Agenda item

Report number PLA623 by the Economic Development Portfolio Holder.                    (Attached)

DECISION:

The Cabinet:

1)                  Endorses the general approach set out in report PLA623 for the preparation of the Revised Core Strategy Preferred Options;

2)                  Agrees the proposed policy content of the Core Strategy Preferred Options as summarised in paragraphs 3.8 of report PLA623 ;

3)                  Wishes to include the addition of policies covering flood risk, energy efficiency in new buildings and renewable energy schemes as set out in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.9 of report PLA623 .

Considerations/Reasons for Decision

(1)               Report number PLA623 by the Economic Development Portfolio Holder on the preparation of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy based on recent advice of the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Planning Inspectorate;

(2)               The decision made by Cabinet on 9^th October 2006, which established a new way forward for the development of the district’s LDF;

(3)               DCLG guidance that the Core Strategy should be clear, concise and consist only of the overarching planning framework having considered different options available to best meet the needs of the local area;

(4)               DCLG and GOEM stated a typical core strategy should include: settlement hierarchy based on broad locations for development in the district, housing strategy and affordable housing, employment land strategy, transport, town centres and rural policies where appropriate;

(5)               Policy areas considered to be of local importance included: gypsies and travellers, landscape character areas and Section 106 planning obligations;

(6)               Each policy area would present the council with a range of options for addressing the issues in the local context. The Core Strategy Preferred Options would need to demonstrate options that had been considered and why the preferred option was selected. This should be supported by background evidence;

(7)               DCLG advised that policies which largely reflected national and regional planning policy should not be included in the Core Strategy because they did not offer alternative options to consider;

(8)               While flood risk, energy efficiency in new buildings and renewable energy schemes were rooted in national guidance and provided little opportunity for the consideration of a variety of alternative options, they related to issues which had arisen since the adoption of the Local Plan (1995) and would fill a policy gap;

(9)               The first preferred options document had been approved by the Planning Inspectorate; this would provide a model for the council to work to.

Other options considered and assessed:

1.                  To progress the Core Strategy with the same (or revised version of the same) policy topics included in the previous draft version. It was felt that some of the policies tended to repeat national guidance and were therefore inappropriate in the Core Strategy in light of DCLG advice.

2.                  To include only the six policy topics suggested by the DCLG. It was considered that this would present a very narrow Core Strategy which would fail to address all of the key local issues which are required if the Core Strategy is to effectively provide the overarching policy framework for the district.