Agenda item

Report No: COU/WS/19/007

(**Note: Due to their size, the appendices to this covering report will be circulated as a separate supplement to the agenda papers**)

(Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a non pecuniary interest in this item as she was a personal acquaintance of the owner of land at Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket and remained in the meeting for the consideration of the item.)

Council considered this report, which sought approval for the adoption of the Single Issue Review (SIR) of Policy CS7, including both the main and additional modifications.

The preparation of the Forest Heath Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR) of Policy CS7 had now reached the end of the plan making process.  The Inspector’s Report had been received and, subject to incorporating the associated Main Modifications identified by the Inspector, they had concluded that the Local Plan was sound.

The following documents were also attached to this report:

·         Appendix A set out the Inspector’s Report which found the Local Plan sound and considered it an appropriate basis for the planning for the area of West Suffolk District Council, formally known as Forest Heath.  The main modifications were attached to the Inspector’s Report.

·         Appendix B set out the suggested additional modifications by Officers made to the SIR document to-date.

·         Appendix C set out the final version of the SIR of Core Policy Strategy CS7, which included all of the main modifications required by the Planning Inspector and the additional modifications suggested by Officers.

·         As a result of the modifications, the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (Appendix D) and the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (Appendix E) documents had also been updated.

This Local Plan Single Issue Review set out the overall housing requirement for the area (formally Forest Heath) which was 6,800 homes (340 dwellings per annum) and its broad distribution across the settlements.  The Inspector had dealt with concerns arising from the horseracing industry, noise and environmental constraints and had found the document sound and an appropriate basis for planning in the area formally known as Forest Heath.  The Inspector’s report was very supportive of the work the Council had done and praised the Authority, including on the extensive consultation that was carried out.  This was a huge achievement for the Council.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that adoption of this Local Plan, which would sit beside the former St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan, would provide certainty in respect of meeting the Council’s legal requirements and providing the community, developers and Members certainty of where development could take place.  This would help protect the whole of the district and minimise the risk of speculative development. In turn this would support the formulation of a new West Suffolk Local Plan, which was now in the early stages of development.

A detailed discussion was held and the following issues were raised:

(a)     That very few new homes were planned for Brandon over the next 12 years, which meant the town would see very little benefit from s106 monies during that period.  It was however, acknowledged that Brandon had its own challenges to overcome, principally due to the significant environmental constraints which presently prevented substantial housing growth in this location. Recognition and commitment was given to exploring the opportunities available to support Brandon.

(b)     The potential effects on the horseracing industry in Newmarket as a result of the adoption of the Forest Heath Local Plan, and how reassurances were sought for the new West Suffolk Council to work with and listen to the concerns of the industry as part of the process for developing the new West Suffolk Local Plan. In response, Councillor Griffiths stated that the concerns of the horseracing industry were understood and acknowledged its important contribution to the environment and local economy. West Suffolk Council would work with it and others to protect the industry whilst delivering homes for the community at a carefully considered rate of growth which was congruous to the size of the town.

(c)     Whether speculative development should necessarily be discouraged as planning applications were considered on their own merits and therefore, if a development was considered inappropriate in a specific location, it would be refused consent.  The majority of Members however, recognised that speculative development led to unplanned growth in potentially inappropriate locations. A Local Plan provided a framework to address housing need and infrastructure for provision in the right locations. Demonstration of a five-year land supply was also critical to satisfactorily defend planning appeals.

On the motion of Councillor Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Robin Millar it was put to the vote and with the vote being 43 for the motion, four against and three abstentions, it was

RESOLVED:

That:

(1)     the content of the Inspector’s report to the Single Issue Review of Core Strategy Policy CS7 containing Main Modifications (Appendix A to Report No: COU/WS/19/007), be noted;

(2)     the schedule of Additional Modifications (Appendix B to Report No: COU/WS/19/007) to the Single Issue Review of Core Strategy Policy CS7 to make minor updates and corrections, be noted;

(3)     the Single Issue Review (SIR) of Policy CS7 including both main and additional modifications (Appendix C to Report No: COU/WS/19/007), be adopted; and

(4)     the Service Manager (Strategic Planning) be authorised, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make minor typographical amendments or updates in preparing the final version of the Plan.