Agenda item

Report of the Director of Built Environment

 

 

The Council considered the report of the Director of Built Environment in relation to the Local Plan for Sefton. The report presented the Publication Draft Plan, a key stage in the preparation of Sefton’s Local Plan. The Plan set out issues and challenges facing Sefton that included:

 

·         a vision for Sefton looking ahead to 2030

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

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

·         detailed site allocations showing how needs can be met

·         details of the Publication period and next stages.

 

The Publication Draft Plan had been developed within the statutory planning framework and it had been considered and scrutinised in detail by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) on 9 December 2014; the Planning Committee on 12 January 2015 and the Cabinet on 15 January 2015. Copies of the resolutions from those meetings had been circulated to all Members of the Council, together with a supplementary note produced by the Director of Built Environment which provided information on a number of suggested changes to the Draft Plan.

 

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

 

“That the recommendations set out in the report, as amended by the supplementary note be approved, subject to the inclusion of the following additional text:

 

The Council recognises:

 

(i)         the concerns of the petitioners and where possible is committed to addressing those concerns;

 

(ii)        that the Publication Draft Plan had been produced following a lengthy and rigorous planning process and that it had been considered and scrutinised in detail by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) on 9 December 2014 and the Planning Committee on 12 January 2015. It was further considered by Cabinet on 15 January 2015;

 

(iii)       that the Publication Draft Plan had been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework produced by the Government;

 

(iv)       that the Council had a legal obligation to produce a Local Plan that met the requirements of the Framework;

 

(v)        that as this is a Government led process, the Council had limited discretion to influence the size of the housing requirement;

 

(vi)       that following the approval of the Publication Draft Plan by the Council, it would be published for a period of eight weeks prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for examination;

 

(vii)      that members of the public wishing to object to the Publication Draft Plan must do so during the 8 week period in February and March 2015;

 

(viii)     that all of the comments received on the Publication Draft Plan during the eight week period would be submitted to the Government appointed independent inspector for consideration at the examination hearing. It is only those comments made during that 8 week period that would be considered by the Government Inspector;

 

(ix)       the need to continue to work with local communities to ensure that the Publication Draft Plan fulfills the aspirations of current and future generations; and

 

(x)        if local government had more discretion in this process, we may have been able to make different choices, but  it had to work within the constraints of current legislation and Government guidance.”

 

The Leader of Council (Councillor P. Dowd) indicated that the Council was required by law to go through the process of producing a draft Local Plan in accordance with the National Planning Framework. The Government claim that ‘local people make local decisions’ but the reality is very different from that and the Local Plan had been produced in line with what the Council ‘is required to do’ under the Framework and not ‘what we want to do’. Following the eight week consultation period, all of the representations received would be submitted to the Secretary of State and an independent Government Inspector would then be appointed to hold a planning inquiry to determine whether the Submission version of the Plan was robust and sound for a fifteen year period.

 

The Leader rejected the ‘myth’ that there are Brownfield sites available on the Dunnings Bridge Road corridor and elsewhere in the Borough for housing development, which would prevent the need for any development on Greenfield sites. He also rejected the claims that the Council only had to produce a 5 year plan when the National Planning Framework stipulated a 15 year plan had to be produced. He indicated that Policy HC1 in the Local Plan required 30% of each housing scheme to be provided as affordable housing and Policy HC2 required a minimum of 25% of market dwellings be 1 or 2 bedroom properties and a minimum of 40% of market dwellings be 3 bedroomed properties, but those local stipulations have to be considered alongside Government guidelines which state that the costs of obligations or policy requirements for developing sites must be economically viable for the developer.

 

The Leader also referred to the provisions in Chapter 9 of the Local Plan which indicated that the Council would work with a range of partners to make sure that infrastructure was provided in the right location when required and, where appropriate, financial contributions would be sought from developers to enhance and provide infrastructure to support new development. He concluded by indicating that there were surplus school places available in the Borough and that a number of ‘myths’ were being promulgated by local groups with regard to the Local Plan which had to be challenged.

 

During the lengthy debate, the following concerns were raised by Members of the Council:

 

·         that some of the data referred to in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment did not appear to match the Government population projections in the Local Plan which brought into doubt the reliability of the Plan;

 

·         the Local Plan lacked ambition and did not project a positive vision for the Borough – there was too much reliance on new homes and not enough on the provision of services and facilities at a community level;

 

·         that the Local Plan did not include provision for improvements to the Southport to Manchester Rail Line and the electrification of the line from Southport to Wigan in addition to the electrification of the line from Wigan to Manchester; and no consideration had been given to the possible provision of a rail station at the unused park and ride facility at Kew, which showed a lack of vision;

 

·         that the Local Plan did not put enough emphasis on the need for economic growth in Southport, which is reliant on the provision of employment opportunities in the retail, tourism and health care sectors and the provision of proposals for improved transport links to the north and east of Southport to increase the number of visitors to the town;

 

·         that the physical impact of the development proposals for sites at Maghull and Lydiate could increase the population in Maghull by 25% and Lydiate by 35% and the proposals for the use of high grade agricultural land which brought into doubt the claims that the proposals were environmentally sustainable;

 

·         that the affordable housing and social housing targets in the Local Plan could not be achieved due to the economic viability requirements in relation to development;

 

·         that the Local Plan does not address the community concerns with regard to environmental, health and other infrastructure issues;

 

·         that the Local Plan appears to include too much content on the needs of Bootle and the Liverpool City Region and not enough provision for other areas in the Borough;

 

·         that the Local Plan should challenge the Planning Inspector on concerns raised by the community and not present something that he/she will simply accept;

 

·         It was suggested that there was a need for more dialogue with West Lancashire Borough Council and indeed the provision of a joint Local Plan with that Council on proposals for housing developments in the vicinity of the boundary between the two local authorities and the provision of adequate infrastructure, as the local community was concerned about the proposed housing developments just over the boundary in West Lancashire which would increase the number of applications for places in schools in Southport from West Lancashire residents;

 

·         With regard to the proposals for Site MN 2.4 at Moss Lane, Churchtown, Southport, some Members expressed the view that it would not be possible to widen Moss Lane to accommodate the development of the site; and that the proposed number of housing units was too intense for the site; that this would have a detrimental environmental impact on the existing neighbourhood and would lead to infrastructure problems.

 

·         that consideration should be given to the future use of the Bootle Golf Course referred to in Policy NH6;

 

·         that the opportunities for renewable energy referred to in Paragraph 9.33 of the Local Plan should be concentrated in the Mersey Estuary rather than in the Green Belt;

 

·         comment made that Sport England would indicate that the provision of sports facilities in the Borough was poor ;

 

·         that nothing on a Playing Field Strategy had been included in the Local Plan until Sport England raised the issue; that the consultation on the future use of the Ainsdale Hope High School playing fields was inadequate and the scrutiny of the Local Plan by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) and Planning Committee was very questionable;

 

·         that there were insufficient school places in the Borough available to meet the demand following the construction of new housing developments and concern raised that two schools in Ainsdale would be  knocked down when we will need new schools in the future;

 

·         that there was a lack of data on second homes in the Council Tax Register on Empty Homes and that there is an over - reliance on retail development within the proposed business park south of Formby Industrial Estate which would be to the detriment of the businesses in Formby town centre; and

 

·         that there is a lack of opportunity offered to local community groups to meet with Officers on technical questions appertaining to the Local Plan.

 

The following issues were also raised by Members of the Council during the debate:

 

·         Other Members of the Council reaffirmed the comments of the Leader of the Council that the Council had a legal obligation to follow the guidance in the National Planning Framework and produce a Local Plan for the next 15 years which was economically and environmentally sustainable;

 

·         that there were insufficient brownfield sites available in the Borough to meet the Government’s requirements for the provision of new housing units and this meant that greenfield sites would need to be utilised;

 

·         Reference was made to the detailed provisions made in Policy MN3 (Strategic Mixed Use Allocation – Land east of Maghull) relating to the provision of infrastructure and the financial contributions to be made by developers;

 

·         Reference was made to the detailed recommendations made by the Infrastructure Working Group, which were approved by the Cabinet on 15 January 2015 and would be closely monitored by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) and the Cabinet to ensure that the recommendations on infrastructure issues were implemented;

 

·         that the National Planning Framework was flawed and weighted in favour of developers but the Council was legally obliged to implement the guidance;

 

·         that the production and adoption of robust Neighbourhood Plans would help to control aspects of development within the Borough;

 

·         Assurances were given that the views of residents in Maghull on the Local Plan had been taken into account by local Councillors and that the controlling group on Maghull Town Council would make a robust submission to the Planning Inspector;

 

·         Reference was made to the comments made by local residents to a Councillor in Formby seeking the provision of new affordable homes for young people;

 

·         Comment was made that new homes would only be built by developers if there was a demand for them and if there was no demand then they would not be built. The view was expressed that the greater the supply of new houses, the more affordable they would be for new home buyers;

 

·         Reference was made to the detailed scrutiny of the Local Plan as referenced in the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) and Planning Committee and the summary of questions by Councillors and responses given by Officers;

 

·         Reference was made to the detailed reasons for the selection of the Preferred Option for the Local Plan, previously made by the Council in accordance with the Government’s requirements, as set out in Section 10 of the covering report to the Local Plan;

 

·         Reference was made to the Council’s ‘legal duty to co-operate’ with adjoining local authorities on the Local Plan, as detailed in the Local Plan; and

 

·         Reference was made to the need for the protection of urban greenspace in Bootle to deal with the concerns about air quality.

 

Following the lengthy 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 Chapter 4 in the Council Constitution, the voting was duly recorded and the Members of the Council present at the time, voted as follows:

 

FOR THE MOTION:

 

Councillors Atkinson, Veronica Bennett, Bradshaw, Brennan, Burns, Byrom, Carr, Crabtree, Cummins, Dams, P. Dowd, Fairclough, Friel, Gatherer, Grace, John Kelly, John Joseph Kelly, Kermode, Kerrigan, Killen, Lappin, P. Maguire, Maher, Mahon, McGinnity, McKinley, Moncur, Murphy, O’Brien, Owens, Page, Roberts, Roche, Thompson,Tweed, Veidman, Webster and the Mayor (Councillor Cluskey).

 

AGAINST THE MOTION:

 

Councillors Ashton, Ball, David Barton, Jo Barton, Maria Bennett, Booth, Brodie-Browne, Cuthbertson, Dawson, Dodd, Dutton, Lord Fearn, Maureen Fearn, Hartill, Keith, Lewis, S. McGuire, Preece, Robertson and Welsh.

 

The Mayor declared that the Motion was carriedby 38 votes to 20 and it was

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

(1)       The Council recognises:

 

(i)         the concerns of the petitioners and where possible is committed to addressing those concerns;

 

(ii)        that the Publication Draft Plan had been produced following a lengthy and rigorous planning process and that it had been considered and scrutinised in detail by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Environmental Services) on 9 December 2014 and the Planning Committee on 12 January 2015. It was further considered by Cabinet on 15 January 2015;

 

(iii)       that the Publication Draft Plan had been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework produced by the Government;

 

(iv)       that the Council had a legal obligation to produce a Local Plan that met the requirements of the Framework;

 

(v)        that as this is a Government led process, the Council had limited discretion to influence the size of the housing requirement;

 

(vi)       that following the approval of the Publication Draft Plan by the Council, it would be published for a period of eight weeks prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for examination;

 

(vii)      that members of the public wishing to object to the Publication Draft Plan must do so during the 8 week period in February and March 2015;

 

(viii)     that all of the comments received on the Publication Draft Plan during the eight week period would be submitted to the Government appointed independent inspector for consideration at the examination hearing. It is only those comments made during that 8 week period that would be considered by the Government Inspector;

 

(ix)       the need to continue to work with local communities to ensure that the Publication Draft Plan fulfils the aspirations of current and future generations; and

 

(x)        if local government had more discretion in this process, we may have been able to make different choices, but it had to work within the constraints of current legislation and Government guidance;

 

(2)       the Local Development Scheme as set out in Section 2.6 and Annex A of the report be approved;

 

(3)       the Authority Monitoring Report as set out in Section 20 of the report be approved;

 

(4)       the further evidence which supports the Draft Plan, as outlined in Section 21 of the report, be approved for consultation;

 

(5)       the Draft Plan as amended by the supplementary note be approved for publication;

 

(6)       approval be given to the approach to notify people of the Draft Plan, as outlined in Section 22 of the report;

 

(7)       the Director of Built Environment be granted delegated powers to make minor editorial changes to the draft Plan before it is published, as referred to in Section 23.1 of the report; and

 

(8)       following the end of the publication period, and subject to there being no material change of circumstances, authority be given to the Director of Built Environment to submit the draft Plan to the Secretary of State for examination.