To receive Report No.17/2020 from the Strategic Director for Places.

Report No.17/2020 was received from the Strategic Director for Places. Mr Gordon Brown, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Environment, Finance, Planning and Property introduced the report the purpose of which was to update the Scrutiny Committee on progress with the preparation of the Local Plan, and provide an opportunity for the Committee to make comments prior to consideration of the Pre-Submission version of the Local Plan by Cabinet and full Council.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         The Local Plan had been a document long in the making. Three stages of consultation had already taken place on the Local Plan through the Issues and Options in 2015, the Consultation Draft in 2017 and the focussed consultations in 2018 regarding additional sites promoted for development, as well as a tailored consultation regarding the implications of incorporating the proposed garden community at St. George’s into the Local Plan.

·         In August 2018, 45 minutes before the consultation was due to close, the Woolfox proposal was received which meant that in order to give the proposal due consideration the Council carried on with its work on the Local Plan until the end of 2019.

·         Councillor Brown pointed out to Members that the Plan was not just about the allocation of sites for housing but also about the policies which looked at the design of houses, the use of materials and other aspects that would affect climate change.

·         Councillor Begy had a number of questions which he asked in the meeting and to which Councillor Brown, the Portfolio Holder responded. Councillor Begy’s questions and the responses, prepared by officers, are appended to the minutes.

·         In response to a question on whether the St George’s Barracks site would significantly increase traffic if it just became a commuter village with residents driving outside the County to work, the Leader of the Council made clear that there would be new employment opportunities, facilities and design strategies to encourage working from home. One of the advantages of the HIF monies was that it could be used to subsidise public transport and a traffic sub-group would be looking at ways to encourage people to use public transport more.

·         Section 10 of the Plan, the monitoring framework, would be looking at the implications for the Council if the MOD adjusted its ‘moving out’ dates.

·         Councillor Coleman asked what the repercussions were for Rutland if the Council did not deliver the St George’s Barracks site. Councillor Brown, in response, handed the committee copies of a letter (appended to the minutes) from Gavin Williamson the then Secretary of State for Defence. The letter highlighted that when the MOD vacated a site of this sort there was a presumption in favour of housing development which, in normal circumstances, would lead to the sale of land to a developer whose only constraints would be broader planning and building control rules and would therefore lead to a higher number of homes being built.

·         A map of the proposed Woolfox site is appended to the minutes.

·         The Woolfox proposal would not be eligible for HIF monies as the funding application process closed in March 2019 and additionally, could only be applied for through a local Council. The Woolfox team had not made an approach to RCC for HIF funding.

·         The Executive were comfortable that should a legal challenge be mounted by Woolfox they would be able to defend their position.

·         In a response to a question from Councillor Fox on how the figures for the Strategic Needs Assessment were arrived at, Councillor Brown and Planning officers confirmed that they would offer more explanation on this at the briefing session arranged for Councillors prior to the Council meeting on 20 January.

·         If all the affordable housing was delivered at the beginning of the project then it would not be financially viable for developers. Usually there were clauses in the legal agreement that specified building a certain amount of houses which would then trigger a requirement to build a percentage of the affordable houses.

·         Planning regulations did not allow the Council to specify the type of tenure of the required affordable housing. The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) required that there was a split between shared ownership and affordable rented homes and that 10% of the 30% could be rented.

·         The Council could only consider developing its own social housing if there were affordable areas of land to buy on which they could build houses. This was unlikely in Rutland.

·         The benefits for Rutland of the Stamford North development would include CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) monies and Council Tax payments.

·         Stamford North was on the Forward Plan for consideration by Cabinet at its meeting on 17 March but expectations were that this date would shift. Scrutiny would have an opportunity to see the documents once the developers and SKDC had responded to a number of changes requested by RCC. These documents would include the development brief for the whole of the site, the agreement of working process between SKDC, RCC, Lincolnshire County Council and other bodies, and a document on phasing and how the developers would proceed with the project.

·         The Council had a statutory duty to co-operate and consult with neighbouring Councils and other bodies such as Highways and Natural England.

·         Large housing developments in neighbouring counties did not offset Rutland’s assessed housing needs and these developments were already approved and in neighbouring Councils’ adopted Plans.

·         Councillor Woodley commented that he had received some extremely positive comments about the Plan from Oakham groups.

·         The Strategy for Towns and their commercial areas (Policy E9) stated that support would be given for suitable residential planning applications in order to diversify the mix. Support in this instance meant favourable consideration rather than any financial support.

·         Councillor Waller, the Chair of the Committee, asked whether the Portfolio Holder felt that the Local Plan embraced the aims of the climate action motion that the Council had recently passed.

·         Councillor Brown stated that in comparison to the draft 2017 plan, this Plan would bring forward homes that were better designed and much more energy efficient. Ultimately however energy savings were balanced against the viability of the project.

·         The Government had been promising new building regulations and a new home standard to improve energy efficiencies. Once this became a requirement nationwide then the viability of the project would not be affected.

·         One Government objective that had been put forward was to stop the installation of gas boilers in any new homes by 2025. Councillor Brown would continue to ask questions around this proposal and how this might impact the installation of new gas infrastructure.

·         Policies EN9 and EN10 dealt with biodiversity and any new Council biodiversity policy would need to dovetail with what was detailed in them.

·         Light pollution was covered specifically by policy BN18 but should also be considered in house design and place shaping.

·         The Plan was accompanied by an infrastructure delivery plan which had come directly from the service providers. Improvement and upgrade of the Oakham waste treatment plant was included in the current Anglian Water works plan and the plant that currently served St George’s Barracks would also be improved as stated in the development plan.

·         Councillor Oxley would like to have seen more emphasis in the Plan on developing sustainable transport links.

·         When the Local Plan came into force any new neighbourhood plans would have to take account of its policies. A judgement would be taken with existing plans to see if they were in general conformity or whether they was any conflict. Parish Councils would be encouraged to come and talk to RCC if they felt there was a conflict.

---o0o---

At 21.23pm the Chair proposed that the meeting be extended, if needed, by 15 minutes, in accordance with Procedure Rule 58, and this was agreed by the Committee.

---o0o---

·         The Chair invited non-committee Members to ask any questions.

·         Councillor Andrew Brown asked about the road infrastructure for St George’s Barracks and was happy that officers would respond to his specific concerns outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted in favour of formally requesting that the Local Plan document be changed to state ‘climate crisis’ rather than ‘climate change’.