Agenda item - Recommendations of the Local Plan Working Group: 15 February 2016

Report No: CAB/FH/16/011

· Responses to Consultation and Engagement on the Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR), Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) and Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)

· Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR) Preferred Option – (Regulation 18) Consultation Document

Portfolio Holder: James Waters

Chairman of the Local Plan Working Group: Rona Burt

Lead Officer: Marie Smith

RESOLVED:

That:-

1. Responses to consultation and engagement on the Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR), Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) and Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (Report No LOP/FH/16/004)

The responses, comments and actions as set out in Working Papers 1, 2 and 3 of Report No LOP/FH/16/004 be endorsed.

2. Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR) Preferred Option – (Regulation 18) Consultation Document (Report No LOP/FH/16/005)

(a) The Core Strategy Single Issue Review (CS SIR) Preferred Option document (as set out in Working Paper 1 to Report No LOP/FH/16/005) and accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)/Sustainability Appraisal (SA), together with supporting documents, be approved for consultation, subject to the following amendments:

(i) Additional text being included to provide further clarity and context for Newmarket in relation to Option 1 (the Council’s preferred option) and Option 2 (the Council’s non-preferred option).

(ii) In relation to page 16 of the consultation document – Distribution Option 1 – the word ‘enabling’ be replaced with the word ‘and’ - therefore being amended to read:

‘Distribution Option 1: Higher growth at Mildenhall and Red Lodge and Primary Villages, and lower growth at Newmarket’.

(iii) Further clarity be provided to the use/context of the phrase ‘Preferred Option’, in that it was a technical planning term used under ‘Regulation 18’ of the statutory development plan process.

(b) The Head of Planning and Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, be authorised to make any minor typographical, factual, spelling and grammatical changes to the document, provided that it does not materially affect the substance or meaning.

(Report No CAB/FH/16/011)

Councillor Rona Burt, Chairman of the Local Plan Working Group, presented this report which set out the recommendations of the Working Group, emanating from its meeting on 15 February 2016.

On 15 February 2016, the Working Group considered the following substantive items of business:

(1) Responses to consultation and engagement on the Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR), Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) and Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (Report No LOP/FH/16/004)

This report set out the representations, responses, comments and actions which had been made on the Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR) , the Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP) documents and the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), following the public consultation which had been held between August and October 2015.

The Working Group had considered these responses, comments and actions as set out in Working Papers 1, 2 and 3 of Report No LOP/FH/16/004 and had recommended that these be endorsed.

(2) Core Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR) Preferred Option – (Regulation 18) Consultation Document (Report No LOP/FH/16/005)

Working Paper 1 to Report No LOP/FH/16/005 was the third ‘Issues and Options’ (Regulation 18) Core Strategy SIR consultation document. This document considered one option for the overall level of housing to be provided in the District from 2011 to 2031 and two reasonable options (one of which was the Council’s preferred option) for its distribution between towns and villages.

The purpose of the consultation document was to stimulate further debate on housing quantum and the most appropriate way to distribute the housing need throughout the District. The document asked questions from both the public and statutory stakeholders.

The Council was still evidence gathering at this stage and was not making a final decision on the distribution of housing, but was giving an indication of its preferred strategy.

The Local Plan Working Group had recommended that the documents be approved for consultation, subject to additional text being included to provide further clarity and context for Newmarket, in relation to Option 1 (the Council’s preferred option) and Option 2 (the Council’s non-preferred option).

During the Cabinet discussions, Councillor Robin Millar referred to page 16 of the consultation document where the table on that page set out the distribution of the housing numbers across the District, entitled ‘Distribution Option 1: Higher growth at Mildenhall and Red Lodge and Primary Villages, enabling lower growth at Newmarket’. Councillor Millar considered that further clarity was needed to avoid any misinterpretation of the Council’s position and that this was not a statement of the Council’s political position, but was a statement of fact. Councillor Millar, therefore, proposed that this wording be amended and that the word ‘enabling’ be replaced with the word ‘and’. Therefore reading:

‘Distribution Option 1: Higher growth at Mildenhall and Red Lodge and Primary Villages, and lower growth at Newmarket.’

Councillor Millar also referred to the range of options which had been considered in relation to the site of Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket, including those which had been tested and rejected on the grounds of prematurity. Therefore, deliverability on this site was a key consideration in what the Council was allowed to put forward for consultation. The Principal Planner also explained that the land owner had publicly stated that a submission of 400 homes (plus 100 homes specifically for the horseracing industry) would only be made within this Plan period.

Councillor Millar explained that in relation to the full range of options, zero growth on this site had also been discussed, but had not been included as an option, as the hierarchy of the settlements required major growth in the larger settlements (ie Newmarket). Equally, the Council’s housing targets would be unattainable if some growth was not allocated in Newmarket, as this would then have to be allocated in other smaller settlements.

The Principal Planner confirmed that Newmarket was the largest and most sustainable settlement within the District, with the most services and facilities. Therefore, it had always been both the Member and Officer stance that there should be a higher proportion/commensurate level of growth, being its status as one of the three main towns within the District.

Councillor Millar then stated that in relation to the housing options for Hatchfield Farm, the word ‘preferred’ had been used. Again, he concluded that the phrase ‘preferred option’ needed to be further clarified, as this was not a statement of the Council’s political position, but that it was a technical planning phrase.

The Principal Planner explained that the term ‘preferred option’ was part of the statutory Development Plan process. In October 2015, the ‘Issues and Options’ consultation had set out a number of different options for housing. Following that consultation, the options had been refined and a ‘preferred option’ developed, which would now be consulted on under Regulation 18 of the statutory process.

Therefore, Councillor Millar proposed that to avoid misinterpretation of the Council’s position, the use of the phrase ‘preferred option’, be further clarified as to its use/context, in that it was a technical planning term used under ‘Regulation 18’ of the statutory Development Plan process.

With the vote being unanimous, it was