To consider the adoption of the Herefordshire local plan core strategy 2011-2031 (“the core strategy”).

Council considered the adoption of the Herefordshire local plan core strategy 2011-2031 (“the core strategy”).

The chairman stated that he had attended the cabinet meeting on 15 October which had discussed its recommendation to council on the adoption of the Strategy.  A point of order had been raised at that meeting seeking assurance that a proper process had been followed in respect of the documentation produced for that meeting.  He considered it appropriate that all members were advised of the response provided by the monitoring officer.

The monitoring officer confirmed that Council was being asked to consider the adoption of the core strategy available online at the link provided as modified by the main and minor modifications set out at appendix 2 and appendix 3 respectively of the report.  All three documents had been published as part of the agenda papers within the required timescale.   A further consolidated document had subsequently been published for ease of reference but that was not a document that the Council was being asked to adopt.  She was satisfied that relevant procedural requirements had been met.  

A member commented that the consolidated document that had been produced included several appendices to the Core Strategy.  It was asked whether the Council was being asked to adopt those documents too, noting that they had not been published with the agenda papers five clear days in advance of the meeting.   It was asked whether the situation left the Council vulnerable to challenge.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that all the documents published in relation to the local plan were available via the link to the Council’s website published in the agenda papers and had been published a least five clear days in advance of the meeting.  Whilst it was open to anyone to challenge a decision of the Council she did not consider that a challenge made on the procedural grounds identified would be successful.

The Chairman then invited the assistant director, economic, environmental and cultural services to explain the adoption process in order that members were fully informed.

The assistant director outlined the process to date, the point that had now been reached, the outcome if Council approved the recommendation to adopt the Strategy, what would happen next and arrangements for review of the Plan.

Councillor Price, cabinet member – infrastructure proposed the motion.  He outlined the process that had been followed since Council had agreed the draft plan in July 2013.  Following the examination in public of the Plan the Inspector had required major modifications to be made.  These had been produced and consulted on.  A number of minor modifications had also been made.  The Inspector had concluded that the Plan being recommended to council for adoption was sound.

Councillor AW Johnson – leader of the council seconded the motion.

(The meeting adjourned between 10.42 and 10.55 am to allow for production and circulation of paper copies of the recommendations made by Cabinet on the previous day.)

The recommendations made to Council by Cabinet on 15 October were circulated:

“That

(a)        the Herefordshire local plan core strategy 2011-2031 (at https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/core-strategy), incorporating the recommended main modifications (at appendix 2) and the schedules of minor modifications (at appendix 3) be adopted; and

(b)        delegated authority be given to the programme director growth to make any further minor modifications, (e.g. typographical) to ensure consistency with other development plan documentation.”

A Member proposed that the wording of part b of the cabinet recommendation: “delegated authority be given to the programme director growth to make any further minor modifications, (e.g. typographical”) be amended to read (“i.e typographical”.) 

The proposer and seconder of the motion accepted this amendment.

A further amendment was proposed by Councillor Powers and seconded by Councillor Bartlett:

That:  recognising government planning guidance and the advice of the Inspector’s Report, Council now commits to a full review of the whole Local Plan Core Strategy as soon as all the parts of the plan that were requested to be detached for separate production – including Nutrient Management Action Plan, Minerals and Waste Strategy and Community Infrastructure Levy schedules – are all completed.

Councillor Powers, in proposing the amendment, stated that in his view it would be prudent to review the plan once all the documentation to which the amendment referred had been produced rather than wait until the end of five years before doing so. 

The leader of the council opposed the amendment stating that approving the document as proposed offered the flexibility to review the documentation as the council saw fit.

The cabinet member – infrastructure commented that the plan was open to review at any point in accordance with the adoption process and he therefore did not support the amendment.  He reiterated that the Inspector had concluded that the Plan was sound.

The following additional principal points were made on the amendment:

·         The additional policies yet to be produced were central to the viability and delivery of the Plan.  Council needed to be able to satisfy itself once these documents were complete that the Core Strategy as a whole was coherent.  It was also questioned why, if review was acknowledged to be part of the process, there was any reason to oppose the amendment.

·         A concern was expressed about the council’s capacity to produce the additional documentation following reductions in staffing.

·         The report to Council at paragraphs 13 and 14 acknowledged that a number of other documents were to be produced and that as with all strategies the plan would be periodically reviewed.

Councillor Bartlett, seconding the motion, expressed concern that a considerable amount of information relevant to the Plan as a whole was yet to be prepared and the Plan should therefore be reviewed as a whole as soon as the absent material had been produced.

A named vote was held on the amendment.  The amendment was lost.

For (14) JM Bartlett, TL Bowes, J Hardwick, EPJ Harvey, MD Lloyd-Hayes, MN Mansell, RI Matthews, SM Michael, FM Norman, AJW Powers, A Seldon, D Summers, LC Tawn and A Warmington.

Against (28) BA Baker, WLS Bowen, H Bramer, CR Butler, BA Durkin,  PJ Edwards,  CA Gandy,  DW Greenow,  KS Guthrie, DG Harlow, EL Holton, JA Hyde, AW Johnson, JF Johnson, JG Lester, RL Mayo, PJ McCaull, MT McEvilly, PM Morgan,  PD Newman, CA North, GJ Powell, PD Price, WC Skelton, J Stone, EJ Swinglehurst, DB Wilcox and SD Williams.

Abstain (3) PE Crockett, JLV Kenyon, and AR Round.        

In the course of debating the proposal the following principal points were made:

·         The risk management section of the report stated at paragraph 27 that there were no significant risks associated with adoption of the core strategy.  It was questioned whether the Plan was affordable and deliverable,  citing issues relating to water infrastructure and the potential effect on Special Areas of Conservation, the overreliance on funding from developers and the risk that the envisaged housing required to support the delivery of the plan would not be forthcoming, the uncertainty  that the western relief road would be delivered, the absence of proposals for developing rail transport and the failure to create well paid jobs locally that would enable people to afford housing.

The cabinet member – infrastructure replied that the Plan provided support for business and the local economy.  A report on options for rail transport would be available at the end of the year, although the initial indications were not promising.

·         Adopting the Plan would strengthen the Planning Committee’s powers to manage development and resist speculative applications.  The weight the Committee had been required to give to the absence of a five year housing land supply would no longer apply.

·         The Plan did not address the needs of Bromyard.  It provided no road link between the A44 and the local industrial estate meaning that there would be continuing damage to Bromyard’s historic core.  Account had not been taken of a plan prepared by Bromyard and Winslow Town Council.  It was unclear how the housing allocation for Bromyard would be accommodated.

·         It was questioned whether the Plan was affordable in financial terms and whether there was the staffing resource to deliver it.

·         Infrastructure was needed to support the proposed housing.

·         The road infrastructure proposals were wrong.  A western relief road would be four times more costly than an eastern relief road.

·         The housing development proposed for Leominster was excessive with insufficient infrastructure and employment opportunities to support it.  A relief road was needed.  There would be congestion and increased air pollution in the Bargates area if the housing were to be constructed first.  Note needed to be taken of the fact that it was proposed that development in Leominster would require no Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions.

·         The adoption of the Plan would allow the planning process to give weight to completed Neighbourhood Plans.

·         The Plan did not consider health needs and the infrastructure needed to support an increased population with a growing number of elderly people.

·         There were a number of weaknesses in what was a vulnerable Plan.  The infrastructure was not in place to cope with the proposed housing growth.  A number of key documents such as the nutrient management plan were yet to be prepared.  A number of policies were high risk and difficult to achieve.

·         There were concerns about the affordability and deliverability of the Plan.  The Council had not agreed its CIL policies.  However, funding from the CIL was significant for the delivery of every development. 

·         It was cautioned that the 25% of CIL that would be available locally as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process would be allocated for specific purposes under the CIL scheme not for any project a Town or Parish Council wanted.

·         Members also needed to be mindful that under the National Planning Policy Framework any site allocated for development could be brought forward for housing. The Plan would allow sustainable growth.

·         The cabinet member – infrastructure commented that the adoption of the Plan was not the end of the process.  It was recognised that a number of matters remained to be resolved.  There was a complex process to secure infrastructure projects.  Infrastucture requirements for individual projects would be assessed as part of the relevant planning application(s).

·         The Plan gave insufficient weight to sustainability including sustainable transport and environmental considerations such as the effect of climate change.

·         The Leader of the It’s Our County Group highlighted that the implication of the change in wording in the Plan the Inspector had required, replacing references to indicative housing targets with minimum targets for housing growth, and the scope this afforded developers, remained to be seen.  The Plan did not represent his Group’s vision and he questioned if it was affordable or deliverable.  The Plan represented a missed opportunity. The views of the public had been ignored.  Reservations included the lack of weight given to sustainable transport and design standards, the absence of: a strategy for minerals and waste, the Community Infrastructure levy and Nutrient Management Plan and plans for the new university and hospital. He also questioned whether jobs would be created to enable people to afford homes, raising the possibility housing would be bought by elderly and retired people. 

·         The leader of Council spoke as seconder of the motion.  He commented that the Plan ran until 2031 and clearly there would be change along the way.  The Plan was affordable.  He had received strong indications that the Government would support transport infrastructure proposals in the Plan. The provision of the right economic conditions would lead to the creation of jobs.  A recent meeting with a number of large companies had been positive and further meetings were planned.  The county needed to have a larger tax base.  The development of the new university and a skilled workforce would also encourage businesses into the county. He noted that the development of a western relief road did not preclude the development of an eastern relief road as well. 

In conclusion he thanked the cabinet member – infrastructure and members and officers past and present for their work in producing the Plan for adoption.

·         The cabinet member – infrastructure commented that a more positive attitude was required to ensure the delivery of the Plan.  Encouraging businesses would generate funding.  In relation to environmental concerns he noted that a Nutrient Management Plan Board was in place involving all key organisations and this would ensure a sustainable Nutrient Management Plan was produced.  Adopting the Core Strategy ensured that the County had a five year housing land supply. Adding to the thanks given by the leader of the council he thanked his predecessor as cabinet member, RB Hamilton, for his work on the Plan. 

A named vote was held and the proposal was carried.

For (29) BA Baker, WLS Bowen, TL Bowes, H Bramer, CR Butler, BA Durkin, CA Gandy, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, DG Harlow, EL Holton, JA Hyde, AW Johnson, JF Johnson, JLV Kenyon, JG Lester, RL Mayo, PJ McCaull, MT McEvilly, PM Morgan, PD Newman, CA North, GJ Powell, PD Price, WC Skelton, J Stone, EJ Swinglehurst, DB Wilcox and SD Williams.

Against (none)

Abstain (16) JM Bartlett, PE Crockett,  PJ Edwards, J Hardwick, EPJ Harvey, MD Lloyd-Hayes, MN Mansell, RI Matthews, SM Michael, FM Norman, AJW Powers, A Round, A Seldon, D Summers, LC Tawn and A Warmington.

RESOLVED

THAT:

(a)        the Herefordshire local plan core strategy 2011-2031 (at https://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/core-strategy),incorporating the recommended main modifications (at appendix 2 to the report) and the schedules of minor modifications (at appendix 3 to the report) be adopted; and

(b)       delegated authority be given to the  programme director growth to make any further minor modifications, (i.e. typographical) to ensure consistency with other development plan documentation