Agenda and draft minutes

Cllr Jones declared being employed by Harper & Keele Veterinary School which formed part of Keele University which was referred to in the Local Plan.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee.

Resolved:    That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20^th June 2024 be agreed as a true and accurate record.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning introduced the Final Draft Local Plan and accompanying report.

The Planning Policy Manager then went through the background, context and legal framework for the Local Plan as well as the different steps that would lead to the adoption of the plan including approval by Full Council, public consultation and examination by the Secretary of State.

Members submitted questions and responses were provided as follows.

Cllr Whieldon asked about what a sound local plan meant in terms of legal compliance.

– The plan was to be positively prepared, justified and effectively deliverable.

Cllr Panther wondered why Policy LW53 had been included considering the Planning Committee decided against a related development under delegated authority earlier in February 2024.

– Site selection and specific development plans were two separate things. A comparative assessment of sites across the borough had been undertaken and the LW53 site had been deemed appropriate for development. This did not undermine the Planning Committee’s authority to reject applications in relation to particular developments which did not meet policy requirements.

Cllr Edington-Plunkett enquired about how the Council assessed what type and volume of housing was needed in the borough as well as what sort of traffic monitoring had been undertaken and if there was any immediate danger in increasing the traffic in those busy areas.

– A Housing and Economic Needs Assessment report had been prepared looking into the overall level of growth in the borough as well as the volume and type of housing desirable along with appropriate accessibility arrangements based on housing standards. A Strategic Transport Assessment had also been prepared following a request from national highways to assess the allocations in the plan. Finally the plan was supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the building infrastructure requirements – policies IN1 to IN7.

Cllr Holland wished to emphasize the fact that saying that a site was suitable for development at a strategic level and refusing a planning application to go through when the development was deemed unsustainable were not incompatible. The Committee was also not making the final decision which would be down to Full Council.

Cllr Jones asked who was involved in the site selection process as well as how many of the 168 sites were green belt versus brown sites and how many brown sites were refused or not included.

– A site selection methodology had been applied to establish a pool of sites which were then assessed individually regarding e.g. any flood risks or any ecological issues or if the sites were in use. There had been a site selection looking at brown sites first and then the green belt to meet the distribution of the development and its requirements. The work had been mainly carried out by officers who would report to Full Council who would be taking the final decision before the sites go out for public consultation.

Cllr Jones wondered if Cabinet members had been involved in the site selection.

– Discussions were held in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Resolved:    That the work programme be noted.

Any member of the public wishing to submit a question must serve two clear days’ notice, in writing, of any such question to the Borough Council.

Three questions received from members of the public were raised to which responses were provided as follows.

“Why has the Borough Council not published the latest evidence base for the latest iteration of the Local Plan and how are councillors expected to be able to scrutinise the Local Plan without the evidence that supposedly justifies it?”

– The Council intended to publish evidence in relation to the Regulation 19 Local Plan by the Full Council meeting of the 24 July 2024. Some of the evidence in relation to the Local Plan could not be finalised until after the Local Plan was agreed by Council. The full evidence base would be published alongside the Local Plan before the consultation period started to allow full engagement with the Plan, its policies, proposals and evidence.

“How can the Borough Council justify removing 80 ha of land from the Green Belt at site AB2 to provide 22 ha of employment land?”

– Recent changes had been proposed to the wording of site AB2 (now published on the committee agenda) to provide further clarification on the extent and nature of employment land floorspace to be provided on the site. In addition to employment land, the site would provide for a lorry park and ancillary uses. Land would also be taken up for roads, other supporting infrastructure, landscaping requirements etc. The Council’s approach had been informed by the strategic employment land assessment, site selection work, Green Belt assessment and other relevant evidence.

“Why is the Borough Council unlawfully purporting to grant consent subject to conditions in respect of S211 notices regarding work on trees without TPOs in Conservation Areas when conditions are ultra vires?”

– The Council recognised that a S211 notice to undertake works to a non-TPO protected tree in a conservation area was not the same as an application.  Any such references in the draft Local Plan would be amended accordingly.

Cllrs Grocott and Holland requested that the responses to the questions be emailed back to the persons who asked them.

Watch the debate here

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business.