Decision details

The Council considered the report of the Director of Built Environment which presented the Preferred Option Document, a key stage in the preparation of Sefton’s Local Plan. The Document set out the issues and challenges facing Sefton, which included:

 

·         a vision for Sefton’s planning ahead to 2030;

·         a strategy for how Sefton’s housing, business and other  development needs can be met;

·         a ‘preferred’ option indicating where those needs might be met including detailed site allocations;

·         details of other options which have been considered and discounted;

·         development management policies to help guide development and provide a policy framework for making decisions on planning applications; and

·         details of the 12 week consultation arrangements.

 

This was a corporate strategy document which was being developed within the statutory planning framework. The Preferred Option Document was a key stage in the process of adopting a Local Plan, which would in due course replace the Unitary Development Plan.

 

The Council also considered an addendum note to the report produced by the Director of Built Environment which set out two minor updates to the Preferred Option document.

 

The Mayor reported that the Local Plan Preferred Option Document had been considered at the following meetings, prior to the Council meeting:

 

·         the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) on 28 May 2013;

 

·         the Planning Committee on 12 June 2013; and

 

·         the Cabinet on 20 June 2013

 

The Mayor advised Members that the report set out a preferred option for consultation, which was a key stage of the journey to work out what was the best way forward with respect to the important strategic document. No final decisions on the adoption of the Local Plan would be made until 2015.

 

The Mayor also advised Members that they could all participate in the debate so long as they retained an open mind and had not and did not say anything that would lead others to think that they had a closed mind.

 

It was moved by Councillor P. Dowd and seconded by Councillor Maher:

 

That:

 

(1)       the further evidence which supports the Preferred Option Document be approved for consultation, as outlined in Section 18 of the report;

 

(2)       the approach to consultation on the Preferred Option Document be approved, as outlined in Section 20 of the report;

 

(3)       the Preferred Option Document be approved for consultation, including a correction to the land proposed for development, south east of Hightown as set out in Section 19 and the plan attached to the report; and the amendments set out in the addendum note; and

 

(4)       the Head of Planning Services be granted delegated powers to make minor editorial changes to the Document before it is published, as referred to in Section 20.7 of the report.

 

The Leader of the Council (Councillor P. Dowd) made the following comments:

 

·         The Council was required by the Government to produce a robust and sound Local Plan in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. The content of the Plan could be challenged by the public, action groups and developers, and the final decision upon the content of the Plan would be taken by a Planning Inspector appointed by the Government.

 

·         The current figure of 510 housing units per year was based on evidence provided by Planning Consultants and the housing requirement figure would be reviewed next year when the next round of the population and household projections data was published by the Government. If the figure had to be reduced, then it would be done on the basis of the latest information available at that time.

 

·         The Plan had to deal with social, economic and environmental issues, including the Port redevelopment and the provision of affordable housing to meet housing need within the Borough.

 

·         He was aware that some Members of the Council were currently concerned about the proportionality of the development proposals in Maghull and Lydiate, but gave an assurance that all of the consultation feedback would be fully considered, to ensure that the right proposals were included in the final version of the Local Plan to be submitted to the Planning Inspector for examination in due course.

 

During a lenghty debate, Members of the Council raised the following issues:

 

·         The Government required the Council to plan for the future employment and housing needs of the Borough and the Option 1 proposal for the provision of 270 homes per year was not viable and would not be accepted by the Planning Inspector.

 

·         The Government figures indicated that 400 homes or more would need to be provided each year and if the Council did not plan for that provision, the Government would do it for the Council. The figures would need to be challenged to ensure they were correct, following the publication of the population and household projections data in 2014.

 

·         It was possible that the number of homes to be built each year would reduce from 510 to say 470 homes when the latest projections are published in 2014.

 

·         Councillors fully appreciated the public concerns about the use of green field sites. It had to be acknowledged that some sites would need to be used to meet the housing need but the amount of green field sites to be used should be kept to as low an amount as possible.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the current allocated sites in the Preferred Options Document for Maghull and Lydiate, which were disproportionate to the housing need in that area and would increase the volume of traffic, the demand for other services and change the overall character of the area.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the number of new homes proposed for Ainsdale which would increase the demand for schools, other services and infrastructure to be provided in that area. A request was made for the retention of the sports field at the former Ainsdale Hope High School site for recreational use and for the provision of more allotment sites.

 

·         Concerns were raised that schools had been closed in some areas based on previous long term planning need and this could now lead to insufficient school places being made available in due course, to meet increased demand following the proposed housing development set out in the Preferred Option Document.

 

·         There was a need for more 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom accommodation and the provision of affordable housing in the Borough to meet the growing housing demand.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the potential loss of Grade 1 agricultural land and the impact of proposed development on bordering land in West Lancashire and Knowsley which would have an impact on the services provided within Sefton. These issues needed to be looked at more widely and robustly. The Council should become more of a campaigning Council to put pressure on the Government to protect agricultural land.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the proposed development at Moss Lane, Churchtown, the potential land sewage problems on the peat land and the increased traffic on the adjoining country lanes.

 

·         The Local Plan needed to address, in more detail, how the infrastructure problems in many areas of Sefton, as referred to in the Preferred Options Document, would be addressed with developers and infrastructure/service providers; the make-up of the 510 homes to be built each year; and the carbon economy policies.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the proposed use of reserved sites after 2020, if the capacity on the allocated sites falls below the five year supply and officers were requested to ensure that developers fully utilised the number of units on each site, to ensure that the reserved sites would not need to be used, especially in Lydiate.

 

·         Concerns were raised that the Preferred Options Document made no reference to the Shale Gas developments which could take place within the licensed area, which stretches from Crossens to Ainsdale within the Borough and the environmental and economic impact it would have on the Borough.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the proposed development in West Lancashire on land adjacent to Birkdale Ward and the impact upon schools and other services in that Ward.

 

·         A request was made for more recognition to be given to the statement in paragraph 2.44 on page 71 of the Preferred Options Document that “about 1 in 4 of Sefton’s residents lived in an area classed as within the 20% most deprived areas in the country.” Provision needed to be made in the Local Plan for policies to address the provision of improved housing and health services to address the major variations in health and life expectancy within the Borough.

 

·         Requests were made for the proposed consultation arrangements to be reviewed, with less emphasis on booked appointments, to ensure that the public and in particular, Action Groups could actively challenge the figures and proposals in the Preferred Options Document. The Council would need to ensure that it took the public along with it, all the way on the process leading up to the adoption of the Local Plan.

 

Following the debate, the requisite number of Members having signified their wish that the voting on the Motion should be recorded in accordance with Rule 92 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules, the voting was duly recorded and the Members of the Council present at the time, voted as follows:

 

FOR THE MOTION:

 

Councillors Atkinson, Bradshaw, Brennan, Byrom, Carr, K. Cluskey, L. Cluskey, Cummins, M. Dowd, P. Dowd, Friel, Gatherer, Hardy, John Kelly, John Joseph Kelly, Kermode, Killen, Lappin, P. Maguire, Maher, Mahon, McGinnity, Moncur, Page, Roberts, Robinson, Roche, Tweed, Veidman and Webster.

 

AGAINST THE MOTION:

 

Councillors Ashton, Ball, Blackburn, Brodie – Browne, Crabtree, Cuthbertson, Dawson, Dodd, Dorgan, Dutton, Lord Fearn, Hands, Hartill, Jones, Keith, S. McGuire, McIvor, Preece, Rimmer, Robertson, Shaw, Sir Ron Watson, Weavers and Welsh.

 

ABSTENTION

 

The Mayor (Councillor M. Fearn)

 

The Motion was carried by 30 votes to 24, with 1 abstention and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That:

 

(1)       the further evidence which supports the Preferred Option Document be approved for consultation, as outlined in Section 18 of the report;

 

(2)       the approach to consultation on the Preferred Option Document be approved, as outlined in Section 20 of the report;

 

(3)       the Preferred Option Document be approved for consultation, including a correction to the land proposed for development, south east of Hightown as set out in Section 19 and the plan attached to the report; and the amendments set out in the addendum note; and

 

(4)       the Head of Planning Services be granted delegated powers to make minor editorial changes to the Document before it is published, as referred to in Section 20.7 of the report.