Agenda item

Report SEG44 from the Cabinet Member for Economy and Development

(Enclosure)

Please note that due to the size of the appendices to this report hard copies have been sent to Cabinet Members only.  Electronic copies of all documents can be accessed from the Council’s Website:  www.southkesteven.gov.uk 

Hard copies of the documents are available on request

Decision:

1.            Cabinet approves for consultation purposes the Consultative Draft Local Plan appended to report SEG44 and its accompanying appendices and the updated Local Development Scheme.

2.            Cabinet recommends that delegated authority is given to the Portfolio holder for Economy and Development, in conjunction with the Strategic Director, to approve any minor changes or typographical corrections as may be necessary prior to the commencement of the consultation period.

Considerations/reasons for decision:

1)            Report SEG44 from the Portfolio Holder for Economy and Development.

2)            The new Local Plan would provide guidance and shape proposals for growth and investment in South Kesteven up to 2036.

3)            The initial non statutory consultation period gave an opportunity to proactively engage with local communities, interested developers, businesses, voluntary groups, public organisations, landowners and neighbouring councils to help shape the district for the future and contribute to the overall preparation of a new Local Plan.

4)            The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required that every local planning authority in England should have a clear, up to date Local Plan that conforms to the NPPF, meets identified local development needs and reflects local people’s views about how they wish their community to develop.

5)            The new Local Plan would set out policies and proposals for the period up to 2036, so there was an additional 10 years of development needs to be anticipated and accommodated beyond the current adopted development plans.

6)            Comments made by the Cabinet Member Economy and Development on the need to create between 16,000 – 17,000 homes, that double the amount of employment land had been allocated, 79 hectares to enable greater choice, that the existing KiNG31 site had been grouped with adjacent sites to give a total of 96 hectares.  50% of new housing was intended for Grantham to give it critical mass, strategic housing of 1,300 homes had been allocated to the north of Stamford avoiding the sensitive south side. In Bourne housing would be concentrated on the Elsea Park with 800 more home still to be built, however in order to give variety and choice three small sites amounting to 235 homes would be situated to the north west near to Bourne Woods.  Market Deeping had an allocation of over 900 houses and each town had strategic employment sites allocated.  Larger villages had a 9% concentration of housing and public comment on smaller village development had been listened to with a more relaxed policy allowing limited edge of village development if the community agreed and the quality was high and done in a sensitive manner. There would be a Supplementary Planning document issued on Good Design (robust, high quality development).  Core policies which had served well in the previous period would be continued.  Services in villages would be protected. Road shows had been arranged at Long Bennington, Grantham, Bourne, Stamford, Corby Glen and Market Deeping.

7)            Comments from the Principal Democracy Officer following the Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee which had met the previous day and at which the general consensus of the Committee had been positive and they had supported the plan for public consultation – comments at the meeting had been made about having a robust evidence base, the assurance that sites were deliverable, the quantity of site allocation and any “back-up” plan (site allocation exceeded minimum requirement) plus there were reserve sites and comments had been made on the delivery of the plan.

8)            Comments made by the Strategic Director Development and Growth on the challenge of the new Delivery Test which would apply to every authority – this would be a “sea change” and officers would work with the Cabinet on the way planning was delivered – the granting of planning permission was now the start of the process and the Council was looking to be proactive with high quality sustainable growth.

9)            Comments made by the Cabinet Member Environment on the amount of employment land, how development in small villages was to be dealt with and good design.

10)         Comments made by the Leader who wished to place on record his thanks to the Cabinet Member Economy and Development together with the Strategic Director Development and Growth and his team for all the work that had been done to date. The informal consultation was essential and was a meaningful exercise.

A briefing for all Members on the Local Plan was to take place on Monday 3^rd July at 5pm.

Other Options Considered:

The Consultative Draft Local Plan had been informed by a substantial evidence base, including assessments of objectively assessed housing and employment needs.  Two stages of informal consultation have been undertaken regarding the scope of the Local Plan and an initial assessment of potential sites and settlement hierarchy.

The process of preparing a new Local Plan offered the Council an opportunity to proactively engage with local communities, developers, businesses, voluntary groups, public organisations, landowners and our neighbouring councils so that everyone can appreciate what they think the future of the District should look like and for other possible options to be put forward for consideration.  Responses to the consultation would help to shape the final document.

The only other option would be for the Council not to undertake the production of the Local Plan.  This would not be in line with Government expectations and would also lead to development proposals coming forward in an uncoordinated way with no long term strategic direction to guide growth.  This is not considered to be in the best interests of the District, its communities, residents and businesses.