Agenda item
RUTLAND LOCAL PLAN - SPATIAL STRATEGY
To receive Report No.190/2019 from the Strategic Director for Places.
Minutes:
Report No.190/2019 was received from the Strategic Director for Resources. Mr Gordon Brown, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Environment, Finance, Planning and Property introduced the report the purpose of which was to provide Scrutiny with the opportunity to comment on a report to be considered by Cabinet on progress with the preparation of the Local Plan.
Mr Brown referred Members to the presentation he had prepared, a copy of which has been attached to the minutes.
During discussion the following points were noted:
· Although there had been numerous comments from those presenting deputations that the decision making was being rushed, Councillor Brown felt that in fact the process had been conducted within a reasonable time-frame. In addition there were several upcoming Cabinet and Council meetings and a further Scrutiny meeting to consider the Local Plan. Councillor Brown re-iterated to Members that he was also available to meet with them to discuss any of their concerns.
· The pre-submission Local Plan would go forward for public consultation to test its ‘soundness’ (ie. that it was positively prepared, justified and effective, consistent with national policy and legally compliant) before submission to the Government and an independent Planning Inspector for further examination.
· The Strategic Housing Market Assessment that was available on the website as part of the spatial strategy background papers discussed the numbers of dwellings per annum required and gave three numbers;
- 130 dwellings was the formulaic calculation from Government giving a minimum requirement
- 160 dwellings was the strategic market assessment
- 190 dwellings was the potential amount based on the economic data presented.
Officers had opted for the lower number of 130 dwellings although there had been very good reasons for increasing it to 160.
· The evidence from 2018 showed that there was a current oversupply of employment land although there had been market factors that had not allowed those pieces of land to develop. The long term scenario however showed a requirement to provide up to 25 additional hectares of employment land as it was important that the St Georges Barracks development was sustainable. Work would be continuing with existing Rutland employers and a new highly experienced Economic Development Manager had been recruited.
· The Woolfox site was not viable or deliverable on the basis of the information provided. In contrast, evidence for St George’s Barracks demonstrated that, with the delivery of the HIF bid, it was viable and justified its inclusion in the Local Plan.
· There was a clear strategy to develop brownfield rather than greenfield sites and the St George’s Barracks project met this requirement.
· The Local Plan was approximately a year behind the original schedule because of the submission of the Woolfox proposal at the later stages of the process. As this needed to be given due consideration the timetable had been affected.
· The Chair reminded members and residents that there would be a further Scrutiny meeting and a Cabinet meeting on the Local Plan in January. Both meetings would be held in public, and questions and deputations could be submitted to the Scrutiny meeting.
· Councillor Ainsley questioned whether the Woolfox proposal could be excluded on a sound basis given the developers had expressed a commitment to address the shortfall of information. Councillor Brown responded that the developers had been given a lot of latitude and plenty of time to produce the required information but had failed to deliver it. Officers were confident therefore that there was insufficient information to consider the proposal at this point in time but that did not exclude new information coming forward at a later point.
· It was highly unlikely that the Government Inspector would support two garden community projects going ahead at the same time.
· Officers took the view point that the impact on the Medium Term Financial Plan of the additional council tax collected as a result of the St Georges Barracks development would be positive to neutral. The extra income could be very easily spent on additional services that may be required. An example was given of a family with children being taken into care which could quite easily add £300k to costs.
· The HIF bid was assessed by two sets of consultants. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MCHLG) and Homes England did further assessments and the bid was deemed not to have excess bias. 230 questions were answered to their satisfaction which resulted in the offer of HIF monies.
· Melton Borough Council had been awarded HIF money for their bypass but it was expected that it would be a private developer that delivered it as opposed to the RCC and MOD relationship which was a public/public partnership. Importantly RCC would have control of the money ensuring that it could influence the MOD to deliver key aspects such as sustainable transport and a dementia friendly environment.
· Councillor Begy asked what the implications would be for Rutland if the Council did not engage with the MOD regarding the site. The MOD had clear guidance that brown field sites should be sold off for funding and to deliver housing. There had been 6 sites that the MOD had just handed over to Homes England who would look to increase the number of houses and maximise the capacity of the site.
· Class Q developments, farm buildings and windfall building had been excluded from the objective need assessment figure.
· Councillor Baines felt that organic development and incremental growth of the neighbouring villages to St George’s Barracks would be preferable to a new garden community
· There was no legislation on the requirement for jobs when developing a garden community and if Homes England were to develop the site they would argue that no jobs would be needed. At Poundbury, Dorset they had achieved 1.25 jobs per household.
· Councillor Cross urged the Committee not to send the report to Cabinet for ‘rubber-stamping’ and instead ask for more evidence to be placed before them. The scale of the proposed development had prompted a large number of Members of the Public to attend the meeting in order to find out more information. There were existing Rutland villages that were unsustainable and it should be those that were being developed in preference to building a new community.
· In response to Councillor MacCartney’s question on whether the extent of the risk has been adequately published Councillor Woodley felt that they had and that the proposals had been through extensive evaluation.
· If the Council did not have a sound Local Plan in place then they were at risk of developers taking advantage. The last Plan was published in October 2014 and as they did not last longer than 5 years the Council was already at risk.
· Councillor Brown reminded the Committee that the meeting was about the broad spatial strategy. Individual sites such as the Brook Road development should be considered at the next Local Plan scrutiny and Cabinet meetings in January.
· 2,215 was the total amount of dwellings for the site across the whole timescale.
· Accommodating the General Election had meant that meetings had been delayed and rearranged. All newly scheduled meetings were shown on the Council calendar on the website and advertised on the Forward Plan. Individual meeting notifications would now be sent out to all Councillors.
· Councillor Harvey referred to Justin Gardner’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2019 and the issues of affordable housing that it highlighted. Rutland was classified as an affluent area yet 50% of households earnt less than £40k. Taking these earnings as a basis for mortgage multiples, most of these households could only afford houses that cost in the region of £150k. As there were hardly any available houses at this price point many residents would be unable to buy their own home. The Council must be seen to be encouraging families and young people to stay in Rutland by providing and promoting affordable housing.
· Councillor Brown reiterated that he was on record saying that the Council must deliver houses that young people and families could afford and that included affordable shared ownership. There would also be an element of social renting through the Council registered provider which would offer below market rent social housing.
· Within Rutland there were a number of jobs for young people that were not well paid and the Council needed to be pushing for higher end employment opportunities.
· In response to Councillor Oxley’s question on how much information flow there was between neighbouring counties, the planning officer confirmed that the Council had a duty to collaborate with neighbouring Councils on housing and employment needs as well as issues such as transport and biodiversity.
RESOLVED
1. The Scrutiny Committee considered the assessment of the scale of development to meet identified needs as set out in Appendix 1 and commented that they had a particular concern about the affordability of housing and employment opportunities for the young. Councillor Woodley raised an issue on behalf of Councillor Razzell and requested that the provision of sports facilities be considered in the Spatial Strategy.
2. The Scrutiny Committee considered the assessment of proposals set out in Appendix 2 regarding the distribution of development including the principle of establishing a garden community in Rutland as an appropriate amendment to the Spatial Strategy.
3. The Committee considered the assessment of proposals to establish a garden community in Rutland as set out in Appendix 2 and commented that that Cabinet should assess the risk of the Woolfox proposal going forward.
4. The Scrutiny Committee considered the Local Development Scheme as set out in Appendix 3.
Supporting documents:
- Local Plan Scrutiny Report 191219, item 398. PDF 101 KB
- Appendix 1 - Spatial Strategy Background Paper, item 398. PDF 172 KB
- Appendix 2 - Distribution of development, item 398. PDF 2 MB
- Appendix 3 - Proposed Local Development Scheme, item 398. PDF 415 KB
- Scrutiny briefing on Spatial Strategy 19 12 19, item 398. PDF 796 KB