. It was stated that the Plan complemented the Business Plan, advocated sustainable financial, social and environmental growth, and it was overwhelmingly in the public interest to move on to the next stage of the Plan process, which was known as Regulation 19 consultation.  

The Chairman then allowed Group Leaders to comment on the report and presentation.

 

Councillor Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council, thanked officers for their work in preparing the documents, Members for their robust discussions, and Councillor Botterill for overseeing the preparation. He highlighted the evidenced based approach to selecting sites and developing the Plan policies to shape development in the county, with proposals that new housing be built to zero carbon requirements, 20% biodiversity net gain, cycle routes to connect settlements, affordable housing for villages to meet local need, delivering employment land and meeting demand. He commended the pre-submission Draft Plan to Council.

 

Councillor Gordon King, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, welcomed the professionalism of the draft Plan, and noted positive aspects such as regarding biodiversity and sustainability. However, he raised concerns around the process in particular relating to site selection for new housing and proposed that rather than moving forward to the Regulation 19 stage, a motion relating to Regulation 18 would be more appropriate to give people further say about what was best for their communities.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark, Leader of the Independent Group, noted that many refused planning applications were currently being approved on appeal as a result of a lack of five-year housing land supply. He raised concerns that not to move forward to Regulation 19 would exacerbate difficulties and enable developers to further benefit at the expense of communities. He also questioned the depth of evidence on suitability of a selected site beyond the wish of a landowner for its allocation, sought confirmation that any consultation on the pre-submission draft would follow the summer break, and raised issues relating to descriptions of sites around Hilperton and Trowbridge.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, noted the historic and ongoing issue of local authorities struggling against national housing targets and resultant allocations. He noted the encouragement of the council for neighbourhood plans in the past, and raised concerns that it appeared the new Plan in effect abandoned those neighbourhood plans.

 

A break for lunch was then held from approximately 12:40-13:25.

 

On the opening of general debate Councillor Dr Brian Mathew then moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant, seeking to amend the second part of the Cabinet Member’s motion. This was in order to approve the pre-submission Draft Plan for a further Regulation 18 consultation, rather than a Regulation 19 consultation, as follows:

 

That the Wiltshire Local Plan Review - Pre-Submission Draft Plan at Appendix 1 (subject to modification in (3) and as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1) be approved for publication in line with Regulation 1918 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), for a period of at least six weeks public consultation.

 

Councillor Mathew stated the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that Members and the public were brought up to speed on the process and that it could be ensured the Plan was sound and that best practice was adopted. He considered the process was being rushed, that other authorities had repeated Regulation 18 stage, and to do so would ensure the pre-submission Draft Plan was sound.

 

Councillor Botterill confirmed he would not accept the amendment within his motion.

 

The Chairman then allowed Group Leaders to comment on the amendment.

 

Councillor Clewer stated there had already been two Regulation 18 consultations and there was no benefit to a third, which would have the effect of further delaying the Plan process by another year. He said that the amendment would mean the council would continue to need to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which it currently could not, for longer which would result in further speculative developments gaining approval on appeal. It would also delay the targets and aspirations on biodiversity and net zero. He argued the recommendation from officers was very clear that moving to Regulation 19 was the most appropriate action at this time.

 

Councillor Gordon King urged Members to listen to local councils and communities and support the amendment. He argued that a delay of a year was less problematic than taking forward  a flawed Plan, and that it was right to seek further public comments under Regulation 18.

 

Councillor Clark supported the statement of the Leader and commented that there came a point where the process had to move on, and that moving forward with Regulation 19 would at least see building take place according to a plan and prevent speculative applications. He could not therefore support the amendment.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers stated he would listen carefully to the debate before deciding whether he could support the proposed amendment.

 

The amendment was then opened up for general debate.

 

Comments in support of the amendment included that there was significant controversy over many of the sites selected and it was appropriate for the public to have further opportunity to provide comment on those areas. It was argued the process had been delayed several years already and a pause to undertake an additional Regulation 18 stage would not lead to more harm. Some Members considered the process to date had been flawed, with the previous Regulation 18 consultation undertaken during Covid-19 restrictions, and that there were errors within the Plan which needed to be addressed. Concerns were raised that any sites included in the pre-submission Draft Plan would not be able to be removed at a later date no matter the views of communities, and that there had been insufficient engagement with Members in developing the Plan.

 

Comments in opposition to the amendment included that a failure to progress to the next stage of the process would put more power in the hands of developers to submit speculative developments due to the impact of the lack of a 5-year housing land supply. It was argued that the positive aspects of the Plan such as new provision for schools, nurseries and other aspects of local policies such as affordable housing provision would be delayed if a further Regulation 18 consultation  were held, and that towns and villages would lack the protection of even a developing Plan if the amendment were approved.

 

It was stated the Regulation 19 process included formal consultation and further opportunities for public engagement, and that previous Plan processes showed that  it was not the case that all sites within the pre-submission Draft Plan would definitely remain. The level of consultation which had taken place already was highlighted, including with local councils. It was also stated that the Plan was Member led in that policies and direction had been shaped by the priorities on which the Conservative Group had been elected, but that the drafting and formulation quite appropriately was led by officers analysing the evidence which had been collected.

 

Other comments raised in debate included welcoming the additional commitments to biodiversity and carbon neutral targets, as well as the reduction in overall housing numbers compared to the previous consultation. A comment was made relating to permitted affordable housing for rural sites, and if this could be strengthened further.

 

In response to queries raised in debate, the Monitoring Officer, Perry Holmes, provided details on the distinction between the Regulation 18 and 19 stages, including clarification on future consultation as part of the latter, and the final opportunity for local communities and Members to engage at a public examination when a planning inspector would receive all evidence and determine the soundness of a submitted Plan. The Monitoring Officer also stated in response to issues raised in debate that a part of Government’s proposed changes to the planning system was that authorities which had undertaken Regulation 19 consultation would only have to demonstrate a four-year housing land supply, however that change had not yet received approval and the timescale for this was not clear.

 

Following an opportunity for the mover of the amendment to exercise their right of reply, the mover of the original motion, Councillor Botterill, responded to some of the points raised in debate. He stated not moving forward to Regulation 19 would undermine the council’s processes, there was no requirement or best practice to repeat Regulation 18, and no advantage to a delay had been made clear, especially considering the numerous known disadvantages of repeating the Regulation 18 stage. He advised that a draft Plan only had any weight in planning terms at the Regulation 19 stage, and it was not the case it could be taken into account if the amendment were approved.

 

There was then a recorded vote on the amendment as follows:

 

Votes for the amendment (23)

Votes against the motion (43)

Votes in abstention (12)

 

Details of the vote are attached as an appendix to the minutes.

 

The amendment was therefore lost, and the meeting returned to debate the original motion.

 

During that debate Councillor Ian McLennan sought to move an amendment seeking to amend a detail at Paragraph 27 of the report in order to retain previous restrictions on infill development in built-up areas of small villages within the Plan policies, and to remove Policy 30 in relation to Land East of Church Road, Laverstock, a site allocated for 50 dwellings. In accordance with the constitution the Chairman requested details of the amendment be provided in writing, and the meeting was adjourned to enable consideration of the validity of the amendment.

 

The meeting was therefore adjourned from approximately 14:40-14:55.

 

On resuming the meeting, the Chairman, following advice from and discussion with the Monitoring Officer, stated he had determined the proposed amendment was not a valid amendment under Part 4B of the Constitution. He therefore permitted Councillor McLennan to speak to what had been the intent of his proposed amendment, before returning the meeting to debate on the tabled motion from the Cabinet Member. Councillor McLennan stated he was seeking to prevent predatory development, and that he was deeply concerned that moving to Regulation 19 would prevent any practical opportunity to address the problems with inclusion of specific sites or policies.

 

Comments in support of the original motion included further supportive comments on the policies relating to carbon neutrality and biodiversity, with specifics relating to sustainable construction and low carbon energy, which included significantly reduced heating demand requirements and details for onsite energy generation. Support was expressed for the increased provision for affordable housing, and details relating to how housing schemes should assist older people to live securely and independently within their communities.

 

Other comments raised in debate included requesting any consultation be more thorough than previous examples, seeking clarity on what was considered a minor change for purposes of the delegation to officers to finalise the pre-submission Draft Plan documents, and how neighbourhood plans could be refreshed. Policies on conserving and enhancing dark skies were welcomed, though it was raised whether there were potential conflicts with that policy and those relating to renewable energy and on preserving and enhancing landscapes as it related to development considered in the overriding public interest, and whether AONB teams been consulted as part of the Plan development.

 

At the conclusion of debate Councillor Botterill responded to some of the points raised during debate. He welcomed that many aspects of the Plan were supported across the Chamber. He clarified that the motion authorising minor changes included examples such as clarifications to improve understanding without altering the meaning of the document. In relation to Neighbourhood Plans he noted these were not all strategic or of the same quality, though neighbourhood planning was of significant importance. He confirmed that the consultation would not begin until September 2023, and would be as outward focused as possible. He noted the process had begun in 2017, there had been significant public engagements in 2018 and 2021. He reiterated the consequences of not moving forward with the pre-submission Draft Plan and urged council to support the proposal.

 

It was then,

 

Resolved:

 

That Full Council:

 

1)        Endorses the Wiltshire Local Plan Review - Pre-Submission Draft Plan at Appendix 1 subject to amendment in (3).

 

2)        That the Wiltshire Local Plan Review - Pre-Submission Draft Plan at Appendix 1 (subject to modification in (3) and as detailed in Agenda Supplement 1) be approved for publication in line with Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), for a period of at least six weeks public consultation.

 

3)        Authorises the Director for Planning, in consultation with the Director for Legal and Governance and Cabinet Member for Finance, Development Management and Strategic Planning, to: make any necessary minor changes to the Pre-Submission Draft Plan before it is published; and to enable the finalising of the associated evidence documents for publication alongside the Plan; and to make arrangements for, and undertake statutory consultation.

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the motion (58)

Votes against the motion (4)

Votes in abstention (13)

 

Details of the vote are attached as an appendix to the minutes.