Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to consider recommendations to carry out a further public consultation focussed on changes to the proposed housing site allocations for Haslemere in the Pre-submission version of LPP2, before it submits the plan to the Secretary of State for its examination; and the Council submits to the examination other changes to the Pre-submission version of LPP2 that are not subject to public consultation following the submission of the plan to the Secretary of State.

Recommendation

2.1     That the Executive considers the comments and observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and makes the following recommendations to full Council:

1)    That Council agrees the changes to the Pre-submission version of LPP2, set out in the Addendum attached as Annexe 1 to this report concerning the proposed housing site allocations in Haslemere and that the Council undertakes a public consultation on the Addendum for a period of 6 weeks under Regulation 19 of the Local Planning Regulations.

2)    The Council agrees that the schedule of other minor changes to the pre-submission version of LPP2 that have not been the subject of public consultation, set out in Annexe 2 to this report, be submitted to the examination of LPP2.

3)    The Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to formally request that the Local Plan Examination Inspector recommends further main modifications to LPP2, if the Inspector considers that they are necessary to make the plan sound and/or legally compliant.

4)    The Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to make any other minor modifications to the Pre-Submission version of LPP2 with regard to factual updates and corrections before the Plan is submitted for its examination.

Councillor Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy, Services and Brightwells introduced the report which sought approval for a further focussed consultation on the housing site allocations in Haslemere, prior to submission to the Secretary of State.  He thanked the officers involved for their work in producing the documents before the Executive for consideration and advised that a special meeting of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee had taken place on 20^th September to consider the proposals.  There had been broad support for three of the four recommendations, which proposed minor amendments and delegations to officers for procedural matters.  The focus of the debate had been on the proposed changes to the pre-submission version of the Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) regarding the housing site allocations in Haslemere. 

Councillor MacLeod advised that a change had been proposed to the site allocations in Haslemere following the consultation, to replace the Redcourt site with a site at the Royal Junior School in Hindhead.  The Redcourt site was due to deliver 50 houses, whereas the Junior School site could deliver around 90 houses.  Although there had been no overall consensus, some members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had suggested including both sites, however the Executive were of the view that the Redcourt site should not be included as it had been refused by the Western Planning Committee on 20^th July.  An appeal against the decision would be considered by a planning inspector at an inquiry on 16^th December. 

Councillor Mulliner spoke on the item, highlighting the need to separate sites from the applications relating to them as they were often of varying quality.  He sought clarification from the Portfolio Holder on what would happen if more objections to the Royal School site were received than to the Redcourt site. He expressed concern that if the Redcourt site was allowed at appeal, that the other part of the site would be developed in addition to the Royal School site.

In response the Portfolio Holder advised that any site included in the LPP2 would need to be deliverable and the reason for choosing the site had not been because of the number of objections received.  The Head of Planning advised that planning permission for the Redcourt site had been refused on the grounds of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beaty and the Area of Great Landscape Value, which had brought the deliverability of the site into question.  If the Council agreed to go out to a further consultation, all comments received would be assessed and officers would bring a recommendation back to Members for consideration.

Councillor Hyman spoke on the item, seeking clarification on whether the delegated authority being recommended could be granted and whether the appropriate assessments had been carried out in respect of protected habitats and expressed concern that the approach was unlawful.

In response, the Leader advised that the Council’s Planning and Legal officers had confirmed that if a proposed plan was considered likely to have a significant effect on a protected habitats site then an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site, in view of the site’s conservation objectives, must be undertaken. An appropriate assessment of the draft LPP2 hadbeen carried out. This should be read in conjunction with the appropriate assessment of LPP1, which was found sound by the Local Plan inspector.

With regard to the effectiveness of SANGs, the Council had received external legal advice from Counsel in which he confirmed its approach was lawful. Counsel confirmed that the provision of SANG had become an orthodox response to forms of development which would otherwise cause an adverse effect on a protected site.

It was ultimately the examiner’s responsibility to review the draft plan, including the appropriate assessment, and conclude whether it met the criteria for soundness. Alternatively, the examiner could recommend modifications be made in order to make the plan sound and therefore capable of adoption. However, Council officers were satisfied that the appropriate assessment was lawful and were confident that it will be accepted by the examiner.

In response to Councillor Hyman, Councillor MacLeod confirmed that the proposed delegated authority was procedural, to deal with any minor modifications, or on advice from the Local Plan examiner.

Councillor Clark asked whether Local Plan Policy DM18 would weaken the protection of the Farnham/Aldershot strategic gap; and whether policy DM18 would undermine any policies in the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan.  In response, Councillor MacLeod advised that the new LPP2 policy defined the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap, strategically important land that separated the two towns, in a more focussed way. Policy DM18 was intended to ensure there was specific control to prevent Farnham and Aldershot becoming joined. It did not weaken controls on development elsewhere in the area.

The policy which DM18 replaced did not add a layer of control over and above the normal countryside policies, which applied to areas even outside the Strategic Gap. In that respect, DM18 would strengthen controls within the Strategic Gap.  In addition, there would still be the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan Policy FNP11, which sought to prevent coalescence of settlements around Farnham, including the area around Badshot Lea and Weybourne.  The Neighbourhood Plan included Policy FNP11, which dealt more widely with the coalescence of settlements around Farnham, whereas LPP2 Policy DM18, when adopted, would deal specifically with the strategic gap separating Farnham from Aldershot.

In essence, the two policies were complementary. In the text accompanying Policy FNP11, the Neighbourhood Plan acknowledges that the emerging LPP2 defines the gap between Farnham and Aldershot as a Strategic Gap.

Councillor Dickson spoke on the item, referring to the consultation responses received on the alignment of LPP2 and the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, and seeking clarification on the difference between the strategic gap in the LPP2 and the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan and expressing concern that developers would pick up on those differences.  The Leader advised that the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan policies were there to prevent the coalescence of the parts of Farnham where there was a gap.  The LPP2 did not refer to those parts as they had already been covered in the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, and LPP2 addressed the wider strategic gap between the whole borough and Aldershot, and complemented rather than contradicted the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan.  The answers to both the questions on the strategic gap would be published.  The Head of Planning confirmed that the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan had full weight in planning terms. 

Councillor MacLeod acknowledged the concerns around protecting the area in Badshot Lea and it was felt that the proposed LPP2 would not reduce that protection.  LPP1 had committed to a more focussed strategic gap and LPP2 needed to be consistent with LPP1.  The Leader emphasised that many of the issues arose from Government planning policy and the Council had to ensure that its policies were compliant with Government policy.

Councillor Hyman raised a point of order that his previous points had not been addressed.  The Leader advised Councillor Hyman that he had already responded to his points and therefore he would proceed to the next speaker.

Councillor Townsend welcomed the report and the recommendations, addressing the objections raised and comments made at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and proposed a change to the wording of paragraph 41.1 of Annexe 3 as follows:

“There was a general level of support for Policy DM33 for the safeguarding of the Downs Link as a sustainable movement corridor.  One respondent suggested that a future light railway connection between Dunsfold Park and Guildford Railway Station should be constructed alongside the former railway line, whilst retaining the existing pathway.”  

The amendment was duly seconded by Councillor MacLeod and agreed by the Executive.

The Leader concluded by thanking the officers involved in bringing LPP2 to the Executive, which reflected residents views and proposed moving one site in Witley and replacing one site in Haslemere to a more appropriate site which had both the support of residents and the town council and it was  

RESOLVED

That the Executive notes the comments and observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and makes the following recommendations to full Council:

1) That Council agrees the changes to the Pre-submission version of LPP2, set out in the Addendum attached as Annexe 1 to this report concerning the proposed housing site allocations in Haslemere and that the Council undertakes a public consultation on the Addendum for a period of 6 weeks under Regulation 19 of the Local Planning Regulations.

2) The Council agrees that the schedule of other minor changes to the presubmission version of LPP2 that have not been the subject of public consultation, set out in Annexe 2 to this report, be submitted to the examination of LPP2.

3) The Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to formally request that the Local Plan Examination Inspector recommends further main modifications to LPP2, if the Inspector considers that they are necessary to make the plan sound and/or legally compliant.

4) The Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to make any other minor modifications to the Pre-Submission version of LPP2 with regard to factual updates and corrections before the Plan is submitted for its examination.

Reason: To enable the Executive to consider the comments of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee and make recommendations to the subsequent meeting of the Council on the recommendation to modify and consult on the main modifications to the pre-submission version of LPP2 before the Council formally submits it to the Secretary of State for examination.