The purpose of this item is for Committee Members to provide comments to the Chairman on the Local Development Framework, prior to its consideration at Council on 19 July 2013.

The related Cabinet papers of 4 July 2013 can be accessed at the following web address:

http://councillors.herefordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=251&MId=4888&Ver=4

 

The Chairman advised that the Herefordshire Plan - Core Strategy 2011-2031 (draft) was to be considered by Council on 19 July 2013.  He made the following points:

 

1.         As Chairman of the Committee, he would have the opportunity to speak for five minutes at Council.

 

2.         It was acknowledged that the officers had worked extremely hard but there was a perception that the Council was pressing ahead without fully considering the views of local communities.

 

3.         Reference was made to the allocation of land in Bromyard for residential development in the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.  It was commented that mistakes were made, with too much reliance given to the views of the Ward Members at the time, and this situation should not be repeated.

 

The Chairman invited views from attendees on the general policies.

 

General Policies

 

A Councillor in attendance, referring to the Place Shaping Policies, advised that ‘minimum’ had been replaced with ‘target’ in respect of affordable housing on strategic sites.  He considered this to be a significant weakening of the policy commitment to deliver affordable housing and the policy should revert to the original wording.  A Committee Member said that the position would depend on the economic situation and inward investment, therefore he considered a target percentage to be pragmatic.  The Councillor in attendance commented that there was a risk that affordable housing would be negotiated away, particularly as the Community Infrastructure Levy would be a non-negotiable charge.  The Assistant Director commented that the consolidated version of the plan would be presented to Council.  The Chairman suggested that this question be put to Council.

 

The Councillor in attendance said that there had been a change to the rural housing policies since consultation, with minimum housing numbers required in growth villages, the reason for the change and who requested it were questioned.  The Cabinet Member said that this was a question for Council; he subsequently added that changes had resulted from responses received and the analysis that had been undertaken.

 

The following points were made about the purpose of the agenda item:

 

a.         The Cabinet Member said that: he had come to listen; the ultimate scrutiny on this item would be at Council; in addition to the Chairman of the Committee being given time to speak, all Councillors would have an opportunity to speak; and this was not a pre-meeting of Council.

 

b.         The Chairman questioned the capacity to answer detailed questions at Council and said that areas of concern needed to be identified.

 

c.         The Vice-Chairman said that this Committee had the Local Development Framework before it for discussion and points could be cleared up ahead of the Council meeting.

 

d.         The Head of Governance said that is was the role of the Committee to scrutinise the proposal being put forward to Council but also noted the limited time available to the Committee.  He added that Council would get some comfort from knowing that the matter had been through the scrutiny process.

 

e.         The Cabinet Member said that Council would undertake a piece of major business in a public forum on 19 July 2013 and all Councillors would have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, would benefit from hearing the answers to any questions asked, and would ultimately make a decision.

 

f.          A Committee Member said that the purpose of the item was for Committee Members to provide comments to the Chairman on the Local Development Framework, prior to its consideration at Council, and that it was appropriate to narrow the discussion accordingly.

 

g.         Another Committee Member suggested that the Chairman’s comments could include the fact that responses had not been provided to the questions posed at the Committee.

 

A Committee Member commented that there was reference within the Core Strategy to ‘Understanding Herefordshire 2012’ but the ‘Understanding Herefordshire 2013’ document was now available; in particular, reference was made to demographics in the 18-34 age group.  In view of this, it was questioned what account had been taken of the new information and whether some of the evidence within the Core Strategy was as up-to-date as it needed to be.

 

A Committee Member made the following comments:

 

i.           Concern was expressed about the over reliance on the opinions of Ward Members in certain areas, coupled with negative attitudes towards the views of town councils and Hereford City Council, which represented over 50% of the total population.

 

ii.          Four out of five of the town councils and the City Council had agreed to contribute to a fund to challenge the Core Strategy in its present form.

 

iii.         Bromyard was being asked to provide 500 new houses but it did not have employment land to accompany the new housing, as required in the policy.

 

iv.        The Cabinet Member and the officers were urged to use the next few months to engage directly, actively and constructively with all town councils and the City Council.

 

The Vice-Chairman said that she had a number of questions and comments on the revisions to the Core Strategy, these included:

 

1.         Page 29: In respect of assessing the document against the sustainability criteria, why had the phrase “to find the ‘best fit’” been removed?  In view of this, how could assurance be provided about the performance of the current proposals compared to other alternatives?

 

2.         Which evidence base documents had been added to or changed since the consultation?

 

3.         Page 49: It was stated that the ‘Core Strategy does not identify specific development sites’ but this was considered misleading as a number of strategic housing sites could be identified easily.  The Vice-Chairman added that this limited the scope to negotiate with other landowners and achieve viable land prices and maximum levels of community gain.

 

4.         Page 53: The total number of houses for major residential developments came to 5300, not 5200, therefore the Hereford Area Plan needed to allocate a residual requirement of around 2250 houses, not 2350 as stated.

 

5.         Page 64: What is the causal relationship between the building of the relief road and the delivery of sustainable transport measures?  How does the design of the road both avoid and mitigate adverse impacts?

 

6.         Page 180: With reference to the new requirement for a Natural Resources Development Plan document, what are the shortcomings with regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 13 and Technical Guidance does this plan intend to address?

 

7.         Page 198: Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP):

 

·                Why has the authority chosen not to provide provisional costings for the local infrastructure projects assumed to be delivered through developer funding in the IDP?

 

·                What are the positive and negative effects on the Core Strategy of only modelling a proportion of the total infrastructure costs at this time?

 

·                Although recognising the difficulties of modelling over a twenty year period, there was an expectation in guidance that total cumulative costs should be modelled based on the best available current information.

 

·                How are we to be assured that the financial viability and the material deliverability of the plan is as stated?

 

·                It was stated in a response to supplementary questions from the public from the last meeting that there would be ‘future review of the IDP to include the prioritization of identified infrastructure, projected timescales for delivery and potential funding mechanisms’.  How can we be assured that the plan, as it stands, is viable, deliverable and sustainable?

 

The Chairman said that sustainability, viability and deliverability were key themes that applied to the whole document and would feature in his comments to Council.

 

Specific Policies for Market Towns and Hereford City

 

Hereford City

 

a.         In response to a question from a Committee Member about the Hereford Area Plan, the Cabinet Member advised that this reference reflected discussions with Ward Members about the need to develop such a plan.  The Committee Member commented on the confusion caused by changing titles.  The Assistant Director made the following points:

 

·                It was acknowledged that the wording used needed to be consistent.

 

·                The Hereford Local Plan would add detail to the Core Strategy, with some parallels with Neighbourhood Planning activities.

 

·                It was recognised that certain parcels of land would be identifiable in the Core Strategy but it would be at the Neighbourhood Planning or area plan stage that definitive lines would be drawn.

 

·                The Local Development Framework was composed of a series of plans.  The Core Strategy was a strategic level document and, following Council, the focus would be on the details going forward.  Neighbourhood Planning groups were already doing some of this and some of the work had directly informed the Core Strategy.

 

b.         A Committee Member said that, despite being strategic, the Core Strategy clearly identified locations for housing growth and was concerned that local representatives were not being given the opportunity to consider whether these were the right sites.  The Chairman said that similar concerns had been expressed in other areas.

 

Ledbury

 

c.         The Vice-Chairman questioned whether the amount of infrastructure required to support development in Ledbury was achievable and said that the viability modelling needed to look very carefully at what was being proposed.

 

Bromyard

 

d.         The Chairman invited Councillor Roger Page from Bromyard and Winslow Town Council, who was present in the public gallery, to address the Committee.  The key points included: the town council had put forward alternative development proposals; a five hectare site had been identified for employment land previously but this was now considered undeliverable by Herefordshire Council and it would not be carried forward in the Core Strategy; the town council had been invited to find another site through the Neighbourhood Plan but this would not be in place for another 24 to 30 months; the housing could not be progressed without the employment land, placing Bromyard in a unique and difficult position; and he questioned whether the situation would considered acceptable by the Inspector at examination.

 

Kington, Leominster and Ross-on-Wye

 

e.         No specific comments were made about these market towns by those in attendance.

 

Recommendation for Council

 

f.          A Committee Member said that the fact that four of the five market towns and the City Council were working together to challenge the Core Strategy suggested that there were significant issues to address.  In view of this, it was proposed that it be recommended to Council that there be a deferment of consideration of the Core Strategy (the full wording is given in the resolution below).  Another Committee Member supported this proposal and noted that a revised timetable would enable the Nutrient Management Plan, that was to be delivered by the end of September 2013, to be incorporated into the evidence base.

 

g.         In response to the recommendation, the Assistant Director noted that it was a matter for Members but provided the following advice about potential risks:

 

i.           It was possible that new issues would come forward or government advice would change in the intervening period.

 

ii.          Although there might be refinements, the principal nature of the issues and judgements were likely to remain the same.

 

iii.         From a development industry perspective, a delay would produce further uncertainty; the authority had adhered to its timetable so far and some developers were waiting for the Council to form a view on the Core Strategy before bringing forward proposals for some of the strategic sites.

 

iv.        The position with the lack of five year housing land supply could worsen, with the potential for the Council to lose control over which sites came forward for development.

 

v.         A delay could have a further impact on inward investment for the county.

 

h.         The Chairman noted that a deferment of only three-months was proposed.  It was acknowledged that significant work had been undertaken already but he felt that there should be an opportunity to engage with communities to try to resolve their outstanding concerns.  Some Members endorsed this view and commented on the need for careful and thorough analysis.

 

i.           The Cabinet Member commented on the substantial work that had been undertaken since 2007 and questioned what could be meaningfully achieved during three months, particularly as this would coincide with the summer holiday period.

 

j.           A Committee Member noted the Assistant Director’s comments and cautioned against any delays which might weaken the Council’s ability to control development.  He added that it was not pragmatic to delay consideration of the Core Strategy but every attempt should be made to work through the issues as document moved forward.

 

There being an equal number of votes for and against the recommendation, the Chairman used his casting vote to support the recommendation.

 

The Chairman said that he would convey the recommendation to Council and thanked the Cabinet Member, Assistant Director and Planning Obligations Manager for the substantial work that they had done.

 

RESOLVED: 

 

That it be recommended to Council that there be a deferment of consideration of the Core Strategy until late October / early November to enable:

 

(a)       Direct and constructive engagement to take place between Herefordshire Council and all the Market Town Councils and the City Council;

 

(b)       A thorough locality-based analysis of the Core Strategy consultation responses to be presented to Members; and

 

(c)       Further consideration of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the revised Economic Viability Assessment to take place.