113 MC/19/49 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME UPDATE PDF 223 KB
Cabinet Member for Planning
Additional documents:
Minutes:
113.1 The Chair invited Councillor Burn, Cabinet Member for Planning, to introduce report MC/19/49.
113.2 Councillor Burn began by outlining the purpose of the Local Development Scheme (LDS), the key points in the report and the tight timeline outlined in Appendix A, which set out the time scale for the adoption of the Joint Local Plan.
113.3 Councillor Burn PROPOSED recommendation 3.1 in the report which was SECONDED by Councillor Guthrie.
113.4 Councillor Eburne queried if enough time had been incorporated into the plan for changes in housing numbers, population, the new stages of climate change and health and wellbeing, to which Councillor Burn responded that he assumed that this had been incorporated into the plan.
113.5 Councillor Stringer noted that the timetable was longer than four months ago and asked for clarification on this.
113.6 Councillor Burn responded that the timetable from four months ago was out of date and had since been updated.
113.7 In response to Councillor Field’s question regarding the Government’s intention for changing the planning system, Councillor Burn responded that this would not have any influence on the timetable.
113.8 Councillor Otton asked for assurance that the Council’s commitment to the Climate Change strategy would be incorporated into the LDS without affecting the timetable.
113.9 The Assistant Director for Sustainable Communities responded that officers and Members worked closely with the Climate Change Taskforce and the action plan was approved by the Cabinet and did not compromise the LDS. The emerging JLP was reflecting the commitments made by the Council for the Climate Change measures and some of the detail had to be added later as appendices.
113.10 Councillor Pratt referred to the work undertaken by the Biodiversity Task and Finish group and asked if this work would be taken into consideration in the JLP, to which Councillor Burn responded that he would be happy to discuss this further outside this meeting.
113.11 Members debated the report including:
· That the Council was dealing with constant change and it would be possible to add further appendices to the Local Development Scheme (LDS).
· Biodiversity could be incorporated into the LDS.
· That it was important to meet the dates set out in the timetable and ensure there were enough resources available to meet the deadlines.
· That due to constant change of policy from Central Government, it was difficult to produce a JLP and that the LDS should be approved to move forward by the use of supplements.
· That there was concern if a supplement planning document for biodiversity would carry the same weight as the JLP.
· That a supplement planning document would be part to the planning determination process.
· That some Members thought the timetable should be shorter.
· That the LDS was important in relation to planning appeals.
113.12 Councillor Burn reflected on some of the points made and that a review of the LDS should be reviewed, as soon as it was submitted. Because circumstances had changed, and the Council needed to move quickly. He would be happy ... view the full minutes text for item 113
227 BC/19/44 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME UPDATE PDF 223 KB
Cabinet Member for Planning
Additional documents:
Minutes:
227.1 Councillor Arthey was invited by the Chair of the Council to introduce Paper BC/19/44. He began by outlining the purpose of the Local Development Scheme (LDS), the key point in the report and tight timeline outlined in Appendix A, which set out the timescale for the adoption of Joint Local Plan.
227.2 Councillor Arthey PROPOSED recommendation 3.1 in the report which was SECONDED by Councillor Beer.
227.3 Councillor Hinton queried if there was anything built into the timetable to accommodate the change of how the Council kept control over the location of developments in the area. He referred to the new legislation published from central Government.
227.4 Councillor Arthey responded that there was nothing in the timetable to accommodate this as this had only been published very recently. He referred to paragraph 1.5 in the report and the caveat. The recent legislation might not require any change or delay to the current plan, as it was concerning development rights. He hoped this would not delay the work any further.
227.5 Councillor Ward assumed that there would be no change to the JLP, which would be brought to Council in November 2020.
227.6 Councillor Maybury referred to page 84 and asked if the timetable would be restricted any further due to the increase in dissension over the deferment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments.
227.7 Councillor Arthey responded that the issues for CIL were about the charging of CIL and not about the grants and payments for CIL.
227.8 Councillor Maybury clarified that her question was about any dissension for deferment caused by developers being unable to pay CIL to Parish Councils when requested. She was concerned that the dissension from the Parish Councils would delay the timetable further.
227.9 Councillor Arthey responded these dissensions would not delay the timetable for LDS, as they would be included in the CIL framework review later this year.
227.10 In response to Councillors Davis’ question regarding the CIL review, Councillor Arthey explained that there were two different reviews; the CIL framework review, which was how the Council dealt with CIL and the CIL charging review, which reviewed how much the Council charged developers.
227.11 Councillor Arthey thanked the Chief Executive and Officers for their commitment to support the LDS and keeping to the timetable.
227.12 The recommendation was put to Members for voting and the vote was UNANIMOUS.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local Development Scheme (July 2020) (Appendix A) be agreed to be brought into effect on 31st July 2020.