Browse

Agenda item

Submission of Wiltshire Core Strategy and Review of Local Development Scheme

Report by the Service Director for Economy and Regeneration.

 

The Draft Wiltshire Core Strategy has been made available to all Councillors and available on the Council’s website.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Declarations of interest

 

Cllr Judy Rooke declared a prejudicial interest in this item as her property was close to the proposed country park and potential housing development at Rowden Park, Chippenham.

 

Cllr Jon Hubbard declared a personal interest in this item in so far as housing was concerned as a Director of Selwood Housing Association.

 

Public Participation

 

Questions

L M Durant from DPDS Consulting Group

David Scane from Curtin & Co on behalf of Bloor Homes

Persimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd

 

Written responses from Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Philipe, Cabinet member for Economic Development and Strategic Planning were circulated.

 

Statements

Cllr Ron Champion, Chairman - Laverstock and Ford Parish Council

Mrs Hawkins – Friends of Birdsmarsh

Steve Perry, Chippenham Community Voice

Neil Bromwich, Osborne Clark (Written statement)

John Gateley, Savills (Written statement)

Dr Gary Mantle, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust

 

Questions from Councillors

Two questions from Cllr Judy Rooke

Four questions from Cllr Ian McLennan

 

 

Written responses from Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Philipe were circulated.

 

Cllr Rooke queried the accuracy of the map for the South West Chippenham Strategic Site as provided in the response to one of her questions (map on Page 163, Agenda Supplement 1). Cllr de Rhé-Philipe agreed to revisit the map to ensure it reflected the change proposed by Natural England.

 

At the Chairman’s invitation, Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Philipe, Cabinet member for Economic Development and Strategic Planning presented a report on the Wiltshire Core Strategy Pre-Submission Document (the Strategy). The report explained the outcome of the recent consultation and sought approval for the submission of the Strategy together with proposed changes to the Secretary of State for Examination. Details of further proposed changes were set out in the addendum to Appendix 1 tabled at the meeting. 

 

The report also sought approval for a revision to the Local Development Scheme.

 

A report on the Strategy had been considered by the Environment Select Committee at its meeting on 11 June 2012. The relevant minute extract was presented from which it was noted that the Committee had offered general endorsement of the Strategy. It did, however, make a number of reservations and suggestions which it requested Cabinet to take into account when considering the Strategy.

 

Cabinet considered the Strategy along with the comments of the Environment Select Committee at its meeting on 19 June 2012 for onward recommendation to this Council meeting. The relevant minute extract was presented along with the further information that Cabinet and Environment Select Committee had requested be made available to Councillors prior to this meeting.

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe explained the background and history on how the Strategy had evolved from its early development since 2009 progressing the work started by the former district councils. She added that the Strategy, when adopted, would provide up-to-date strategic planning policy for Wiltshire and ensure that Wiltshire developed in the most sustainable way. It was noted that the document had been developed by the Council with significant community engagement.

 

The Council had now completed the final statutory consultation period for representations, inviting comments on the soundness of the document.  Representations had been received from more than 430 different organisations and individuals, collectively resulting in over 1,700 comments on different parts of the Strategy. The consultation had raised no issues which officers considered merited delay in progressing to Submission.

 

Following the consultation, a number of minor changes were proposed in the interests of improving clarity and understanding of the document, and to update it to improve consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework. Council was assured that these minor modifications would not alter the overall substance of the Strategy and their inclusion would strengthen the document without undermining its overall soundness.

 

Council was therefore asked to consider and approve the Strategy and schedule of proposed changes including the addendum for Submission to the Secretary of State for Examination. The Secretary of State would appoint an Inspector to examine the soundness of the Strategy.  In examining the document, the Inspector would consider all representations received in this final stage of consultation and would set out his/her findings in a report to the Council.

 

Council was also asked to approve a revised Local Development Scheme to ensure that Wiltshire Council had an up-to-date timetable for the preparation of planning policy in Wiltshire.

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe moved the recommendations from Cabinet dated 19 June 2012 along with the further minor modifications as proposed and this was  seconded by the Leader of the Council. In so doing, she reminded Councillors that the Strategy had been considered sound by Council at its meeting on 7 February 2012. It was therefore not advisable to seek further significant changes at this stage without risking undermining progression of the Strategy.

The Chairman invited Group Leaders to make general comments on the Strategy before opening the debate to all Councillors using the index of the Strategy to go through the document systematically.

 

Councillors asked questions and made comments both generally and in relation to their respective divisional areas to which Cllr de Rhé-Philipe responded. On the whole and barring a few concerns, there was general acceptance of the Strategy.

 

Cllr Jon Hubbard explained he was pleased that the Council was setting an ambitious target for the provision of 40% affordable housing.  However, he expressed concern that core policies 43 and 45 did not in their current form provide adequate support for   certain types of affordable housing to be provided. He considered that careful attention needed to be given to providing affordable housing for rent.

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Chris Caswill proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Cllr Mollie Groom:

 

‘Add to submission document Section 5.48 new last bullet point:

 

Junction 17, M4, provides an opportunity for new employment provision in Wiltshire, which should be explored further’.

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe explained why she could not support such an amendment, referring to the discussion at Council on 7 February regarding this matter

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was LOST.

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Caswill then proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Cllr Bill Douglas:

 

‘Council Summons page. 53 Second complete bullet point, beginning  ‘Support has been....’

 

Add:  ‘and Chippenham  after Tytherton Lucas

 

Add:  after ‘character’  a new sentence:

 

‘However proposals for positive environmental management  of some or all of this area can usefully be explored  in the future’

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe responded by saying that she did not consider that the amendment  would add very much to what had been included, but would be prepared to support it if Cllr Caswill agreed to amend the wording slightly by deleting the words ‘or all’ and changing ‘can’ to ‘could’.

 

This was accepted by Cllrs Caswill and Bill Douglas and therefore incorporated into Cllr de Rhé-Philipe motion.

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Ian Mclennan proposed the following amendment seconded by Cllr Ian West:

 

At page 113, Para 5.121, ADD at the end:

 

‘The Master Plan will be developed in partnership with the local community, local planning authority and the developer prior to any application being considered.’

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe explained that she was very wary of making further changes to the Strategy at this stage but on balance agreed to incorporate the amendment into her motion as an addition.

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Ian McLennan proposed a further amendment as follows which was seconded by Cllr Bill Moss:

 

‘Page 276

Amend title to read Hampton Park, Laverstock & Ford

 

Page 279 at end

 

Amendment to add:

 

Addendum

 

The Hampton Park Allocation will be reviewed at the outset, owing to a pending judicial review and existing, retained, legal agreement with the Council, which require the land and water meadows to be retained for a Golf Course, similar leisure uses or to remain as agricultural land, in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents’.

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe explained that this was a development control matter and not for the Strategy and therefore she could not support the amendment. This view was supported by Cllr Toby Sturgis, Cabinet member for Waste, Property, Environment and Development Control.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was LOST.

 

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Christopher Newbury proposed the following amendment which was duly seconded:

 

‘Page 143

 

Second bullet point

 

Delete the words “River Avon (Hampshire)” and replace with “River Wylye (in the River Avon Special Area of Conservation”)’

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe accepted the above reference to River Avon (Hampshire) was potentially confusing and would be ammended as appropriate.

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Richard Clewer proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Cllr Jon Hubbard:

‘That all new housing in Wiltshire be built with renewable energy generation aimed to provide 80% of its energy needs. 

That an exception to this be made for affordable housing where cost pressures on developers are already very difficult. 

That Housing Associations and the Council be encouraged to provide such renewable energy generation in their new dwellings including being able to buy into schemes where developers are having renewable energy installed in other housing at cost’.

 

Cllr Toby Sturgis explained that whilst he supported the aim of the amendment, he could not support it as any amendments of this nature needed to be clearly evidence based. The position could be reviewed as and when there was evidence. Cllr Sturgis mentioned that guidance was being prepared to support core policy 41 of the Strategy and that this matter could be considered in developing the guidance. He invited Cllr Clewer to be involved in developing the guidance. The guidance could be considered by Council if necessary.

 

In view of Cllr Sturgis’ comments, Cllr Clewer withdrew his amendment.

 

Amendment

 

Cllr Linda Conley proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Cllr Jonathon Seed:

 

‘Proposed change to Core Policy 42:

 

Amend final criterion to read:

(vii)      residential amenity, including noise, odour, visual amenity and safety

 

Add new paragraph after paragraph 6.38 to read:

 

Additional guidance will be prepared to support the implementation of Core Policy 42 to identify appropriate separation distances between wind turbines and residential premises in the interests of residential amenity, including safety. In the interim period, prior to the adoption of the guidance, the following minimum separation distances [1] will be applied:

 

If the height of the wind turbine generator is—

(a) greater than 25m, but does not exceed 50m, the minimum distance requirement is 1000m;

(b) greater than 50m, but does not exceed 100m, the minimum distance requirement is 1500m;

(c) greater than 100m, but does not exceed 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 2000m;

(d) greater than 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 3000m.

 

Shorter distances may be appropriate where there is clear support from the local community.  

 

[1] Source: Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] 2010-12’

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe explained that she was minded to accept the amendment as the issues raised within it were of considerable importance, but wanted to hear the debate before deciding whether or not to accept it.

 

Some Councillors expressed concern that such an amendment could be considered acceptable without any evidence based information to support it given a previous amendment had been dismissed for that very reason.

 

Cllrs John Hubbard and Chris Caswill both expressed concern at such an amendment being accepted at such a late stage in the Core Strategy process, stating that Councillors had been advised on numerous occasions that to do so, could put the Strategy at risk.

 

A debate ensued on this latest amendment with views expressed both for and against.

 

Cllr Sturgis reassured Council that the amendment would ensure guidance was in place to strengthen development control in the interim period prior to formal guidance being prepared. 

 

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe agreed to accept the amendment and therefore incorporated it into her motion. Given the significant debate on this issue, a recorded vote was requested by the requisite number of Councillors. On being put to the vote, the amendment was CARRIED and the voting recorded as follows:

For amendment (50)

Cllrs Richard Beattie, Allison Bucknell, Jane Burton, Richard Clewer, Chris Cochrane, Peter Colmer, Linda Conley, Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Andrew Davis, Fleur de Rhé-Philipe, Tony Deane, Peter Doyle, Peter Fuller, Richard Gamble, Jose Green, Mark Griffiths, Mollie Groom, Robert Hall, Russell Hawker, Mike Hewitt, Alan Hill, Charles Howard, Keith Humphries, Peter Hutton, Julian Johnson, Jerry Kunkler, Jacqui Lay, Alan Macrae, Laura Mayes, Francis Morland, Bill Moss, Christopher Newbury, John Noeken, Jeff Ody, Sheila Parker, Nina Phillips, Pip Ridout, Bill Roberts, Jane Scott, Jonathon Seed, Toby Sturgis, Dick Tonge, Tony Trotman, Fred Westmoreland, Stuart Wheeler, Roy While and Christopher Williams.

Against the amendment (16)

Cllrs Desna Allen, Trevor Carbin, Chris Caswill, Paul Darby, Mary Douglas, Bill Douglas, Malcolm Hewson, Jon Hubbard, David Jenkins, Simon Killane, John Knight, Ian McLennan, Jeff Osborn, Mark Packard, Judy Rooke and Ian West.

Abstention (1)

Cllr George Jeans

Cllr de Rhé-Philipe exercised her right of reply by responding to points raised during the debate. She explained that she was delighted at the general support given to the document. She said she was extremely grateful to all the officers involved  for the considerable amount of work undertaken on the Strategy. She thanked Alistair Cunningham, Service Director for Economy and Regeneration and Georgina Clampitt-Dix, Head of Spatial Planning and their team for having done a fantastic job. .  This was echoed by the Leader and other members of the Council.

On being put to the vote, it was

Resolved:

 

That Council:

(i)         notes the outcome of the consultation;

 

(ii)        approves submission of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Pre-Submission Document, together with proposed changes (set out in Appendix 1 of the report presented) and the further schedule of changes tabled at the meeting and the amendments made at the meeting as listed at the end of these resolutions and Equalities Impact Assessment (at Appendix 4 of the report presented), to the Secretary of State for Examination;

 

(iii)       delegates to the Service Director, Economy and Regeneration, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Strategic Planning and the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, authorisation: for the preparation of other minor modifications to the Core Strategy for Submission to the Secretary of State in the interests of clarity and accuracy; and to make appropriate arrangements for submission of documents to the Secretary of State and any consequential actions as directed by the Inspector relating to the Examination and

 

(iv)      approves the revision to the Local Development Scheme (as set out in Appendix 3).

 

The following amendments were approved at the meeting:

 

 

To review the map for the South West Chippenham Strategic Site (page 163, Agenda Supplement 1) to ensure it reflected the change proposed by Natural England.

 

 

 

Council Summons page. 53 Second complete bullet point, beginning  ‘Support has been....’

 

Add:  ‘and Chippenham  after Tytherton Lucas

 

Add:  after ‘character’  a new sentence:

 

‘However proposals for positive environmental management  of some  of this area could usefully be explored  in the future’

 

 

At page 113 , Para 5.121, ADD at the end:

 

The Master Plan will be developed in partnership with the local community, local planning authority and the developer prior to any application being considered.

 

 

Page 143

 

Second bullet point

 

Delete the words “River Avon (Hampshire)” and replace with “River Wylye (in the River Avon Special Area of Conservation”)

 

 

Proposed change to Core Policy 42:

 

Amend final criterion to read:

(vii)      residential amenity, including noise, odour, visual amenity and  safety.

 

Add new paragraph after paragraph 6.38 to read:

 

Additional guidance will be prepared to support the implementation of Core Policy 42 to identify appropriate separation distances between wind turbines and residential premises in the interests of residential amenity, including safety. In the interim period, prior to the adoption of the guidance, the following minimum separation distances [1] will be applied:

 

If the height of the wind turbine generator is—

(a) greater than 25m, but does not exceed 50m, the minimum distance requirement is 1000m;

(b) greater than 50m, but does not exceed 100m, the minimum distance requirement is 1500m;

(c) greater than 100m, but does not exceed 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 2000m;

(d) greater than 150m, the minimum distance requirement is 3000m.

 

Shorter distances may be appropriate where there is clear support from the local community.  

 

[1] Source: Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill [HL] 2010-12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: